Miranda Rights?

The hot question among pundents, right now, is whether to give Miranda Rights to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, the second suspect in the Boston Marathon Bombings.

I have strong distinct feelings about this, as do others; and we are going to see sincere splits among conservatives, on this issue.  Looking forward, it seems only fair that as a US citizen, this man should be offered his Miranda Rights.  After all, we wouldn't want the government or law enforcement to take advantage of innocent citizens at some point, in this way.  Those of us that respect and uphold the US Constitution, rightfully do not want our freedoms to be infringed.

However, there is a bit more to look at in this situation than simply what we see on the surface. We are told there is no precedent for a situation such as this.  But the truth of the matter, there is.  Traitors or spies in World War II were understood to have revoked their rights as citizens, more recently in Afghanistan a citizen was treated as an enemy combatant, and recently - with a bit of a different situation - the drone attack on Anwar al Awlaki recently in Yemen. John Yoo further set precedence in regard to Miranda in that incident.  Newt Gingrich, in agreement eloquently explains the situation in one of his newsletters:

Congress gave the president the authority to use “all necessary and appropriate force” force against Al Qaeda in 2001. Anyone engaged in war against the United States, whether an American citizen or not, is subject to the use of force by the U.S. As John Yoo put it this week, "American citizens who join the enemy do not enjoy a roving legal force-field that immunizes them from military reprisal."

President Obama was entirely within his rights to take action against a top-ranking member of a group that has declared war on the U.S., and who was actively seeking to launch new attacks against this country.

President Obama's legal advisors unanimously agreed.

In addition to eliminating an important figure in the Al Qaeda leadership, Awlaki's killing might be good news in one other regard. I hope it represents a concession by the Obama administration that the view the Left has championed for years—that terrorism is just a "law enforcement" issue—is fundamentally wrong.

This is a war. Now at least one of the administration's legal opinions admits that fact.

In our documentary America at Risk: The War With No Name, Callista and I discussed the refusal of the Left to speak honestly about the enemy we are at war with. Our number one example in that movie was Major Hasan, the Fort Hood Shooter inspired by Alwaki. The section on Alwaki below shows exactly why we must consider this a war:

The ACLU and others accusing the President are in complete denial about the nature of the threat we face. American citizenship cannot be used as protection with which to wage war against America.

The truth of the matter, certain facts change things in this situation dynamically. The Tsarnaev brothers were without a doubt enemy combatants and need to be treated as such.  Furthermore, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev became a US Citizen only a year ago under false pretenses.  He had no intentions of honoring and upholding the Constitution as he took an oath to do. He became a US citizen on September 11, 2012.  Come on!  His citizenship is a sham and should be revoked. 

But other than all of that, regardless of how I feel on the subject, Jay Sekulow, of the American Center for Law and Justice, explains the concerns far better in this interview:

Please watch.     Where will Boston Marathon suspect be brought to justice?