Any opinions on this? -
You Have the Right to Remain Silent…
McCain, Miranda, and Common Article 3.
By Andrew C. McCarthy
article.nationalreview.com
Message 22844844
I personally think its unlikely that the court would actually require miranda warnings for captured enemy combatants. Yes the court is not always adverse to judicial activism, but this would be a leap way out in to left field.
As for other points in the article
"This Supreme Court has already gone out of its way to find that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which literally relates only to civil wars, somehow governs our patently international conflict with al Qaeda. To come to this conclusion, it had to ignore clear provisions that say Geneva rights, including Common Article 3, are supposed to be enforced diplomatically"
I agree with the article, and so disagree with the supreme court on this one.
"In its 2000 Dickerson case, the Court held that its 1966 Miranda decision had so evolved that it was now part-and-parcel of the Fifth Amendment privilege. For 30-plus years before then, the Court had said that its judge-made Miranda rules were merely “prophylactic” — a protection around the Fifth Amendment guarantee against compulsory self-incrimination, but not really part of the Fifth Amendment.
Dickerson changed all that. With Dickerson, the Miranda warnings became part of the core Fifth Amendment guarantee. After Dickerson, the failure to give Miranda warnings is not just a “Miranda violation”; it is a violation of the Fifth Amendment right not to be subjected to coercive interrogation."
I think I also disagree with the Dickerson case, but I haven't actually read it. The Fifth amendment does not in any way directly require such warnings. I could see them as a possible protection of the actual fifth amendment rights but I can't see how they could possibly be directly constitutionally required. |
