Miranda Rights & the US Terrorism Policy - Case Study Example

Miranda Rights & the U.S. Terrorism Policy Issue statement Miranda rights are warnings that police or other law enforcers in the United States use on suspects and criminals in police custody in order to increase and preserve the admissibility of statements they make later in a criminal proceeding in a court of law. The rights just as any other are fundamental since they seek to improve the quality and fairness in a court of law, “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense”1. While the above statements are primarily read out to American criminal suspects before their arrest in order to preserve the quality of their statements, the government has radicalized the use of the statement in order to expedite terrorist investigations and trials of both American and non-American suspects. After the events of September 11th 2001, the American government heightened its security and investigative tactics with the CIA and FBI enjoying more powers in tracking and apprehending suspects. Among the successful terrorist cases against American property, include the Benghazi attack of the US embassy. Additionally, the law enforcers have successfully intercepted a number of planed attacks owing to the increased powers and equipment such law enforcers as the FBI and the CIA enjoy2. The creation of new legislations including the USA PATRIOT Act resulted in the development of effective and efficient tools that would unite and strength America by giving the law enforcers more authority over terrorists3. Coupled with the creation of the department of Homeland security, a unit dedicated to the surveillance and interception of suspected terrorists, the government has successfully improved the security of the country ensuring that every American is currently safer they than they were before the 9/11. However, the increased power the law enforcers enjoy in the line of their duty of monitoring and interjecting possible threats have resulted in possible abuse of human rights. The fact that the law enforcers can follow an individual and carry out investigation without alerting them results in suspects incriminating themselves, a primary abuse of legal rights a feature that requires the review of the use of the Miranda laws on the fight against terrorism. Current policy When the law enforcers arrested the Boston marathon bomber, the government issued a notice informing the public that the law enforcement agents would investigate the suspects for a period without reading to him his Miranda rights. This implied that the government sought to violate the rights of the suspects in order to gain more information they would later incriminate the suspect owing to the gravity of his crime. The government categorizes terrorism as a capital offense. Terrorism is worse than any other offense in the United States and the government strives to gain as much information as possible about terrorists and viable threats a feature that validates the interrogation of such criminals without reading out their Miranda rights. The Boston incident however portrayed to the public that despite the widespread public ignorance, the law enforcers had previously read out the Miranda rights to suspects of terrorism in the United States. The 9/11 terrorist attack on the United States of America revolutionized the country’s view on international threat and terrorism. In order to mitigate such occurrences, the government formulated and implemented several policies that coincidentally the public complied with thus portraying a massive tradeoff of civil liberties once enjoyed by the population4. However, with time the population becomes aware of the negative effects of the trade thus shift their public opinion on their security and the essence of some of the civil liberties. While the public continues to cry foul on the use of some of the new counter terrorist policies, the government maintains that such policies are not merely to curtail civil liberties but seek to safeguard the safety of the populace by expediting the investigations of possible threats. The public maintains the view that the government uses of intense force in interrogations, has dedicated public surveillance and does not read the Miranda rights to criminals, which are all examples of violations of human rights in the process of keeping the country safe. The government on the other hand maintains that such ideas are results of lack of information and ignorance of the public on the operations of such high profile security agents as the homeland security, the FBI and the CIA among many others5. Policy option 1 While Miranda rights are constitutional rights for all American suspects, the applications of such laws on suspects of terrorists slow down the pace of investigations owing to the gravity of their crimes. Terrorism is a severe offense and the population requires instant justice in such instances owing to the massive loss of lives and public trust on the government institutions resulting from acts of terror. By scrapping the Miranda rights for both American and non-American terrorists, the law enforcers would obtain evidence more easily thereby expediting the pace of investigating such crimes6. Policy option 2 The interrogation of on-American terrorists who plot and carry out attacks in America is yet another contentious issue that the government should look into and develop appropriate policies to ensure that even non Americans get justice for the crimes they commit in the united states. A new policy should provide the law enforcers with more powers to hold and interrogate such suspects at length without providing them with Miranda rights. The same should apply to naturalize Americans. By holding such criminals at length without applying the Miranda rights, will consequently expedite the pace of investigations thereby providing justice to Americans. Policy option 3 The final policy option is on the judicial process, the judiciary must collaborate with the law enforcement agencies in order to expedite the process of obtaining justice. Speedy, efficient and equally stringent judicial proceedings will not only provide the victims of terrorisms with justice for their losses but will also serve as warnings to other potential terrorists thinking of targeting the country. The legislature on the other hand should provide the law enforcers with more power especially when investigating external threats while formulating effective laws for the judiciary to facilitate the effective trial of every terrorists including non-Americans7. Recommended policy option I recommend policy option number two that provides for effective interrogations of suspects. The policy provides law enforcers with adequate power to investigate terrorist threats and interrogate both Americans and non-Americans effectively. The laws should be stringent on terrorists in order to serve as a lesson to those plotting similar crimes against the country. However, the policies should maintain a level of integrity in order to prevent any abuse of rights on innocent Americans. Being a terrorist suspect does not mean that one qualifies as one, the legislations and the law enforcers must maintain a level of integrity and respect the freedoms and rights of the population. Dedicated surveillance on the population is a violation of the fundamental human rights. Coupled with claims of torture of suspects is likely to make more innocent Americans suffer in the hands of the law enforcers regardless of their innocence. Such changes and the increased zeal with which the government investigates claims linked to terrorism has exposed the citizens to several maltreatments and unnecessary attention. However, the American public supports the security changes and therefore willing to trade off some of their liberties for a secure and stable nation. Theses developments and change in public opinion reveal several factors about ethics in government. Among such is the fact that the government considers any act likely to improve the security of the public ethical. The government can therefore carry out extensive operations in specific neighborhoods and ransom the citizens in such public places as the bus and train stations but since the actions promise a more secure society they become ethical. Additionally, the government considers the demands and concerns of the people; the American government carries out extensive investigations with the view of identifying and even influencing public opinion thus carrying out operations that promise public opinion. Ethically, such actions reconcile with the demands of the majority thus qualifying as moral. An action becomes ethical only if it minimizes harm, the citizen express their concerns to the government through various channels key among which include public opinion. By seeking the approval of the public by acting in accordance to their demands, the government’s action thus, qualify as ethical. The government is powerful and has adequate resources to sway public opinion. The government has often used propaganda to manipulate public opinion thus carry implement policies that safeguard the interests of a minority powerful individuals. However, after the events of 9/11, which resulted in the death of hundreds of innocent Americans the population cares about their security and the security of the nation thus willing to bear any policy that promises a safe and more secure United States of America. By trading off their civil liberties for secure societies, the American society permits the government to implement stringent antiterrorism policies that seek to revamp the security of the society. The public neither questions nor opposes any new antiterrorism policy a trend that portrays the public’s concern with terrorism. After the terrorist attack, both the citizens and the government notice the vulnerability of the American society to its various enemies. In the despair, the public willingly traded off their civil liberties, which protected some of the most important attributes of humanity for a possible more secure and safer country. The willingness to trade off such privileges affects the productivity and development of the population in several ways. Firstly, the willingness of the population to trade off some of their rights to the government implies that they are equally willing to contribute to the development of the secure society8. The public’s willingness and participation is fundamental in improving the security of the nation. Terrorists just as any other human interact with the citizens, the corporation between the government and the public is therefore capable of motivating the public to share information with the government thus facilitating investigations into any possible terror attacks. Additionally, the public becomes willing to comply with some of the government’s demands such as impromptu body searches without any prior notices even in public places. Such willingness to corporate with the government portrays the public’s willingness to help the government improve the security of their nation (Carol, 2005). In a show of patriotism, the public share the opinion that the government should revamp the security of the country. The terrorist attacks of September 11 enlightened the public of their insecurity and vulnerability on the face of international threat. The public thus sought to permit the government carry out its mandate of investigating and detonating any terror threat in the country a grueling task that would require the participation and corporation of the entire public9. By trading off their civil liberties, the public promise to comply with government policies and regulations such travel advisories to help protect America. Such shows of unity promise to unite the country further thus consolidating the public support for the leadership at any time. Policy recommendations Increasing the budget of some of the law enforcement agencies including the department of homeland security and the FBI are imperative in order to provide the government agencies with increased power and mobilization. Increasing the budget of the agencies will increase their ability thereby making it easier to carry out investigations, to hire and train professionalism, and to purchase some of the equipment they use. Some of the prime terrorists’ targets outside the United States are the US embassies and the personnel working in such areas. The government should therefore improve the security of its employees and the security of its embassies. The trials of terrorist suspects is an equally important recommendation, suspects of terrorism have the right to a fair trial. The judiciary must therefore provide a definitive time for the trials and make public most of similar proceedings The final recommendation is on the implementation of some of the policies that seek to protect the country from terrorism. The value of the life of the ordinary innocent American is paramount. The law enforcement agencies must operate cautiously in order to curb any incident of abuse of the fundamental human rights. Selecting a potential suspect from a bus station is a difficult process; the law enforcers easily violate fundamental human rights as they maintain dedicated surveillance of people they believe are potential terrorist suspects. Conclusion Concisely, the government must develop effective and efficient agencies to protect the country from terrorist attacks. The process is precarious owing to the conflicts of interests that are likely to arise in such circumstances. Terrorism is a capital offense and suspects of such a crime require instant and equally effective justice dispensation. Such requirements validate the claims of denying some of the suspects such rights as the Miranda warning thereby permitting the law enforcers to carry out detailed interrogations of such suspects in order to obtain information10. However, the same law enforcers must not violate of some of the suspects that may end up being innocent Americans found at the wrong places at wrong times. Law enforcers must therefore operate cautiously and handle suspects based on the amount of evidence they have against them in order to prevent the violation of the rights of innocent Americans. Works cited Barkawi, Tarak, and Keith Stanski. Orientalism and War. New York: Columbia University Press, 2012. Print. Benedek, Wolfgang. Anti-terrorist Measures and Human Rights: [colloqium Organized in Vienna on 30-31 October 2002]. Leiden [u.a.: Nijhoff, 2004. Print. Burgan, Michael. Miranda V. Arizona: The Rights of the Accused. Minneapolis, Minn: Compass Point Books, 2007. Print. Carol, W. Lewis. (2005). The clash between security and liberty in the U. S. response to terror. Public administration review. Vol 65 No 1. Charlie Savage, Delayed Miranda Warning Ordered For Terror Suspect, New York Times, (March 24, 2011), http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/us/25miranda.html Claude, Richard P, and Burns H. Weston. Human Rights in the World Community: Issues and Action. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006. Print. Goldstein, Alan M, and Naomi E. S. Goldstein. Evaluating Capacity to Waive Miranda Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Print. Prentzas, G S. Miranda Rights: Protecting the Rights of the Accused. New York, NY: Rosen Pub. Group, 2006. Print. Salter, Howard L. Defending Liars: In Defense of President Bush and the War on Terror in Iraq. Denver, Colo: Outskirts Press, 2006. Print. The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty, http://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/highlights.html Read More