Today on CNN Newsroom

The latest news and information from around the world. Also connect with CNN through social media. We want to hear from you.
May 10th, 2010
07:51 AM ET

Miranda Rights

Should terror suspects be given miranda rights?

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have a right to an attorney. If you can't afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you."

Post your comments here and Kyra Phillips will read them on the air during the 10am ET hour of CNN Newsroom.

Filed under: Anchors • CNN Newsroom • Kyra Phillips • What the...?
soundoff (242 Responses)
  1. Joe

    Only if they are US Citizens !

    May 10, 2010 at 7:56 am |
  2. Michael Armstrong Sr.

    This law was made as an escape goat for criminals .

    May 10, 2010 at 8:06 am |
  3. cyril ayanbadejo

    Anyone that has the intention of mass murder don't deserve any miranda rights....US citizen or not!!!!!

    May 10, 2010 at 8:17 am |
  4. Daniel

    Is the supreme court ever gonna step in and say "terrorism is an act of WAR."? Because that's what its gonna take. Where are you Mr. President? Where are you Congress? It seems politicians had rather just dance around the subject of terrorists and our "judicial system" . These terrorists have made an act of war against us. Act accordingly, you bunch of gutless politicians, put them to death.

    May 10, 2010 at 8:30 am |
  5. Michael Armstrong Sr.

    How many criminals have bean set free because of this bill .

    May 10, 2010 at 8:39 am |
  6. Ron O.

    It really doesn't matter if we have the right perspective about crime VS terrorist activities. If and individual seeks to kill as many American citizens as he or she can with one simple act, then it should be considered an act of terror which means an attack against the American people as a whole which should be considered an act of war. In this case, that individual should be handled by the military, not by civilian law and civilian courts. The military courst should deal with this and the ultimate penalty should be sought outside of the public's view and scrutiny. We have too much news interfering with truth and justice which they don't seem to be able to report in the first place.

    May 10, 2010 at 8:40 am |
  7. Michael Armstrong Sr.

    This law should be abolished or updated to serve the people and not the criminals .

    May 10, 2010 at 8:47 am |
  8. dave

    " ...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." -Fifth Amendment. Are we giving up being American?
    "Confessions" seem to come back as pressured or engineered. All for stopping terrorists in their tracks, but how do we know their terrorists until convicted in a court of law?

    May 10, 2010 at 8:54 am |
  9. Jeff

    U.S. citizen ONLY.....and when they are convicted of the crime, they lose all rights other than basic, human rights for survival. Bread and water works well...

    Kyra is hot!

    May 10, 2010 at 9:34 am |
  10. St.Jones

    Because of the threat of abuse, Miranda rights should be unversal for ALL. Imagine an officer making an arrest, not ready the rights and later saying he thought this was a terror suspect. Treating all under the same law is what makes America great.

    May 10, 2010 at 9:51 am |
  11. KatS

    Everyday I lose a bit of faith in my country. But, I have to say all other stories of the past few years pale in comparison to this. All through the last administration our rights were chipped away in the name of national security, but this discussion of whether Miranda should be applied in the case of suspected terrorism is the most shameful to date. I am very afraid that once we have stepped onto this path there will be no going back.

    May 10, 2010 at 9:53 am |
  12. Howard

    Only if you're a citizen. "Illegal" persons should not be afforded ANY rights under our Constitution. You broke the law and now you want? If your intent is to destroy property or injure any one, why should taxpayers foot the bill for an attorney?

    May 10, 2010 at 9:54 am |
  13. Jim

    Trying to do an 'end around' Miranda rights gives validation to the Tea Party. Americans are having their liberty stripped from them just by putting the phrase ' fight terrorism..." in front of any legislation designed to take away rights guaranteed by the constitution..

    May 10, 2010 at 10:04 am |
  14. Cyndie King

    Hmmmm. That's a question. My opinion is this: if the terror suspect is an American citizen then that suspect has all the rights of an American including Miranda warnings. If that suspect is NOT an American citizen then they have no rights that are guaranteed an American citizen. Nowhere in the American Constitution does it say that these rights are guaranteed if one is being tried in an American court regardless of the suspect's citizenship status. As far as the guarantee of rights goes, the assumption of innocence until proven guilty would also apply as a right to American citizens. The American constitution is not a guarantee of protection under the law for all those standing on American soil when they comit their crimes, it is a guarantee of American protections for American citizens and ONLY American citizens. Somehow, somewhere this distinction has gotten lost.

    May 10, 2010 at 11:11 am |
  15. Mr. Eister

    Daniel May 10th, 2010 8:30 am ET SAID IT PROPERLY AND PERFECTLY...

    Is the supreme court ever gonna step in and say "terrorism is an act of WAR."? Because that's what its gonna take. Where are you Mr. President? Where are you Congress? It seems politicians had rather just dance around the subject of terrorists and our "judicial system" . These terrorists have made an act of war against us. Act accordingly, you bunch of gutless politicians, put them to death.

    May 10, 2010 at 11:39 am |
  16. maze1gerald

    I say no, for anyone to commit a terrorist act,that tells me that they are waiving their rights.

    May 10, 2010 at 12:00 pm |
  17. Andrew Rondomanski

    Aren't the Miranda Rights in place to protect and aide in the prosecution and not the suspect. If questioned about a crime I'd prefer not to have my Miranda Rights read to me. It be great for a defense attorney. Nothing I said could be used against me. So if more information can be gathered by not receiving his Miranda Rights, I say great, just remember the information he provides cannot be used against him in a court of law.

    May 10, 2010 at 12:06 pm |
  18. James

    Why do the rights of a suspect take priority over the people they are trying to harm?

    My right to walk safely in the streets of my country are more importantant than a suspect who may intend to do harm me, my family or you.

    Let's be honest the suspect understands Miranda rights.

    We have all heard them. How long do they last? Do we have to read them to a suspect everyday or after every three questions asked? Where has comon sense gone?

    So we agree the suspect understood that he should leave the country before he was caught but did not understand if he made a statement it would be used against him?

    May 10, 2010 at 12:13 pm |
  19. Donna Collins

    I'm thinking that a change in the rules might lead to the average law breaker being labeled as a terrorist by enthusiastic officers.

    May 10, 2010 at 12:27 pm |
  20. Carl

    Miranda rights should apply to American Citizens only as prescribed by law. Miranda Rights do not apply to non citizens, terrorists or illegal aliens.

    May 10, 2010 at 12:30 pm |
  21. Phillip

    Americans are already losing their freedom and rights, as an above the knee amputee Veteran disabled, fell down leaving a bar, and got a public intoxication ( in some states this is not a crime), yet in alabama got my life for a minimum of a year and lots of $$$$. Miranda rights were never read, no alcohol test performed, tossed in jail and not even a phone call allowed for over 10 hours. So do even Americans have any rights in this country anymore.

    May 10, 2010 at 12:46 pm |
  22. cathy

    I think circumventing the Miranda rule will set a very dangerous precedent for our country. Today we allow people SUSPECTED of being a terrorist to be interrogated without being read their rights. What kind of "suspected" perpetrator will it be next and who gets to make that decision? The people who are making this proposal are playing on our fears of another 9/11. Please, let's not forget the very freedoms we are fighting to protect!

    May 10, 2010 at 12:50 pm |
  23. Judy

    affect our miranda rights? well, every right of ours is being tested, stretched, and re-written to fit in with being politically correct in everything...prisoners have rights, terrorists have rights, child molesters have rights......Know what? Personally, I like to use common sense and fairness in my world. Works very well.

    May 10, 2010 at 12:55 pm |
  24. Muin

    The fight of Miranda rights is more about legal philosophical difference between two parties than public opinion. In Texas for example, republicans were able to unseat many democrats because of their close ties to legal industry. So, public could do little with their inputs. Civil justice system is better structured to determine someone's innocence regardless of crime. Miranda right has its merit because the law is there to protect the most vulnerable.

    May 10, 2010 at 12:56 pm |
  25. Notrevealed

    Terrorists have no rights, and should not be offered Miranda help regarless of the citizenship. The Yemeni situation, and the Time Square event could have killed a lot of valuable and productive people. These two guys under consideration, now, should be incovenienced in as many ways as possible. If these guys would have succeeded, it means these guys have won over an unwinnable and mighty army, and the gret people of the USA. Indirectly Al Quaeda, and Taliban would have had an upper hand. Please don't offer the benefit of MIranda's case to these guys.

    May 10, 2010 at 1:06 pm |
  26. myles fullom

    My thought of newyork bomber is.Ifthis man had A conection with the telaban I and this is my thouth that I would without a second thought should put real pressure on the president of that country to clamp down on . it seams like if you give them A inch you know they will take that exter mile .lets hope things like this dosnot happen again .and as faf as there citenship they should never be aloud in the us ore any other country.

    May 10, 2010 at 1:07 pm |
  27. Steven

    All these people who are whining and complaining and are against the 5th amendment and the Miranda rights that are a part of our justice system are hypocrites !! They would be the first ones to scream at the top of their lungs demanding these rights if they ever , God forbid , were arrested , especially if they were arrested for a crime they didn't commit . Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Bill of Rights applies only to American citizens , it say " person , or persons ! ". The only people who live in the U.S. the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to are those serving in the military and their rights are covered by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If people who are foreign born and become "naturalized" citizens can now have all their rights revoked at the whim of an agency and not a court , really , how long do you think it will take before that applies to natural born citizens ????? Only as long at it takes for one or the other of the 2 wing nut factions of the current political parties to consolidate and take power in this country . Democracy is in very , very deep trouble in this nation !!!

    May 10, 2010 at 1:30 pm |
  28. dave

    Reading the Constitution the only right specific to a citizen is the right to vote. In no other place is the word citizen found. Touch our soil, you have all these rights. That leaves us with "act of war" and the question of how you know somebody is a terrorist until they are convicted. I think act of war is the way to go. Then you have a jurisdictional battle since the US has never fought a war on their own soil.

    May 10, 2010 at 1:33 pm |
  29. Dan Lee

    Some people in this debate are forgetting that Janet Napolitano put out a report 1 year ago to police saying that Returning Veterans, People who don't believe in Abortion, Gun Owners, People who don't like the Federal Government, are all basically "Right Wing Extremists" who may be terrorists..

    Other administrations have called environmentalists potential terrorists..

    Now are we going to give them the Power to put Americans in jail without a lawyer or due process, just based on accusations? How will they MAKE them talk? And what if there's not REALLY anything for them to talk about? What if the accusations are just WRONG? Will they be tortured? Thrown in a dark hole for days? Weeks?

    May 10, 2010 at 1:39 pm |
  30. Scott Stodden

    No I don't think if you commit an act of terroism that you should have the right to remain silent, if anything we should have the right to interrogate them until they talk, any means neccessarry!

    Scott Stodden (Freeport,Illinois)

    May 10, 2010 at 2:37 pm |
  31. Smith in Oregon

    Saudi Arabia provides these Islamic warriors with the best attorneys our Oil dollars can provide them. It seems prudent that existing US laws be conformed with or risk the entire loss of prosecution.

    May 10, 2010 at 2:57 pm |
  32. Freda Bazemore

    No, terrorists should not have miranda rights. If they performed an act of terror against their own country they should immediately lose their citizenship and all rights that go along with that.

    Freda Bazemore
    Savannah, GA.

    May 10, 2010 at 3:24 pm |
  33. Chad

    Terrorists should not have any rights miranda or any rights whatsoever. Anyone that terrorist the United States a citizen or not should not be trialed in a court of law the federal government should handle it and not in a court of law. Also if the terrorist is a U.S citizen their right should be taken away right away.

    May 10, 2010 at 3:30 pm |
  34. Michael in Phoenix

    If they are citizens. Otherwise they should be treated as a combatant. Would you read Miranda rights to a enemy solder on the battle field.

    When is it going to be understood we are at war. They have said Jihad, or holy war. It is time to act like it.

    May 10, 2010 at 3:45 pm |
  35. Jason

    According to Amendment 14 of the U.S. Constitution:
    "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    May 10, 2010 at 4:02 pm |
  36. Raymond W. Seward

    Terrorist, foreign of domestic should have No Rights!!!!!!

    May 10, 2010 at 9:45 pm |
  37. chris

    Miranda Rights? This is more than just an issue about our 5th and 6th ammendments. If terror suspects are allowed to have these rights, what about our 4th ammendment rights? Was there a warrant obtained before searching the suspects vehichle? I highly doubt it! At the present moment, these crimes are beyond the scope of our criminal courts! Therefore, we must show haste! We must do one of two things: 1.) Re-vamp our judicial system so that we may be capable of handling criminals such as these, or 2.) Propose amendments that consider "special" treatment for terror suspects.

    May 11, 2010 at 5:53 am |
  38. snowflakebaby

    No rights. period. seems that one is waiving their rights when they commit such a crime....

    May 11, 2010 at 7:43 am |
  39. John Tyler Erie, Pa

    Terrorist don't deserve Miranda Rights protection whether they are citizens of this country or not. Terrorists and spies should not be allowed plea deals either. I don't believe in torture but again they don't deserve any rights under the US Constitution.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:05 am |
  40. Young77

    On the surface, I totally agree, but in the back of mind, there's that needling do you kill the beast without becoming the beast?

    May 11, 2010 at 8:48 am |
  41. Dave

    Kyra, you are right on the money. This country has become too "PC". As an American citizen you have certain rights, but you give up those rights if your sole mission is to kill as many Americans as you can.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:49 am |
  42. Brandon

    If we decide that our laws apply only to some people and not to others then the laws lose meaning. 9/11 was a horrible event in our history however, we cannot and must not allow those people to turn us into a country that no longer believes in the laws that it has created.

    It is true that they don't play by the rules, but that is exactly what makes them who they are. Should we become them in order to fight them? I truly hope that the answer is no. Responding to them out of fear is exactly how people like this win in the end.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:49 am |
  43. Bill

    Miranda Rights for terrorists?? NO WAY!! They shoudnt even have a trial. If their caught in the act, shoot em!! After all, this is war..isnt it??

    May 11, 2010 at 8:50 am |
  44. ardita

    You hit this one right on, Kyra. Terroroists come to kill us and to take away the rights we hold sacred under our Constitution. They do not abide by our rules so do not deserve the rights.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:50 am |
  45. Carmine

    The Constitution of the United States protects everybody in this country–not just citizens. People aren't guilty until they are proven guilty in a trial–before that they are suspected of being guilty. Who are you to decide that a person is guilty and so not deserving the protections of the US Constitution BEFORE that person is even tried in a court of law?

    This is a MUCH MORE complex issue than you seem to believe and one that requires a much more measured response than you gave it.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:50 am |
  46. Jim C - Kansas City

    We are expected to know the other million or so laws on the books. We should also be expected to know our Miranda Rights. I think it's ridiculous that criminals get off just because they weren't read their "rights".

    May 11, 2010 at 8:50 am |
  47. Lyn Lindstrom

    Oh Kyra, say it like it is, I just heard your comment on the show and you are so right on!

    May 11, 2010 at 8:50 am |
  48. Jay Nash

    Everyone accused of committing a crime should be given Miranda rights. Even terror suspects. To deny those rights is to assume that a suspect is guilty until proven innocent. If a terror suspect is proven guilty through the due process of the judicial system, then they should be punished to the full extent of the law.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:50 am |
  49. Dave

    Think before you talk. Unless you're suggesting that we beat the hell out of these "suspects," if they refuse to talk; the Miranda warning means absolutely nothing. It's nothing more than a political football.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:51 am |
  50. Michael M

    Terrorists are already on a path of self-destruction, so let's help them get closer to their God. Kill them all!

    May 11, 2010 at 8:51 am |
  51. bill

    I agree with kyra 1000%

    May 11, 2010 at 8:51 am |
  52. mark


    You're position denying miranda rights to "dirtbags" that seek to kill us makes no logical sense. There are plenty of Americans that are equally "dirtbags". They get miranda rights, that the whole point.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:51 am |
  53. Barb

    EVERYBODY has rights in this country, whether you are a citizen or not!! This is called being a CIVILIZED NATION!!!

    BTW the car bomber in NYC WAS a U.S. CITIZEN!!!

    If we abandon our moral values because the criminals don't play by the rules we lose. Our strength as a nation is that we DO abide by laws. If we give up on that we are no better than those who seek to destroy us.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:51 am |
  54. Alan Ralsky

    Just when I think my opinion of you being a bobble-headed news reader could not get any lower, you pull off this.

    What's the difference between a Muslim planting a bomb trying to kill people and a Christian doing it? Easy, the Christian (group) will never be labeled as "terrorist".

    May 11, 2010 at 8:52 am |
  55. ranz

    let's not forget, shazad is an american citizen. i would no soon abdicate his rights as my own.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:52 am |
  56. Melissa

    Forgive me, but I was absolutely offended by your use of the tv forum to give your "personal opinion" on Miranda Rights or anything else. Isn't your job founded on the premise to be impartial, fair and truth seeking? You need to take a lesson from Anderson Cooper.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:52 am |
  57. Jacki Gansch

    I'm on the fence as to whether non-American terrorists should be given American Constitutionally granted rights. But Shazhad was an American citizen. Timothy McVeigh was an American citizen. My fear is that rights for American citizens could erode if we start chipping away at our Constitutional rights. And I offer two words to think about when it comes to interrogating "terrorists" and possibly taking away their right to due process: Richard jewel. If our rights are denigrated to the point where American citizens have to fear being wrongfully accused and interrogated and the whim of an overzealous prosecutor or police department, then the terrorists have won, haven't they?

    May 11, 2010 at 8:52 am |
  58. r lewis

    Make sure this works on one race only and not all the others in America that live in semi peace..............

    May 11, 2010 at 8:52 am |
  59. Bill W.

    Obviously everyone in the USA is entitled to the benefits of our laws. It is one of the things that makes us better than the rest. We should never stoop to their level. It is never to our advantage to act like the ruthless thugs that attack us. We can never win the war against terror by becoming as bad as they are.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:52 am |
  60. Cameron Walker

    Honestly i believe it depends on where the said "terriost" are from. If they are american citizens they should have it. It is the same argument as the death penalty. What if the person is innocent, and if the person is innocent, then you basically strip the rights, that are there to help them prove that they are innocent. If you take away this right to american citizens not only is it unconstitutional but un-american

    May 11, 2010 at 8:52 am |
  61. jean f

    The problem with miranda rights being reduced for terror "suspects" is the word "suspects". When someone is wrongly accused, which does happen in our imperfect society, they should be afforded all the legal rights to defend themselves.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:52 am |
  62. David

    If arrested in this country, they must have access to those rights. If we take the perspective that our way of life is the best we can come up with, let us prove that faith in ourselves by allowing due process to take its course. They hate us for our hypocrisy, not our freedom, and by not giving suspects access to our legal system, we confirm their conviction as accurate.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:52 am |
  63. ken

    you are TOTALLY right, These scumbags ARE NOT Citizens of the USA and Have NO rights.So whats the point in reading "Miranda" rights to somebody who HAS none! These are not criminals, the are Enemy combatants who have declared war on the USA. They can to to Pergatory as you put it. They are fighting against the very rights our brave soldiers have fi\ought and DIED to protect. The Have NO righs! You Kira are right on! Ken, Tampa

    May 11, 2010 at 8:52 am |
  64. David

    How about we get tough and patriotic with citizenship application background checks and education and travel visas and border security instead of undermining rights of citizens of the U.S.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:52 am |
  65. Colin

    Congrats Kyra! You have just proven why terrorists do what they do, they want to take the United States down from where it is, on top. And how do you do this? By making the US give up on it's morals. The morals that kept Japaneses soldiers healthy and fed, when the Japanese soldiers were torturing and killing American POWs.

    don't back down on your morals, they are what make you better. and when you lose your way, they win. they recruit faster, they come harder.

    Take the high ground, no matter what they do, you won;t back down, give them rights, prosecute them, put them in general population at Rikers Island.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:52 am |
  66. Dave B

    Correlate it to being a parent, and correcting your child and correcting someone else's child while being in your house. Your's is no different from the other child in terms of needing to learn a lesson, they both deserve to be corrected, why shouldn't they deserve the same process of being corrected? The who or why doesn't matter, in the end the how is important. The only difference between us and them is the how, and its time for the US to lead by example.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:53 am |
  67. Mary Hatfield

    Here's what's sillly. Anyone has the right not to testify against themselves whether or not someone reads that blurb to them or not. PERIOD. So fretting about Mirandizing is just silly. And, Kyra, people who don't follow the law are criminals. Just because they don't follow the law or rules, doesn't mean Americans can therefore break the law. If Americans break the law they are criminals. We pride ourselves on being a nation of laws–not whims.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:53 am |
  68. M. Selz

    Kyra – That last piece on Miranda rights for terrorists was sloppy reporting. Like him or not, Faisal IS a American citizen, so he is entitled to his Miranda rights. You never made that important distinction. Lumping him in with the other two terrorists in your piece distorts that fact for the purpose of making your story more appealing to the masses.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:53 am |
  69. Kathryn

    William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

    Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

    William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

    Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

    May 11, 2010 at 8:53 am |
  70. John Clarkson

    Yes, they should be given Miranda warnings. It is settled law that due process is not a trapping of citizenship. It is afforded because our system applies rules to all who come within its ambit. In other words, rights are not given because of of who the terrorists are, but because of who WE are. We are rightfully proud that our system treats all people subject to it fairly. Removing these protections and perverting our system of justice hands a sure victory to people who strive to destroy it.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:53 am |
  71. Thomas Baird

    The Question is:

    Should terror suspects be given miranda rights?

    My Answer to that question is, NO!

    May 11, 2010 at 8:53 am |
  72. Peter

    It absolutely do not make any sense to give them any rights! I'm a hard working foreign-born US citizen; we live for the betterment of our (USA) country and ourselves. All these guys want to do is take away what we've worked hard for our entire life! It discounts all efforts of legit honest hard working Americans.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:53 am |
  73. Stan B

    Kyra – Well said! Miranda rights for terrorists – you don't have any more rights. You gave them up when you loaded the truck with explosives. Send 'em South to Purgatory!

    May 11, 2010 at 8:53 am |
  74. Jennifer

    Well said Kyra!! I've had enough of non citizens being given our rights......the ones that so many have died for and still fight to protect. Enough is enough already!! If you're not here legally then you don't get the right to anything, but to leave!

    May 11, 2010 at 8:53 am |
  75. john hagelund

    If we give them "our" rights, we give away the privilege we were given by those sent to war to stop those very individuals from tearing down the fabric of our great nation and our history. These immature unintelligent groups of scum will get exactly what they deserve. America is far from down if not on the entire seperate side of the spectrum. Economies fluctuate and we are, yet its our time for advancement in so many aspects and they the "terrorists" and Neanderthals will be left further behind from the power curve.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:53 am |
  76. steven romanoff

    Terrorist don't deserve MIRANDA RIGHTS .What do they deserve ,I guess everybody know that .

    May 11, 2010 at 8:54 am |
  77. Mike

    We are at war! these people do not deserve maranda rights. We should take away citizenship from all the people that fit the description of a terrioist

    May 11, 2010 at 8:54 am |
  78. Chris Blask

    Our system works and is worth defending or it isn't. Allowing enemies to change our most fundamental systems is defeat.

    If this – American citizen – who is is accused of trying to blow up Times Square is to be stripped of his rights, why not child-molesting suspects, too? Both are despicable, most accused probably are guilty. Why not just drop the whole "innocent until proven guilty" basic American right and put the thumbscrews to all likely suspects for all heinous crimes?

    May 11, 2010 at 8:54 am |
  79. Michael Armstrong Sr.

    We give our freedom and rights away to easily to immigrants I think all immigrants should have a five year probation period before there documentation is certified and probation is lifted .

    May 11, 2010 at 8:54 am |
  80. Addie

    Firstly, Faizal Shashad is, unfortunately, an American citizen. So how do you make a fair law on this issue? What if an American citizen is only loosely suspected as a terrorist – who would decide whether he/she gets Mirandized?

    May 11, 2010 at 8:54 am |
  81. Mark J

    The fact that you call them "suspects" implies you are allowing them the rights of an american citizen (innocent until proven guilty) so the answer is yes. You can't afford them some rights and not others, all of nothing.
    Mark J

    May 11, 2010 at 8:54 am |
  82. David Orr


    I'm surprised that you, as a leading journalist, don't grasp the fact that our constitution protects everyone in the country, citizen or not. Miranda warnings are not optional, as our courts have repeatedly decreed. You're advocating a position that violates Supreme Court rulings, and you ought to make that clear. You're also advocating a position that has not been shown to make a difference in any alleged terrorist case! You would undermine constitutional rights for something that may not make a difference!?

    May 11, 2010 at 8:54 am |
  83. Brajesh Singh

    If we are not going to give them their rights then we have presumed they are guilty. If they are guilty, why bother with a trial. Off with them to jail and lets skip all the formalities. In fact, lets do this to everyone who commits a crime, it will save all of us a lot of time and money.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:54 am |
  84. Don Katz

    There IS an argument to be made about terrorists' access to Miranda rights, but Phillips misses it. It has to do with whether or not we can legally–LEGALLY–classify our conflict with the terrorists as an actual war. It does NOT, as Phillips simplistically argues, have to do with what horrible, nasty jerks the would-be bombers are. They may well be out to kill us without regard to reasonableness or our laws...but so are All-American murderers. Many criminals are awful, awful people with no regard for decency–rapists, many robbers, con artists–but they all deserve to be Mirandized nonetheless. So do terrorists, UNLESS our courts decide that they are not criminals but agents of an entity with which we are at war.

    Please, PLEASE, let's not make base appeals to emotion. Let's not say anything that smacks of "you don't deserve rights because you're evil and guilty." That's one of the things that our laws exist to prevent, and one of the things that makes our culture great.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:54 am |
  85. Judge Bruce J. Einhorn (ret.), Professor of Law

    The Miranda warnings are based on the due process protections of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which by their own terms refer to "persons" and not just US citizens. Frankly, Kyra, if I have to choose between your take on due process and the wisdom of James Madison who was the principal draftsperson of the Fifth Amendment, I cheerfully choose Mr. Madison's. The measure of a democracy is not how it appplies its rules to those we love, but rather to those we loathe. If we strip Miranda protections from persons before they are judged guilty, then we have done exactly what our enemies abroad want us to do: admit that our Constitution cannot protect us. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, those who surrender rights for safety will have neither.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:55 am |
  86. Tracy

    We should treat them like North Korea would.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:55 am |
  87. Ben Smukler

    The problem with your position is that it is not the Miranda advisement that is key here. Rather it is the fact that, under our Constitution, no one may be forced to be a witness against him or herself (the right against self-incrimination).

    You could question suspected terrorists without affording them any warnings or access to counsel, but you could never use anything they said against them, either in court or in a military equivalent.

    So the choice is, treat everyone the same under our laws, or question some outside our laws but with no prosecution, civil or military.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:55 am |
  88. emily

    If the rights of U.S. citizens begin to erode under the suspicion of alleged terrorism, where will the line be drawn? ALL U.S. citizens should be afforded the rights granted in the Constitution. If a U.S. citizen/suspect is deemed a criminal through due process of law, then and only then should that person be treated as such.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:56 am |
  89. John S. The Bronx, NY


    You rock!

    You are so on point. Everything you said was correct, especially if the terrorists think the USA is so bad, why use its legal system to hide.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:56 am |
  90. zach

    The Constitution does not give anyone rights, it prevents to government from taking away the rights given to us by our Creator. It does not differentiate between citizens or non citizens on this issue. Clearly the US government should respect the rights of any suspect in government custody.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:56 am |
  91. Joan Lio

    Does it really matter if they are read their miranda rights or not? Yes, I believe it does matter. How long does it take to read someone their rights? A minute? I would hate to see a terrorist get off from a potential conviction because he/she was not read their rights so I say keep it as a requirement. We are a country founded on law and order. A terrorist – just like anyone else – does have the right to an attorney, to remain silent. I don't however think they should be provided an attorney at the taxpayers cost. Let them pay for their own lawyer.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:56 am |
  92. norm

    The simplest demonstration of why you are wrong on this was the Oklahoma City bombing.

    The Dallas Morning News originally reported that Arab men were the primary suspects. The men had been stopped on a routine traffic violation on a highway from Oklahoma City. Now, should they have had rights when arrested?

    Your answer: no. They were terrorists.

    But they were not terrorists – your stance would have convicted them without a trial, denied them rights to defend themselves. Have you made a good decision or just short-term racist memory?

    Should McVeigh have had Miranda rights? Should US citizens who look brown have Miranda rights? You seem to be suggesting a white US citizen has Miranda rights, but a brown US citizen shouldn't.

    Remember, innocent until proven guilty. And it has happened that innocent people have been arrested for terrorism charges.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:56 am |
  93. beau10

    The Taliban and al-Qaeda have stated they are at war w/ America. Since this (according to their own words) is war, Miranda rights do not apply to those attacking the USA. Faisal Shahzad is a citizen of this country and has committed treason w/ an intent to kill American citizens. Miranda rights should not apply to him.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:56 am |
  94. Shane Roberts

    Why do we always say that America has the best form of government but we rarely extend the rights we are granted to others. In the case of Shahzad he is both a terror suspect and a U.S. citizen yet Kyra you talk about him as if he is not. This is a dangerous path to walk down. If we begin to disregard the constitution for the sake of 'security' then where will it stop? Benjamin Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    May 11, 2010 at 8:56 am |
  95. ardita

    There is a bigger question in play here. Do we need Miranda at all? Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it. What would happen if you said to a traffic officer,"Oh, I'm sorry I was speeding. I did not see the sign"? Do you think you would be let go? How about, "I'm sorry I didn't pay taxes on that income. I didn't know it was taxable." Miranda is redundant and already an out for criminals. Lets not go over the top with offering it as an out for those who would seek to destroy our rights and our lives.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:56 am |
  96. Rita

    If you are a terrorist you should not have Miranda rights of any kind If you are an American citizen then those rights should be there even if you are sispected of terrorist plot That is what this country is founded on The courts should take care of this They should arrest all persons who are suspected of terrorist acts

    Go Kyra–you are my favorite Like your editorial comments

    May 11, 2010 at 8:56 am |
  97. Heather Scarlett

    Miranda should be afforded to all US citizens. However, I feel that a US citizen that commits a terrorist attck on US soil is commiting a treasonist attack and there is only one way to deal with treason.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:56 am |
  98. Amy Finch

    My answer about Miranda rights is yes and no. I am an attorney, and have studied and dealt with this extensively. If the terrorist is an American citizen, yes the Miranda rights must be given as guaranteed by the Constitution. We cannot pick and choose who gets Miranda rights based on the crime. It's all or nothing. Everyone gets Miranda rights or no one does. Exceptions to Miranda exist, but these must be clear, concise and well known.

    As for non-citizens, the question is more difficult. They do not have the rights of a citizen, but the Supreme Court has extended rights to illegal aliens. I would NOT grant them the right not to incriminate themselves, but I also would not allow torture masquerading as "enhanced interrogation techniques." We are judged by how we treat our enemies, and what we do terrorists can give other terrorists justification. If we want to preach the moral high ground, we need to live on the moral high ground.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:56 am |
  99. Ramon Leon

    All you people wanting to take these rights away from terrorists suspects are forgetting one key thing; the word "suspects". You don't KNOW these people are terrorists and anyone who think the police should just be able to ignore the rights of a suspect because they think he's guilty is simply insane.

    If you step foot on American soil, you have certain rights and those rights cannot be denied just because police think you're guilty of something. You start taking rights away from mere suspects and it won't be long before the police suspect you of something; you'll see it differently when they're violating your rights. In this country we're still innocent until proven guilty. Taking away someones rights is presuming guilt and it's completely un-American. You people wanting to take away terrorists rights are being reactionary and ignorant and haven't actually thought the issue through.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:57 am |
  100. Tony mitchell

    Kyra did u know that the patriot act is not just talking about foreignors american citizens under this law will be considered a terrorist if they commit a misdemenor says john ashcroft. I can prove it!

    May 11, 2010 at 8:57 am |

    Do we have a Constitution?
    Kyra, you, Lieberman et al., are asking us to forget:
    1) a suspect is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a jury of his peers
    2) we have the right not to incriminate ourselves (remember the rack in pre-American revolutionary Europe?) hence Miranda
    3) we all have equal rights under the law.

    Kyra, you need to go back to 9th grade civics class and learn to be an American!!!

    May 11, 2010 at 8:57 am |
  102. David

    It is a complex question and deserves a complex answer. Yes we should be mad but the response must be taylored to the exact situation. Each case requres a different response. In either case it has been repeated over and over by the experts that more information is received from the prisoner when a more gentile approach is taken.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:57 am |
  103. CHERYL K.

    Terrorists should not be afforded due process as defined by Miranda. The more difficult issue is the process for ensuring that the person questioned without an attorney is truly a terrorist and not just one accused of a crime, terrorism or otherwise. Does anyone remember what led to Miranda? It makes me uncomfortable to give unchecked power to police and prosecutors. The key, then, is a process to ensure Miranda lifted appropriately, such as advance authorization by the courts.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:57 am |
  104. Connie

    What's the difference between terrorism and espionage? Or if done by a US citizen, treason? How are these charges handled on US soil? Perhaps we should look at these crimes, maybe redefine where necessary and act accordingly. I understand where Kyra is coming from, but at the same time, I worry that giving authorities lattitude on Miranda might open the door for abuse. We should tread lightly.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:57 am |
  105. Jane Beck

    It is not about who they are, it is all about who we are. We must not lose our American values as soon as we are challenged. Why should we let scuzzballs change the way America works? That just proves what the terrorists claim about America being prejudiced against Muslims.
    If you get into a fight with a pig, you both get filthy, but the pig enjoys it. So let's not get suckered into that fight, but instead hold fast to our values.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:58 am |
  106. marge

    So,who determines who is a terrorist? And who determines what a terrorist is? And what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
    Kyra, so let's say it's determined you have ties to an organization considered terrorist? They pick you up,don't tell you why,take you away and don't tell anyone anything, because you are now a terrorist and you have no rights...
    You lose your citizenship because you're labeled a terrorist...sounds familiar,yet worse,Mcarthyism.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:58 am |
  107. Larry - Alberta, Canada

    I watch CNN all of the time and I totally agree with what Kyra said, anyone conducting a terrorist activity, immediately loses all rights, PERIOD. They want to kill US citizens, they obviously do not want to enjoy the life of a law abiding citizen that cares about family, friends, the community and their Country!!

    May 11, 2010 at 8:58 am |
  108. Bill F

    Kyra, you say you believe in the presumption of innocence and then deny it practically in the same breath. The word alleged is not synonymous with condemned. Just because a bunch of law enforcement officials say they have the guy who committed or attempted some deadly act is not sufficient proof under our justice system. And it's a good thing we don't rush to judgement because even trained investigators can make mistakes. Our system is more important than any individual act, no matter how heinous.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:58 am |
  109. Major Retired

    Kira you are wrong. All citizens must be afforded all legal and constitutional rights. Your call to allow the security forces to determine who is a "terrorist" and who gets rights is dangerous. The USA is strong enough to protect ourselves and our rights without throwing out the Constitution. I did not serve for 36 years in the military to see a few scared demagog politicians do away with our basic law. We have the right to wage war against our enemies. And, we should follow the rules of war in doing so. We have the responsibility to vigorously prosecute anyone who violates our laws. Making up new rules because of a handful of terrorists (domestic and international) is not the response we need. There are warnings from history you should heed including the Nazi's who declared Jews and others non-citizens in Germany as the wholesale killing began.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:58 am |
  110. Jonathan Almand

    Your argument is a contradiction in itself. You are acorrect that non-citizens who commit acts of terrorism towards the US should be treated as enemy combatants and not mirandized (sp?). Yo uare also correct in that U.S. citizens have earned the 5th ammendment's protection and that includes the Miranda Rights. However, where your argument is skewed is that the Times Square Bomber is a U.S. citizen and there fore should be treated according to the rights he has earned by being a citizen. He should be processed as a domestic criminal and if they would like to accuse him of treason for conspiring with another government against the U.S. then by all means do so but we must still protect the sacred rights guaranteed to all American's by the constitution. This is not difficult concept in my mind. Thank you.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:58 am |
  111. Mark Lowder

    A terror suspect who is a U.S. citizen should be given his/her Miranda rights. A suspect is someone accused of a crime, but whose guilt is yet to be determined. Hence the word suspect. We cannot throw out Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens even in the face of something as terrible as the suspicion of terrorism. To do so would undermine our basic civil rights. I think we've become enough of a vigilante society, that the civilized must still hold on to civility even in the face of terrorism.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:58 am |
  112. William Barnstead

    Everyone thinks they know what “terrorism” is, but it is not a defined term under the law. If “suspects” are going to be treated as guilty until proven innocent then a politician can define what the crime of “terrorism” really is, and then decided if you are guilty and then it’s up to you to prove you are innocent. Except “terrorists” don’t get a trial either, they will sit in a jail cell without trial, because we don’t want to give “terrorists” a trial either. If you give up the rule of law, you give up the checks and balances on politicians, you give up your freedom, and the “terrorists” have won.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:59 am |
  113. Jerold Ringer

    When people become terorist for whatever reason they give up their rights as they are no longer human.The United States needs to wage an actual war against everything that threatens our lives or disband the military and let the malitias handle buisiness.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:59 am |
  114. flavious davis

    kyra, are you a news reporter or just a game show host? the question is not whether or not an individual deserves rights as an american citizen or as an enemy combatant (dirtbag). the question is 'how do we determine whether or not this individual is a dirtbag or not?' miranda exists to protect an individual from idiots until that question can be answered. once answered then you can talk about where in hell to send them; until then you should keep your opinion to yourself and just report the news. maybe they care what you think on 'the price is right' or 'family fued' – do us all a favor and check into that for me.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:59 am |
  115. Hynda Gellman

    Finally someone agreeing. No, someone who intends to do harm to this country and its inhabitants does not desreve any of the rights of USA's people. They violate any right when they intend to harm this country.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:59 am |
  116. Polly Briley

    Wow! Our country is our Constitution and the concept of "hiding under it" is bizarre. Perhaps you should take your own advise and find a new country where there is no Constitution to hide under and no rights to protect .

    May 11, 2010 at 8:59 am |
  117. Tim

    OK, I understand the hate for these people, but those rights we put in the constitution are HUMAN rights, NOT American rights. It is a Slippery slope once we walk away for the ideals of our founders. The logic that says terrorist don't deserve rights because they are so evil could then easily set precedent for taking rights away from other undesirables. The intent of these laws is not to protect the bad guy, it is to protect you Kyra from being without a defense when a corrupt government decides they want you gone. Could you imagine if the DHS decided Kyra Philipps was a terrorist and then arrested you and throw you in jail forever without a defense? That is why we have these rights to protect Americans from their government, it's a basic principal of our nation. One more thing to, I feel sorry for you and all the American victims that support this kind of tyranny, because the terrorist wins if you destroy the constitution. That's what they what.

    May 11, 2010 at 8:59 am |
  118. Jim in San Diego

    This is a no brainer- just like the Az Immigration issue. Faking your "citizen" status so it can be used against us when you get caught is messed up. If you are illegal, or attempt to destroy our way of life, you have forfieted your right to ANYTHING our constitution has to offer. All the people who scream rights! rights! rights! in these situations are out of their minds and a bit delusional in my humble opinion. These "extreme" viewpoints may be a misguided christian viewpoint, but are not about protecting our country or its people. Very frustrating!!

    May 11, 2010 at 8:59 am |
  119. Adam

    Only if they are US citizens.

    If we allow the government to take this right from US citizens accused if committing an act of terror, what is next? Do murders and thieves still deserve to have the protection of the constitution? What if they are accused of an act of terror, but they are actually innocent? It could happen there is a lot of pressure for the police, politicians and the media to find and punish the culprit, fast.

    The latest guy who tried to blow up an SUV was a naturalized US citizen. Even though he is most likely guilty and doesn't deserve our respect, we must respect his rights in order to protect ours.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:00 am |
  120. Jeff Harmon

    Should terrorists expect the same rights? No, however, if they don't have the right to remain silent, what if they refuse to talk? How do you make them talk? A forced confession is no confession at all. If a person is subject to enough pain they will confess to anything to make it stop. Most of the people in favor of torture for suspects of terrorism would confess to the acts if subject to that treatment. If you take away these rights for terror suspects, then nobody has them. If an accusation is as good as a conviction our judicial system is no more than a self-righteous witch-hunt,

    May 11, 2010 at 9:00 am |
  121. ashley

    they come to attack us b/c they dont like our way of life or the rights we have so why should we give them the rights they want to take awy they dont deserve the rights that my grandpa and dad fought for

    May 11, 2010 at 9:00 am |
  122. Greg

    No! You can't label someone a terrorist without due process, so denying Miranda requires presumed guilt. That's not how we do things in America. We don't withhold Miranda from a captured would-be homicidal shooter, either. And by the way, the suv bomber was a US citizen. At what point in the timeline leading to his arrest did you decide he doesn't get his Miranda rights? C'mon Kyra, you can do better than this.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:00 am |
  123. george szejner

    I was pleased to hear Kyra Phillis' statement that terrorists and other enemies of America should not be given the Miranda rights, especially in the times of war.
    Kyra's stand is also, in my view, a big credit to the management of CNN.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:01 am |
  124. Dee, Pittsburgh, PA

    How we can ask miliary men and woman and their families to sacrifice so much for principal and ideals then toss them aside to make ourselves feel more secure? We express our pride in our miliary; don't we owe it to them to live those same principals and ideals so that they can be proud of us?!

    May 11, 2010 at 9:01 am |
  125. Darin, TX

    I am an American Soldier I fight for the right for the American People to have the right to remain silent. Are you telling me I am also fighting for the right for terrorist to remain silent? The same one’s that threaten my way of life and those of the American people that have earned that right. Fowey!!!

    May 11, 2010 at 9:01 am |
  126. Tony

    KP, u said it, America. Only n america can u b caught red handed committing a deadly crime and get a trial. Was watching my local news n Detroit when the underwear bomber had his day n court, the foreign media was everywhere. A local reporter asked a Russian reporter y he was here and y all the frenzy, he kindly replied sarcastically " only n AMERICA can u b caught red handed trying to blow up a plane and get a day n court, we find this fascinating". Like comedian Robin Harris used to say " let him pull the switch, GOTTA GO GOTTA"..

    May 11, 2010 at 9:01 am |
  127. Alvin

    Right on Kara

    May 11, 2010 at 9:01 am |
  128. Barbara

    What is the difference between what you call a foreign "dirtbag" and an American one? First of all, we have American terrorists as well as foreign ones. Miranda rights exist to protect all people from abuse. Suspicion of being a terrorist does not make me a terrorist. Second, show me the evidence that the right to have a lawyer causes more terrorism. Like ordinary criminals, murderers, pedophiles, armed robbers and the like, terrorists do not say to themselves, "I have Miranda rights, so I can commit whatever, and I will, therefore, get away with it." That's ludicrous.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:01 am |
  129. Michael Armstrong Sr.

    Our laws were not in question until other people from other country's put our laws into question .

    May 11, 2010 at 9:02 am |
  130. Jessie Martori

    Terrorists are not common criminals who are all too happy to hide their crimes behind their attorney's defense. These people are fanatics who want to talk about their "glorious cause." Giving them Miranda rights will not silence them. Look at what has happened and stop speculating about what might happen. Don't give up our values or any part of our freedom. Otherwise, we will destroy what the terrorists will never destroy.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:02 am |
  131. Freedom

    Another ill considered opinion from an ignorant news reader, is not welcomed.
    Define "suspected" because that will become the next "Guantanamo bay" clause in not being human. I define a terrorist as someone who, with violence tries to impose their beliefs on others. Look in the mirror America. We are leaving this mess behind us. You made it. You clean it up.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:02 am |
  132. Duncan Scott

    I can't believe that after 200 years we're still having this discussion.

    These rights were not enumerated to protect the guilty, they were enumerated to protect all of us from over-zealous police and prosecutors. The right to remain silent simply means that you can't be punished for not confessing. Doesn't that make sense to you? Is it ever in the public's best interest to assume guilt?

    Was Richard Jewel guilty? Steven Hatfill? Should they have been jailed because they refused to convict themselves? Would we ever have learned the truth if we equated accusation with conviction?

    May 11, 2010 at 9:02 am |
  133. SHOV3LH3AD

    Honestly??? I am in shock that this is even a question! There is no reason in the world why a terrorist would ever deserve Miranda Rights or Fair Trial. I don't care if you are an American Citizen or not. If you are an American Citizen and perform actions to harm or disrupt the lives of true Americans, then their citizenship should be revoked and they should be dealt with in a horrific and inhumane manner. If you have a dog that bites your neighbor, the immediate action is to put it to sleep. What is the difference, these people are animals and in no way, shape, fashion or form deserve anything that most Americans work everyday of their lives to have and uphold. There is more to being an American than just a piece of paper!!!

    May 11, 2010 at 9:02 am |
  134. rjperdue

    I dont know about the rest of the citizens of this country but I amn pretty tiried of Twits like you spreading Hate and just Racist crap , If you dont Invade there Country and steal the Resouces they wont want to Kill you thats how it works. Dick Cheny, George Bush lies continue thanks CNN.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:02 am |
  135. Charles Valentine

    Yes, they should. An accused terrorist is not the same thing as an actual terrorist until convicted. Things like Miranda rights are what make America great. To abrogate those rights for any reason weakens the moral and ethical stance that makes America what it is and plays right into the hands of those who would cast this country as a force for evil.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:03 am |
  136. David

    As an outsider thats visits the US mostly for my shopping addiction, America is looking more and more like a police state. If somebody pointed a finger at me, as a black man and foreigner, I know I would never get a fair deal. Thats just too much stress and I have hypertension. I think I'll keep my shopping visits to an absolute minimum. Thanks! at least I'll save some money 🙂

    May 11, 2010 at 9:04 am |
  137. jim s

    if we take away the miranda rights of any one because of fear or bigotry
    or race or gender or religious preference or sexual orientation where do we draw the line do we ignore the constitution for some and apply it for others should people in white supremacy groups that want to kill police and military personell be given there miranda rights should people like rush limbaugh and glenn beck be denied there rights because they preach hate and distrust of our government
    there are things in our constitution some groups hate and other things they love but we have one thing in common the constitution protects all even if we dont agree. We all need protected not just from foreign terrorists but from home grown ones

    May 11, 2010 at 9:05 am |
  138. george szejner

    I would go even further. It is time that all terrorists who raise their armed hand against America be stripped of American citizenship.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:05 am |
  139. matt

    as much as it pains me to say, every American citizen has a RIGHT to Miranda Rights, no matter what they do. that is what makes our nation so great. the day we allow the government to take away our rights is the day we give up our freedom. there will always be a new issue that makes us think some don't deserve the same rights as others because of some act they do, but WHO decides what act justifies denying rights to that individual? what about mass murder, or serial killers, or child molesters, all horrible crimes with no regard for human life, but should we take there rights away? some say yes, but what about that innocent guy who is accused of same crime, now his rights have been taken away, the very rights designed to protect him are now stripped away. were does it stop, today we are scared of terror, so we are ready to give up our liberties to make us safe. more cameras, more security, tap my phones, take away rights to individuals you suspect of being terrorist. so what, call some one a terrorist to justify taking his rights away? tomorrow we will be scared of some thing else, and we will ban that or persecute them to make us feel safe, but be careful one day it might be you people fear, because you own a gun or worship a different way. this is a fine line we walk.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:06 am |
  140. Allen Wright Shannon

    Although I thought the op/ed peice Ms. Phillips gave was cleverly worded, especially the invitation south of Purgatory, I fear she articulated the public's situational furor. What was missing from the peice was the recognition that we as Americans hold ourselves to a higher standard. Her peice suggests that we stoop closer to the level of the terrorists. That is also UNAMERICAN! The reading of Miranda rights takes only moments and it is what any...ANY citizen deserves.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:06 am |
  141. Vicki, Mpla

    People whose intent is to commit acts of terror against the US should not be Mirandized. Period. Why do we continually bring this up? I'm more concerned about our safety than what some foreign country "might" think of us. The terrorists use our constitution against us. We need to wake up! Agree with Ron O.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:06 am |
  142. Dave

    Miranda rights, are you kidding? What is wrong with us? These extremists care nothing about us. Why even give them the right to a trial? Put them in a plane or SUV and blow it up.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:06 am |
  143. philip s. hastings


    I was thinking about your commentary regarding Miranda rights and suspected terrorists but something didn't hit me right and, at first, I couldn't figure out why. Now, it just dawned on me why.

    I agree with what you said as long as we're dealing with non-American citizens but this last Times Square character is an American citizen. It is not right for us to take away rights from an American citizen! I don't know if it's unconstitutional or not but to do so is almost like putting the cart before the horse because you take away the citizens 5th amendment rights before you prove he/she is a terrorist! As a citizen, we are innocent until proven guilty. If you effectively take that right away from a citizen, you are making yourself judge and jury and assessing punishment before the crime is proven.

    You can't do that to a citizen. We can definately be tougher on a non-citizen to whom the Bill of Rights does not apply.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:06 am |
  144. Deb j

    I have to agree terrorists forfeit any possible rights they may have when they decide to war against Americans, or the innocent anywhere. Their goal is to not just eliminate our own freedom but our very lives. The men and women of our military did not sacrifice their lives so terrorists could reign. They gave of themselves, and their own lives for FREEDOM.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:06 am |
  145. David F. Brown

    i believe that if you try to kill american citizens en mass, in the name of the enemy that we are at war with,and this is proven beyond any doubt-you should be treated like any enemy captured on a battlefield-swiftly executed.
    i have to wonder if the taliban is worried about Beau Breghdals' miranda rights.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:07 am |
  146. Matt

    My understanding of our rights is that they're rights that should be afforded to all people (inalienable). When people like the killers we're going to be increasingly dealing with on our shores show such disregard for innocent life and who themselves want to impose a tyrannical theocracy on the world, it's very tempting to deprive them of due process to fast track them to a prison cell or execution chamber. But if we do this, we're no better than the theocrats and other despots that change rules to suit their most immediate needs. The right of due process should be protected for all, because when we chip away at that and other rights, even for the most evil among us, we chip away at our own liberty.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:07 am |
  147. Rick

    If they are a United States citizen than they should be read their miranda rights! But they should also be brought up on charges of TREASON...punishable by death!!!

    May 11, 2010 at 9:08 am |
  148. Richard

    Sing out LOUD & CLEAR. We should be mad as heck and not allow this. We can be destroyed from without if we allow it. When we protect third world people they have distane for us. They dont respect us. We insult ourselves. Non Americans will take as long as we are STUPID enough to put it out there. Let the bleeding heart liberals bleed . I'm tired of it!.

    They will be also but by that time it will be too late

    May 11, 2010 at 9:08 am |
  149. Richard (JD)

    It would appear that what you know about the Constitution wouldn't fill a thimble. BTW please stop editorializing without a clear disclaimer.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:09 am |
  150. AlliKat

    It's easy for us all to say that terrorists don't deserve to be read their Miranda Rights because they are committing an act of war, and it's easy to say that the act of war constitutes revoking their citizenship given that they are a citizen, but we have to remember that opening that door without specifying exactly what it is that can be considered an act of war or terrorism can backfire.

    I'm all for not giving terrorists the rights that we stand for and that they are fighting against – I just think that we all need to think it through and the people on capitol hill need to be sure they don't allow for that loophole, and those citizens who are deemed enemies of the United States of America should be ruled as such beyond a reasonable doubt, or else we have the same problems we have had with Guantanamo Bay. An "If they DIDN'T hate America before, they probably do now!" sort of thing. Besides, a lot of things can go wrong, as shown by some of the people (Grandma Smith, little blonde Johnny, etc) who have at one time been placed on the no-fly list.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:10 am |
  151. Kole

    Good Morning – Thought I had tuned in to Fox News for a minute when I saw this on tv this morning. But I digress...

    Hi Kira – I agree with you! Miranda rights! Hell no! We should be able to use anything these scumbags say against them! As a matter of fact, why are we even giving these people a trial? The dirtbags. I mean, we all know they are guilty, right? They don't have rights. Let just marched them to the middle of Times Square and execute them immediately. Oh wait, we have to torture them first. Let do that. Let torture these people that we absolutely are sure are guiltly and then let's execute them.

    But why stop there? We all know all the drug dealers here in America are dirt bags too. They shouldn't have rights. Let's torture and execute them! After all – we know they are guilty! I don't care that they are even Americans and that there might be a slim chance they are innocent. After all, we've already shown how we know someone is guilty before a trial, so let's just kill anyone we suspect of drug dealing.

    Oh and why stop there! There is this neighbor of mine that bugs me so much! He is a scumbag. I think he should be tortured and shot. I mean. I know people in high places and he doesn't so I could just use that against him. I mean – I know I'm right and he is wrong – the dirtbag. Afterall we do live in this amazing country called Iran...I mean the United States after all......

    We became a country, and perhaps the greatest example of democracy in all of history, because we rejected the tyranny we were living under in our previous homelands. If we start now to reject the very foundations of our democracy and liberty, then we truly are terrorized and might as well become exactly like those who terrorize us. We are stronger, more capable, and more resillient than that. Once we cross that line, where do we draw a new one?

    I'm an American. My forefathers and mothers worked all their lives for freedoms that we now thoroughly enjoy. I simply am not about to let any terrorist take these values and freedoms away from anyone else. So, Kira – I disagree with you. Because I'm an American, keep the miranda rights in tact.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:11 am |
  152. Mr. Donald D .Snyder Sen.

    I feel that the terrorist should not have Miranda rights.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:11 am |
  153. Walt

    Everyone created equal!! Innocent until proven guilty. Our Laws only work if they apply to everyone not just a select group because who gets to choose the group. Denying a right is a slippery sloop. We already have US Senators demanding that American Citizens be denied miranda. What's next denying miranda to the poor, what about the right to a speedy trail or the right to vote. We already have a privileged(rich/famous) class that doesn't have to follow the rules of law. When you start talking about revoking rights and serous jail form the Wall Street Crowd, BP and Abortion bombers/snipers ( think domestic terrorist) you might have more clout but i still won't take their rights. The mere question proves racism alive and well in US. i say that because this wasn't asked when the terrorist where white americans (oklahoma, alanta,etc), in fact some want to give some US terrorist medals( think pro-lifers that kill doctors).

    May 11, 2010 at 9:12 am |
  154. Maggie Johnson

    The "SUV" bomber was a naturalized U.S. citizen, so yes, he should have been read his rights immediately (not after 8 hours of questioning). Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma city bomber, was read his rights, but no one complained then. "Innocent until proven guilty" is one of the things that makes our country great and not an angry mob. Your knee-jerk reaction to domestic terrorism is really sad.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:12 am |
  155. Jim

    Where do you draw the line? Who decides if it is a terrorist threat? If we do not afford the rights of Americans to Americans that are Deemed as terrorists who were the laws created for? Our justice system is one of the best in the world and we can put these people in jail within our current system. If we go down this slippery trail, you could one day find that you no longer have the right to remain silent or many other rights.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:13 am |
  156. Michael Armstrong Sr.

    Just the fact that this issue has to be bought to the American attention shows our law system is broken and needs to be rethought .

    May 11, 2010 at 9:13 am |
  157. Ed Snowden

    This issue is well established. In America, citizens are innocent until proven guilty. So ALLEGED terrorists who are citizens are protected by Miranda Rights. Non-citizens are not (protected) by this right. can't change that.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:13 am |
  158. Carol


    Your comment is evidently based on the erroneous assumption that "if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about."

    Have you considered that you or one of your family COULD be detained in such a manner?
    Why would you sacrifice your own child's civil rights by stripping them from others?
    Do you really have that much confidence in the select few who would find themselves in a position with that much authority?

    If this idea continues to gain traction due to support of people like you, it's only a matter of time until Americans like you are treated in the same manner as alleged terrorists.

    Please rethink your comment. I would have expected more insight from you.

    Tavares FL

    May 11, 2010 at 9:13 am |
  159. Adam

    Only if they are US citizens.

    If we allow the government to take this right from US citizens accused of committing an act of terror, what is next? Do murders and thieves still deserve to have the protection of the constitution? What if they are accused of an act of terror, but they are actually innocent? It could happen. There is a lot of pressure for the police, politicians and the media to find and punish the culprit, fast.

    The latest guy who tried to blow up an SUV was a naturalized US citizen. Even though he is most likely guilty and doesn't deserve our respect, we must respect his rights in order to protect ours.

    Charges of treason and the death penalty are certainly appropriate, but only after being found guilty in a fair trial and their rights have been protected.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:14 am |
  160. D Follette

    I just watched your barely turned downed "hate speech" about denying Miranda rights to terror suspects. You can make a good case for that for the foreign nationals, the shoe and underwear bomber. I don't disagree.

    However in your apparent desire to "play to the crowd" you say we can deny those rights to the latest suspect- and that is what he is until tried and convicted- an American. I don't care how misguided he is, he has the rights of every other American even if he is convicted of this crime.

    The rights we have protect all of us and they are about who we are as a people, not about them. Otherwise you aren't any better then they are. Which apparently doesn't seem to bother enough of us anymore.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:15 am |
  161. PaulT


    Are the constitutional guarantees and our laws so weak that we fear that a terrorist will somehow be found not guilty if they are tried within our system? Any sensible citizen would say "No, they are up to the task!"

    I can understand the viewpoint of not extending Miranda Rights to terrorists because they have attacked us. But by excluding these rights to those who attack us, you deny the validity of our most sacred document, The Declaration of Independence. Further, removing these rights tramples on 234 years of American history of the struggle to bring equality among the race of men regardless of where they came from and what they believed.

    What makes us great as a country and a people is that we can and do desire that all men have the same benefits we have had in the United States of America. Since 9/11/01 certain people have begun to second-guess and skirt the historical direction of this country for vengence, revenge, and political gain. With actions such as the Patriot Act and other similar, the very rights of the majority of citizens have been infringed and removed so that the very reason for the being of the Declaration of Independence itself is threatened.

    If you believe we have the greatest system of justice in the world in our country, then there is no fear that those men who are truly guilty will not receive just penalty for their actions. It is time to stop chipping away at the democracy and justice of the United State of America, and reinstate the firm belief that our country is up to the challenges it faces today without infringing up the rights of it's own citizens and failing to afford them to those who believe in them.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:15 am |
  162. Kris O

    This is very sad, Kyra and CNN...... A person is innocent until proven guilty that means a person isn't a criminal until proven in a court of Law, even if caught red handed. So until they are officially declared that by being proven guilty they need to be afforded the same rights that the Constitution and laws afford to all people within this country. If you don't agree with the constitution that fine go live in North Korea. read on.

    If we go down this path by making separate legal rights for Citizens, Naturalized citizens and non-citizens criminals or terrorists. Then you are opening a HUGE legal mess that people will lead to people getting off on crimes because the police didn't know how to treat a person when they capture them. Do we treat them as a "criminal" or a "terrorist", as a non-citizen criminal/terrorist, naturalized criminal or terrorist. How can you know until they go to court? No we treat Everyone the same, that way there is no question if something was done wrong,

    Miranda rights aren't there to protect the suspect, They are there to protect everyone else, so that the person can be tried in court correctly with out abuse of the law.

    I really hope America doesn't go down this path. We are supposed to be better, to be a Gleaming light of Hope, Reason, and Law. "A more Perfect Union" Thats our goal. Do we turn back on that?

    May 11, 2010 at 9:15 am |
  163. blake

    I agree with your argument, Kyra, that is if you can guarantee that we get the right person (the guilty party). And if this is the case, we are 100% sure of their guilt, then let us do away with the trial as well. Can you see where this would lead?

    May 11, 2010 at 9:15 am |
  164. Gary Straub

    Either you believe that our system is the best in the world or you don't, the constitution is clear. You give serial killers, serial rapists, home grown bombers, etc. these rights. Will you now pick and choose who doesn't based on a suspicion that has not been proven. Of course if you knew beyond a shadow of doubt... but we don't which is why we have a judicial system that works. The assumption that our enemies are less than human and we are the purists is and has been fanning the flames of hatred for years. Why is our "Whoops, sorry about that." approach to what we conveniently label 'collateral damage' not considered terrorism? Should other countries throw away our rights with this impunity? With your logic Iran could keep the three hikers captive indefinitely by labeling them terrorists, and try them as military combatants who have no rights.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:16 am |
  165. what?

    This country got its start with mass murder and the violation of any human right you can think of. So Miranda seems to fall in that " What the... are you talking about"? I don't care what right is gained or lost in this trivial subject and by no means is it a reason to Greek out lady. And that band sux.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:16 am |
  166. Carl Holliday

    Kyra, well well I must aplaud your view point on terrorist. I agree folks that don't live by the rules in general shouldn't be granted or protected by the same rules they set out to destroy infact they should be delt with swiftly at the highest level by our Miltary Courts by whatever means nessary & not detained or allowed to step foot on American soil.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:17 am |
  167. flavious davis

    the very definition of a 'dirtbag" includes a mindset that inflicts punishment prior to or without process. think about it. american citizen or not – if you punish an innocent person are you not just like the terrorist.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:17 am |
  168. Kurt, NJ

    Innocent until proven guilty isn't some dumb bleeding heart slogan, it's an important legal principle. When this nation was created the Revolutionaries were labeled terrorists and traitors. They crafted our laws in light of the knowledge of what it is like to be wrongfuly accused.

    Now imagine yourself as a college student of Pakistani descent. Whether or not your a citizen doesn't really matter here. You are doing research for a political science paper. A government computer is scanning all internet searches, or maybe paying attention to yours because you're Pakistani. A combination of searches triggers an alert. Your phone conversations are now being traced by the NSA. Tomorrow you call an aunt who calls an uncle who is a cousin of someone who has the same name, but isn't the same person, as someone on a list of terrorists. You go to the store and buy some supplies for you general horticulture class, your credit card purchases are being reviewed by a federal agent at this point. That night a SWAT team busts down your dorm room door and drag you into the night. Would you like to have a lawyer then?

    Sounds implausible to me too, except for the similar situations have happened time and time again. Look at how many people have been released from Gitmo, or who were rounded up and then released again a few weeks after September 11th, because it turned out that they had nothing to do with terrorism. Now imagine the same round ups, except these people aren't made aware of their rights or have had them eroded away. Instead of being freed they are held indefinately and convictions are coerced, bullied or forced upon them as has happened some many times before.

    It doesn't take much to see what happens when or rights are taken away. Just read some history already. Anyway, anyone who would sacrifice a little liberty for a little security deserves neither and loses both.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:17 am |
  169. BettyBoop195

    I wish people had more faith in our police and judicial systems. Seems to me we've had no trouble getting all the information we need from criminals, from murder all the way down. To support legislation like this would be the equivalent of shooting ourselves in the foot. Afterall, what is the definition of a terrorist, and how easily can a definition be changed.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:17 am |
  170. Daniel

    Just watching CNN I saw Kyra make several errors in reasoning. Firstly, there are many types of terrorists, and I guarantee you that the majority being watched by the domestic American security agencies are not Islamic radicals. To get to my point, not all terrorists hate American freedoms, in fact some of them claim to be fighting for them. So to assume that any attempted attack on the U.S.A is to is an attack on America’s foundational tenets is premature. We cannot use this reasoning to justify denial of constitutional rights. Furthermore, some would be terrorists, like drug mules, may be pawns being used by bigger players. The would be terrorists may themselves be victims of blackmail or threats of violence against themselves and their families.
    Secondly, even we could make the above noted assumption (that all terrorists want to take away rights from the American people) it doesn’t necessarily justify denying them those same rights.

    Thirdly, an argument that miranda rights prevents us from gaining valuable intelligence is just plain wrong. One major purpose of Miranda rights is to prevent self incrimination. Usually, terrorism suspects are clearly implicated and remaining silent doesn’t do much to help their case anyway. Some staunch “terrorists” are not going to talk, not matter what you do because that they were ready to die. But others, after realizing that talking may help cut them a good deal or get better treatment will start to talk once they realize this.

    Having said all of this, there are genuine national security concerns at issue here. One major concern is that a terrorism suspect could have information about a pending attack. For this reason, I do support informing such suspects that it would greatly help their situation to inform authorities about any pending attacks, or anything that they know about terrorist groups for that matter.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:19 am |
  171. Charles

    Terror suspects should not have the consideration of the society they are attempting to destroy.

    There are lots of advocates who obviously do not have the ability to think clearly. Terrorists and illegals should be treated differently.
    There are lots of questions to be asked on the subjects. For instance, why is a child born here automatically a U.S. citizen? I do agree that those who have taken the time and trouble to enter into the united states legally should be afforded this right for their offspring. No one who is in the U.S. illegally or who is trying to destroy the very society they demand rights from should be afforded any consideration of our laws. Our laws where put in place to protect the rights of law abiding people who love this country or criticize it through lawful means. This excludes terrorists or suspected terrorists as well as illegals. Abide by the law, respect our society and suport our constitution prior to asking for shelter under it's laws.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:20 am |
  172. Michael Armstrong Sr.

    We have too many people in our country as it is that we can not take care of we should completely stop documentation until our country recovers .

    May 11, 2010 at 9:21 am |
  173. deepwater don

    They should be treated like the known and arrested terrorists who were caught in Britain.They were arrested, found to be guilty under their justice system, and they have never been heard again. Unfortunately the U.S. media needs to glorify their actions in thre name of news and someone tries to make a movie of the week about this or that.Gives their behavior credence and makes them the poster boy for future terrorists to strike elsewhere in the name of Allah.Jail them and never here from them or give them a forum to vent their twisted kind of hatred again.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:22 am |
  174. Michael Armstrong Sr.

    Kyra is right the rest of you people who dont agree have no common since .

    May 11, 2010 at 9:24 am |
  175. Thomas Baird

    Kyra – Well said!

    I agree with your statement.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:24 am |
  176. Jim in Illinois

    Widespread Panic–appropriate guest as Kira joins the Washington politicians panic over terrorism.
    We cannot let Osama win the war of terror by destroying our Constitution and rights. We are stronger than that!
    Prosecute the any charged citizen according to law, prosecute the war according to the Geneva Conventions and rules of war.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:25 am |
  177. Dan Leahy

    It's so sad to hear Americans, who should know better, so willing to surrender those things that set our country apart. As we curtail our rights and civil liberties, under the false impression that it makes us "safer", the terrorists achieve their goal....destroying our society. Though Miranda wasn't around when the constitution was created, the right to due process and a fair trial was explicitly guaranteed to all people in the country, citizens or not. Every time we surrender our rights....the terrorists win.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:25 am |
  178. Shawn B

    Kyra Rocks! Widespread Panic Rocks!!! and Greg too!!!

    May 11, 2010 at 9:28 am |
  179. Charles

    Abide by the law before expecting it's protection. Miranda rights should not be necessary at all if you ask my opinion. They have become loop holes that function for the criminal more so than law abiding citizens. Criminal justice is justice in the eyes of the criminal more so than not.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:28 am |
  180. mparker

    When did the United States become so weak that every time there's a threat, the Constitution becomes optional? What freedom are we supposed to be fighting for anyway? Reciting the miranda warning to a suspect does not give them any further rights then they are already afforded under our laws. Those laws are for all suspects, even non citizens and yes, even terrorists. More than 500 terrorists have been successfully prosecuted using our current law and the due process of our Civilian courts. Avoiding due process and using military tribunals have produced exactly two successful prosecutions and they have already been released for time served. So calm down and don't be such cowards. Our laws work if you let them. Stop giving terrorists, or even failed terrorists the power over us that they desire.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:28 am |
  181. Doug

    While I understand the urge to say that a "terrorist" effectively gives up their rights as soon as they attempt the terroristic act, I have to wonder who determines what would be considered an act of terrorism. If a teenager is driving 20 miles per hour over the speed limit on a busy rush hour highway, cutting people off and swerving across multiple lanes of traffic, is he/she a terrorist? That person is operating a couple of tons of metal and gasoline in a way that potentially puts hundreds of people in danger, if the right chain of events were to take place. Do we then do away with Miranda rights for teenagers driving stupidly, simply because they have endangered so many people? Does it make a difference if that teenager is an honor student, or if he/she is third-generation citizen whose roots are western European versus someone whose parents are from Turkey or Egypt?

    May 11, 2010 at 9:34 am |
  182. Michael Armstrong Sr.

    America fought and died to build this great nation while other country's plundurd there people well theres going to be no plundering hear no mater how many idiots protest our country we will not follow in the foot steps of the immigrants country's

    May 11, 2010 at 9:35 am |
  183. Hank

    It seems that everyone forgets the ideals the nation was founded on; that all men are created equal and have God-given rights, not Constitutionally given. They are Constitutionally protected and they do not apply merely to all Americans, but to all people who come under our law, which includes terroists, who are nothing more than lowly, and particularly nasty in some cases, criminals acting outside the law and our political process.

    To elevate them to some surreal "TERRORRIST" level and to treat them differently than our laws prescribe, only validates, to some degree, the very reasons they seek to harm us.

    Setting a terrorist in a prison cell for all eternity, as an example of how we handle criminals is a far superior demonstration to potential terrorists than executing after questionable "process". hey don't get to go Heaven as heroes and their ideals are tarnished as their failure is forever visible.

    Either we are a nation of good laws which we trust for ourselves as well as others, or we are something less. Criminal acts we find worse than others is why we have different levels of punishment. Changing our legal processes to suit our motives towards those who do some of these worse crimes, is simply negating the espoused confidence we hold for our own system.

    We either trust and believe in it or we don't. Seems many don't really believe.

    I am sick to death of all the running to and fro over criminal acts and what 'rights' we allow and whom we allow them for. They are either good for everyone, or they are good for none.

    Now, choose up sides. For or against.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:35 am |
  184. Adam

    Judge Bruce J. Einhorn (ret.), Professor of Law

    You expressed my opinion much more eloquently than I could have. Thank you for your post.

    Kyra, please respond to his post I'd like to hear your response.

    What constitutional right do you believe should be protected. Should the freedom of the press be taken from those who speak out against the administration, like Fox? If yes, what if the next administration is republican? You can't just stand up for the constitution when it benefits you.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:35 am |
  185. Edward Cantu

    Kyra, you're comments are a good argument for why newscasters should not give their opinions about the stories they discuss. Your simplistic, shoot-from-the-hip tough talk about the Miranda issue—very Bill O’Reilly-esque in its delivery—has a lot of intuitive appeal; but only to those who, when faced with a complicated issue about which they know little, fill the knowledge void with emotion and intuition rather than recognizing that they don’t know enough to have a strident opinion either way.

    The whole reason for Miranda warnings is to protect arrestees’ right to a fair determination of guilt; the premise of the rule is that, without it, we can’t be sure that certain evidence such as confessions are not coerced, and therefore that the defendant is truly guilty in the first place. To say “no Miranda for terrorists” in this context is to ASSUME that they’re terrorists, like so many posters here have done. This, of course, puts the cart before the horse and, if adopted by the government, would defeat the entire purpose of Miranda rights in the first place. Think about it; what group of SUSPECTED criminals can we NOT apply your crude reasoning to? If someone is suspected of murder, would we say “murderers don’t deserve Miranda rights; why should they enjoy such niceties of the legal process if they’re out there preying on society?” Doesn’t that make just as much sense? Of course, we don’t know if they’re murderers yet . . . but so what? Good, red-blooded, tough Americans don’t care about such academic nuances, right?

    May 11, 2010 at 9:39 am |
  186. Bill Mark, Ph D

    One of the things the terrorists hate about us is the amount of freedom we have. Miranda warnings are part of that freedom. Reading terrorists their rights throws that freedom right into their faces. We should not adjust our laws to respond to their pressure.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:41 am |
  187. bill

    I agree with kyra 1000%.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:43 am |
  188. Michael Armstrong Sr.

    I feel that congress should put all other bills aside and address this issue because of the national security that it represents .

    May 11, 2010 at 9:45 am |
  189. MacAlpine

    A Miranda warning is not a constitutional right, but a vehicle to insure suspects/arrestees in governmental custody are aware of their Fifth Amendment rights. Fifth Amendment rights are triggered by the US Constitution and not by a Miranda Warning; therefore, no suspect ever has a duty to participate in any criminal interrogation or investigation process. Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment specifically bestows the rights to “persons” without restriction.

    So, the question arises if a suspected terrorist, not Marandized, refuses to talk – now what; we move to enhanced interrogation methods.

    This issue is “feel good” nonsense that will not protect anyone and likely lead to further erosion of Constitutional Right akin to the Patriot Act.

    Situational values and morals invariably lead to the proverbial “slippery slop” toward an amoral society.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:48 am |
  190. leo

    Your question bothers me a great deal. The word terror is being used to much for ANY crime by some law enforcement. I do not object to the word BUT how it is being used to charge citizens of small infractions. In the school system and local police constantly used the word "terrorisitic on anything that interfer with the normal, from candy to school or have a pencil....It is like using the overuse word "HERO".
    What I fear is that charge of Terroristic means losing your citizenship because of overzelous law enforcement. I live in a small community of about 3000 people and that word is being applied to infractions NOT EVEN close to what you describe. If the movement is to remove citizenship based on the word "TERROR", Martial is around the corner. Many words not corrected.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:49 am |
  191. Hank


    I can tell that those who listen to the news forget that they have never heard any terrorist or terrorist representative say theu were against American rights and freedoms. That's something we have been fed to keep us paying for the wars in support of oil (Iraq, $billions) and heroin profits (Afghanistan, $billions) along with other things like pipeline routes, etc.

    Nobody has ever reported talking to a terrorist who hates our rights or our freedoms. Not once. Yet hundreds and hundreds of reports have mentioned their hatred of those rights and freedoms.

    Maybe the whole mess cold be cleared up, perhaps even ended, if we decided to open our ears and close the mouths of those working for vested corporate interests (pretty much all media).

    Then, if we found they really had a gripe, maybe we could decide on a course of action based in some reality, rather than what we are told by those corporate entities.

    They run our politics, so why would we forget that they also run our media, the tool they use to control popular opinion and keep things from being any different that they have been for the last few decades.

    The US has been involved in a shooting "war" (none of them declared by Congress, as our laws require) every single year since the end of WWII.

    e might want to take a look at who is really hurting the world.... who is really making troube,,,, then why anyone would want to get at us...

    Our forefathers were called terrorists and they were also called freedom fighters. I love my country, but I hardly think we are targeted for our freedoms or our rights. Also, I can't believe we are always innocent, blameless victims.

    Terrorism is the poor mans way of waging war against a powerful enemy. It's frequnetly costly to innocent lives, but that has never stopped the powerful from waging war with indescriminate mortality.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:49 am |
  192. Hank

    Besides, what can it hurt to read them their rights as we lock them away..

    May 11, 2010 at 9:50 am |
  193. EricE

    I am a naturalized PROUD U.S. Citizen and have been so for 41years. I believe 100% that the 5th Amendment should only apply to citizen. Terrorist non citizens SHOULD NOT be able to use are laws against us for their benefit. If you are a naturalized citizen and are found guilty you should be striped of it and punished accordingly.. Its a shame how soon we all forget that many of the 911 terrorist were protected by many of our laws. "Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it. – Winston Churchill

    May 11, 2010 at 9:51 am |
  194. MacAlpine

    A Miranda warning is not a constitutional right, but a vehicle to insure suspects/arrestees in governmental custody are aware of their Fifth Amendment rights. Fifth Amendment rights are triggered by the US Constitution and not by a Miranda Warning; therefore, no suspect ever has a duty to participate in any criminal interrogation or investigation process. Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment specifically bestows the rights to “persons” without restriction.

    So, the question arises if a suspected terrorist, not Marandized, refuses to talk – now what; we move to enhanced interrogation methods.

    This issue is “feel good” nonsense that will not protect anyone and likely lead to further erosion of Constitutional Rights akin to the Patriot Act.

    Situational values and morals invariably lead to the proverbial “slippery slope” toward an amoral society.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:54 am |
  195. Brendan h

    The key word in that is suspect. They have rights until they are proven guilty.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:54 am |
  196. SgtO

    Kyra – you seem to be glossing over the main reason the Miranda rights exist – "suspects".

    May 11, 2010 at 9:55 am |
  197. Elizabeth

    Less editorializing, please. Watching for the news. If I wanted to hear ranting I would watch the other news channel.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:55 am |
  198. Epignathus

    You tell 'em Pilot Kyra.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:55 am |
  199. Erinn

    Hell yes! Read them their rights and send em to court. Fact of the matter is "jury of your peers" in America is us and when it comes to terrorism, we're not nice, we want justice. Beside's these laws and rules we have are what keeps us civilized, their are crucial to our society. Everyone has a right to a fair trail, innocent or guilty, to be judged by your peers and to face your accusers. I think the people who are victims would love the opportunity to say what to that terrorist. And if and when found guilty the offense should handled with execution, eye for an eye and all that. Honestly, that seems to be the best compromise between the extremes on the left and right. And I think that America would agree.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:56 am |
  200. Robert

    Shazad was, of course, an American citizen, but I think we're losing the point here. Even non-Americans are read miranda rights when arrested, and I don't think it's fair to say that there's a separate rule for non-Americans. Believe it or not, it's less to do with them and more to do with America itself.

    We believe in due process and the rule of law. Period.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:56 am |
  201. Mike

    I don‘t know where you people have been but obviously never in jail. I was once arrested and when I told the judge I was not read my rights and he just laughed. The whole Miranda issue is a TV drama issue not an issue in real life. The whole argument is ridiculous because Americans now do not have the right.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:56 am |
  202. Louis B. Shalako

    I don't believe in information obtained through the use of torture. Except perhaps innocence.

    Citizen's rights are protected by the Constitution. Non-citizens have no such rights. Even serial killers are entitled to a fair trial.

    Even a serial killer is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

    Let the barbarians be barbarians–and let us not sink to their level.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:57 am |
  203. Michelle S

    I think that they deserve the miranda rights. If you stop giving them the rights then we are stooping just as low as the terrorist.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:58 am |
  204. Kevin

    Wow-Kira you just went up to the top of my "who to watch list". Great commentary on Miranda.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:58 am |
  205. M. Solomon

    I am posted in Afghanistan, and no matter how busy I am I make a habit of watching your show. Your passion, concern for others less fortunate and "sponk" makes me want to raise my "American" Flag just a little higher each day.

    M. Solomon

    May 11, 2010 at 9:58 am |
  206. gary boyle

    We should take a page from the british when they were fighting the I.R.A. You could be held up to 10 days with out charge while being investigated. Under there anti-terrorism act .Some thought that was pretty draconian but when you are battling an enemy who's mission is to destroy you. You play by different rules. and they don't enjoy the same rights as citizens!

    May 11, 2010 at 9:58 am |
  207. tom

    We pride ourselves in being a free nation and all are created equal. If we cannot give rights to all then we no longer are honorable. We would be just as bad as our enemies

    May 11, 2010 at 9:59 am |
  208. John Pelligrinelli

    Recently viewing the editorial on the Miranda Rights I could have sworn I heard the broadcaster use the word :"dirt bag." I understand that it may have been an accurate description of one of these terrorists as it may be used in a bar room but on CNN? "Dirt Bag?" I am not even amused when my 11 year old uses the description.

    May 11, 2010 at 9:59 am |
  209. Ethan

    I believe that if the suspected "terrorist" is aressted, they should be read their miranda rights, but only if they are a legal citizen. If found to be doing true acts of terror against the U.S. then they should instantly be labeled a traitor to the country and tried accordingly.

    May 11, 2010 at 10:00 am |
  210. Sam Woods

    Ms. Phillips,

    I just viewed your commentary on CNN. While I respect your right to say what you wish, I think it is dangerous journalism indeed that rolls over to any proposed abrogration of constitutional rights for US citizens. First, neither the executive or legislative branches have the ability to "modify" a US Supreme Court ruling on fundamental rights. The Court elicited the rule for Miranda warnings. Second, there is no guarantee whatsoever that any administration can and will correctly define a terrorist act and thus have the perfect knowledge required before a criminal conviction is in hand to decide exactly which accused individual shall not be Mirandized. To set aside the law for a US citizen is very dire indeed, and I expected the media to stand up to Obama on this just as it stood up to Bush on waterboarding. You have very good journalistic experience, however, if you must speak out on issues within the legal realm and then pontificate to Americans, you should attend at least a few con law classes at law school first. Shame on the media for rolling over on this issue. For once, I agree with the ACLU that this is a very slippery slope for US citizens.

    May 11, 2010 at 10:00 am |

    The Constitution does not specify those rights to an AMERICAN citizen, or even most rights. These rights are guaranteed to "the people". Here's the 9th amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I'm pretty sure terrorist would fall under "others retained by the 'people'".... It's this attitude that terrorist are just scumb that allows us to justify our actions of Neo-Western-Imperialism, murdering their people in the name of "freedom". In this sense, we are no different than the terrorist....stubborn in our ways, unwilling to consider another perspective, and unable to compromise. And what are these "rules of war" you talk about? "Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or who says it." – Malcolm X

    May 11, 2010 at 10:03 am |
  212. Bob in Texas

    Kyra, your view is shallow and short-sighted. The rights afforded in the constitution are a codification of some basic human rights that, in a just world, would be afforded every human being on earth. The recognition of these rights, including the right against self incrimination, is what sets us apart from the less civilized societies. What your suggesting is it's okay to slide down the slippery slope just a little to "get" certain bad guys.

    The same argument can be made regarding other offenders Maybe we should make the slide for drug dealers too, how about child molesters? Pretty soon we will slide to the level of the scumbags who fail to recognize human rights and we will be living under a regime every bit as evil as the one we oppose.

    Kyra, you opinion is based on feelings of revulsion and pure emotion. You have a journalistic responsibility to set emotion aside and make sure your arguments are based on reason. In other words "get a grip."

    If we are to maintain the moral high ground in this war, we must stick to reasoned principles, even when we think the bad guys don't deserve it. It's what sets us above them.

    May 11, 2010 at 10:04 am |
  213. Paul

    EricE – please don't invoke Winston Churchill when you're spouting off some random poorly thought out drivel.
    I thought I was watching fox news this morning when I heard what Kyra was saying. As an English immigrant myself living here in America I like to think that I'd be extended the same basic legal rights as anyone else if I was ever accused of a crime. Those "Miranda rights" are just the completely standard legal rights anyone gets in a civilised country to allow the legal process to run properly. To think that as a non-US citizen you shouldn't be allowed access to due legal process is just asking for trouble. What are you scared of – that the legal process is so screwed up you will be allowing people who have enacted terriible crimes to go free?

    May 11, 2010 at 10:05 am |
  214. Neil Enders

    Maybe, if we (the US) would have the guts to prosecute our own WAR CRIMINALS, the one that don't believe in our rule of law, who flaunt international laws and invade other counties for greed of oil (CHENEY); maybe we wouldn't have other trying to kill us on our soil.

    May 11, 2010 at 10:08 am |
  215. david goldberg


    How did we know the terrorists were guilty? Due Process. How about the accused Terrorists under the Bush Administration who were later found innocent? The Doctor, the Professor. Giving the Government power decide the crime without due process is a slippery slope. Although the terrorists are corrupt, they are not the only ones. Just because these evil people (THE TERRORISTS) do not care for our rights as citizens, does not justify giving our government the right to strip its citizens of their rights. Members of our government have abused their power in the past. That is why the Miranda rights were enacted. They are their to protect the innocent, not to protect the guilty. But due process determines guilt. Not a CNN report or a Police News Conference. I agree that the overwhelming evidence suggests that the current NYC Bombing suspect has overwhelming evidence including a confession, but I do not decide who is and who is not a suspect. Jews were considered terrorists During WWII in Germany. Japanese American citizens were sent to camps, Arab Americans were singled out in Airports after 911. I agree with protecting our country, but not from ourselves. And if we reverse the miranda rights for certain charges, I am certain some government employee will arrest a citizen and charge him or her with terrorism to avoid Miranda rights. In our recent history, goverments around the world have accused the media of inciting terrorism. So is it also your opinion that they should not have the same rights as the rest of the citizens of that country simply because they reported a story?

    David Goldberg

    May 11, 2010 at 10:10 am |
  216. basco de gamma

    Hi Kyra,
    First of all I must say I really enjoy the show and your new studio.

    Now to your question about giving terrorist suspects be given Miranda rights? I could give you a "blog-bite" suitable for posting on the news program, but the matter is a little more complicated than that and deserves a thoughtful response, to compliment your well phrased set-up for the question.

    I agree with most of your sentiments towards terrorists. I too believe they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, we are talking about terrorist SUSPECTS, not convicted criminals. I have to respectfully disagree with your position.

    While the Constitution defines U.S. citizenship, the Bill of Rights, where the Miranda warning was conceived (5th and 6th Amendments) it does not distinguish between citizen and alien. Both are afforded these rights. There is ample case law that supports this and grants many of these rights to foreigners. Americans should be celebrating this fact and not be opposed that our system grants these rights to all. It makes a clear and strong statement to the world that these are the rights of man, not just Americans. Can the organizations that support terrorism make the same claim?

    The other problem I have with the proposition is that they are suspects. Our system of justice(unlike the terrorists') presumes people are innocent until proven guilty. There really shouldn't be any reason to have to explain this, as history and current conditions in many parts of the world provide stark and oftentimes gruesome examples of what justice is like with out this premise. We have seen too many examples in our history and recent concerns with accusations of torture, detention, and disappearances (many reported on CNN) of situations where people have been presumed guilty before trial and suffered the consequences. With the prospect of capital punishment for terrorists, we must sure any suspect is provided the all the rights allowed before we put them to death, otherwise we are no better than the terrorists who have condemned innocent Americans to death based only on their twisted ideology.

    Thanks for listening (or, ah, reading)

    May 11, 2010 at 10:11 am |
  217. Ndubueze

    There shouldn't be any exception to this rule: anyone caught committing acts of terrorism should have his constitutional rights revoke whether that person is a natural born U.S. citizen or Naturalized citizen.

    May 11, 2010 at 10:12 am |
  218. Mollypot

    I do not believe that it is a good idea to allow the actions of terrorists, especially stupid ones, to upend a Supreme Court decision. How can we justify allowing people who wear defective bombs in underwear to intimidate us into overruling the legislative work product of some of the greatest minds in our nation?

    We are not defined by these people and we do not need to devolve in order to prevail.

    May 11, 2010 at 10:12 am |
  219. Alden C. Sheremata

    In concluding her Editorial on the question of whether or not Terrorists should be accorded their Miranda Rights Keira asked us what we think.
    " ... And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let us join in creating a new endeavor. Not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved." – JFK 1961.
    That's what I think.
    – Alden C. Sheremata.

    May 11, 2010 at 10:12 am |
  220. Kristell

    Very disappointed in you today.
    America has been built on the ideas of equality, fairness, and justice. Why then would we suspend a person's rights because fear is plaguing the nation? We allow people, who have murdered their fellow Americans to be given their miranda rights, to be given a fair trial, why is this any different?
    Do you also support the torture techniques that were implemented in Guantanamo Bay? Should we allow the government to completely disregard our Constitution, give them a blank check, allow our government to do as they will instead of as the people will?
    The system has been put in place for a reason, they are still suspects! In order to prevent the government from committing atrocities against the common man we must not so easily allow our rights to disappear. Please stop being a puppet for the government and continue in this fear campaign, the campaign that will lead to the downfall of America.
    Since when did the Republican Party take hold of the media altogether? I thought that was only Fox News, I guess I was wrong...

    May 11, 2010 at 10:12 am |
  221. Virginia

    I agree with you...Id like to tell him off as well, but I dont think it would work...what makes it worse if possible is he got an education here, and vowed to protect and obey laws of the USA, I think his rights to remain silent should be stripped when he is convicted...but my REAL thoughts is he should be stripped of NO he and other "people" that want to kill Amercians have NO RIGHTS!!!

    May 11, 2010 at 10:15 am |
  222. Alex Ambrioso

    Of course a terrorist does not deserve miranda rights nor does a convicted criminal. The problem is that until someone is proven guilty everyone, as a member of the human race, deserves the same rights as any American citizen. It is extremely difficult, in my humble opinion, to write law for this question. I think that the best law would use the nature of the evidence to decide when rights can be waived. For example, was the suspect caught in the act.

    It is a shame that popular news folks cannot be more subtle and careful in their commentary. It would help resolve issues like this one more quickly and in a more satisfactory fashion.

    Alex Ambrioso
    Valrico, Florida

    May 11, 2010 at 10:15 am |
  223. WTP1776

    As a US Citizen I feel stripping an American of their citizenship is outright WRONG! Whether you are an "ideal" citizen or convicted of a crime you have rights designed by our Founding Fathers in the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!! Come on People, the minute we allow our government to strip us of our rights the avalanche begins: they'll take away FREE SPEECH, the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS, and so on and so on until we are zombies!

    Type in "FEMA calls Founding Fathers the 1st Terrorist Oraganization in the USA" on YouTube . A FEMA Instructor calls Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Paul Revere TERRORSTS!!!

    As for non-citizen terror suspects. If the People want a trial in the US Court system then they have the right to an attorney. If not, then go back to the stone ages and stone them.

    Read the Constitution. It may save you some day.

    May 11, 2010 at 10:16 am |
  224. Don Nelson

    Kyra, I think you are pretty smart but this mirana argument makes you sound like a "shoot from the hip Republican". Don't you get it? If we take away their miranda rights they have won. That is what they want. Do you think think that if we tell them they must talk, they are going to? I think not. Maybe if the are silent we could waterboard them, or, put them on a stretching rack..............

    May 11, 2010 at 10:17 am |
  225. Atom

    To paraphrase a good man: the words of our Constitution and Bill of Rights must apply to everyone, or they mean nothing.

    May 11, 2010 at 10:18 am |
  226. joe d

    only if a U.S. citizen. If a citizen, and a home grown terrorist , tried for treason and shot!

    May 11, 2010 at 10:18 am |
  227. MacAlpine

    I suggest some folks need to read or re-read the Constitution's Bill of Rights. Neither the 5th or 6th Amendments speak to "citizen"; the reference is to "person" and "accused". And for the poor soul that believes Miranda Warning springs from the legislative process – well.

    For the proponents of usurping accused terrorist rights, what process is in place to guarantee the determination of terrorist is correct? And if the designation is later determined to be faulty do we lose the ability to prosecute using info garnered prior to Miranda? Could a school child taking a Halloween plastic sword to school be so labeled?

    This will create more problems and solve none except the insecurity some folks feel.

    May 11, 2010 at 10:31 am |
  228. Jeff

    Your comments on this issue are, perhaps the most frightening thing I've ever heard a newscaster speak! Here is a phrase you may remember from the distant past... "innocent until proven guilty". Think about that and then consider that a terror suspect is just that, innocent until proven guilty. Until that time, he (or she) should enjoy the same rights as the rest of America's citizens. Until that time, how do you know he really is a terrorist?

    May 11, 2010 at 10:35 am |
  229. Gloria Atcherson

    So you want to take away Miranda from Faisal and his brothers. That would just make them like the Red man in this country today and the Black man some years ago–and maybe again if seen fit. There were no white manmade laws to prevent genocide of almost all of the indigenous people on this continent. There were no white man's law that prevented Africans from being brutally torn from their God given land, their families, their culture. There were no white folks' laws to prevent humans from being stacked ten deep, drenched with feces, urine, vomitus in the undertows of ships with names such as Jesus and Lord. There was no miranda-like law to prevent the Africans who miraculously survived from being hanged, doused with kerosene and burned alive for the entertainment of white people. These acts could only have been conceived and carried out by people with demonic guidance. And your only fear is "terrorists"? You would condemn Faisal to purgatory? Can you imagine where "right-thinking" indigenous people of this land and Africans would condemn you? I am sure purgatory would be too mild. And just for the record–this is NOT your land. God gave this land to the Red man and separated him far, far, from you. YOUR land is east of New York and across the Atlantic. Perhaps now some of you will conjure up a law for God.

    May 11, 2010 at 10:53 am |
  230. Dan in Lafayette,IN

    No they should not have any rights except that of a prisoner of war. Those of whom are American citizens should be given the Miranda Rights but as one of your watchers wrote should be tried for treason and given the death penalty which should be executed promptly as with Timothy McVeigh.

    May 11, 2010 at 11:24 am |
  231. Jimmie Johnson

    You are wrong on this one and so is the A.G.( I know the average person, myself included, sometimes think: Let's HANG them and then give them a FAIR trial.) It's human nature with such horrorible crimes.

    This is one of the slippery slopes the Bush Admin. always loved and I hope the Obama Admin. will not continue. Where do you STOP when it comes to usurping Miranda ? The Crime ?, The Act ?, The Intent ?, The Threat ?, The Color ?. Every criminal act is an act that takes away a citizens right to do something. It doesn't matter if it's a Bomb or a Bank Robbery. The Jury has the final say. As long as the American People on the Jury use common sense justice will be delivered in the end without circumventing it at the beginning.

    May 11, 2010 at 12:14 pm |
  232. Eddie Bryan

    Yes, everyone should have these rights read to them. They are basic human rights.

    May 11, 2010 at 12:24 pm |
  233. kelly anspaugh

    To begin with, not all legal rights guaranteed by the Constitution are limited to "citizens." Many apply to "persons" within the territory of the United States. There are a couple million in this country legally at the moment who are not citizens. Should they be denied all legal rights? Should our government be able to treat them any way it wants, even abusively?

    Ms. Phillips in her less-than-literate editorial asked "Should terrorist suspects be given Miranda rights?" What exactly is a terrorist suspect? Who decides? At the moment, apparently, anyone the President says is a terrorist suspect is a terrorist suspect, regardless of the amount or quality of evidence against him or her. Do we want that to be the standard? Recall that the Bush administration kept insisting that those kept in detention in Gitmo were all "the worst of the worst." Turns out that a great many of them were completely innocent, sold by the Northern Alliance and others to the U.S. military for bounties. In the present climate of fear, almost anyone could accuse almost anyone of being a terrorists and the latter would instantly become a "suspect." So we deny all those accused of any civil rights?

    The Miranda warning was instituted to keep policemen from using "the third degree" - that is, torture - to coerce confessions out of people in custody, to give those detained a minimal level of protection against coerced self-incrimination. The law upon which it is based is a good law and should be retained to protect the common people from the tyranny of those in authority.

    The irony of all of this is that some of the most recent terrorist suspects have been willing to spill their guts in spite of being mirandized. We should not underestimate the ability of a well-trained interrogator to use rapport-building techiques to get a suspect to talk. Too often people who know nothing about the art of interrogation want to rush to judgment, rush to the argument of the club. Not the right way in a civilized, democratic society.

    We have a principle of justice in our country: Better that a hundred guilty men go free than an innocent man be wrongly convicted and imprisoned. Seems to me that in the War on Terror that thinking has been reversed: Better that a hundred innocent men be tortured and wrongly imprisoned than one guilty terrorist go free. Very sad.

    May 11, 2010 at 1:00 pm |
  234. Audrey

    Terrorists don't hate you for your "freedoms" – you seem to be losing mkore every day. The largest terrorist attack in the World has been the "Shock and Awe of Iraq" (illegal war on people who didn't do a thing to you). When are these people going to be brought to justice? The Iraqis aren't even allowed to pursue these criminals because they are Americans. The Japanese are trying to get rid of American military bases because those Americans, that are committing criminal acts aren't subject to Japanese law either. Americans are killing women and children in Afghanistan but they aren't able to be prosecuted because they are Americans. Think carefully of all the places in the World that Americans are getting away with criminal acts and are accountable to no one and then you won't wonder why some people try to obtain some justice (in their own perverted way).

    May 11, 2010 at 1:47 pm |
  235. Jeryl

    If they are citizens, they should have the right. But, no, if they're not citizens. That goes for illegal aliens, too. They're not citizens, they're not entitled to the benefits of citizenship and they should go home ASAP.

    May 11, 2010 at 1:54 pm |
  236. Phil Capitola

    Should the Michigan militia, the Hutaree, also have their citizenship and Miranda rights taken away?

    May 11, 2010 at 2:33 pm |
  237. R. Rajhansa

    Kyra, You go girl; couldn't have said it any better myself; along with millions of my fellow citizens, we've been thinking the same. Treason is the charge for any citizen.

    May 11, 2010 at 2:35 pm |
  238. JROFdl

    It is not practical. A US criminal, mistakenly thought to be a terrorist, found guilty but not Mirandized would have instant cause for appeal. Our courts would grind to a halt. Clever, thoughtful, informed minds created the laws by which our republic operates. Let's not throw them out in a moment of pique.

    May 11, 2010 at 5:23 pm |
  239. Jeryl

    WTP1776, I agree with you reference stripping an American citizen of his/her citizenship IF that citizen is native born. However, if a naturalized citizen were to become a terrorist, I would say that losing that citizenship would be quite appropriate.

    Hey, Dan in Lafayette: right on!

    May 11, 2010 at 5:32 pm |
  240. Jamie Rueffer

    Everyone deserves their Miranda Rights. Remember their only accused of a crime they haven't been proven guilty of anything.

    May 12, 2010 at 2:16 am |
  241. charity

    Taking away a terrorists rights only proves that we are as bad as they are. Our Constitution states that ALL men are created equal. That means everyone. By taking the higher ground and giving everyone the SAME rights, no matter if they are a citizen or not, only proves that we are the greater country. Everyone should have the sames rights, and the same due process. Treating radicals badly will only incite their anger and will start a landslide as to who's rights will be taken away. It's a slippery slope I hope we don't take.

    May 12, 2010 at 10:37 am |
  242. fyba

    I believe terror suspects are suspects but not terrorists. they should have miranda rights too. but should they interrogators fail like they did in the shahaz's case, they can always read the rights to him and repeat the questions. miranda rights are, because lawmakers believe it is only appropriate not because it is American.

    May 15, 2010 at 4:34 pm |