New York University's independent student newspaper, established in 1973.

Washington Square News

New York University's independent student newspaper, established in 1973.

Washington Square News

New York University's independent student newspaper, established in 1973.

Washington Square News

A mural of a woman’s face holding up a chain with the word “LOISAIDA” and a gold cityscape. The words “el bohio murals” and “#BRINGARTBACK” are next to the woman alongside the words “CURATED BY … THRIVECOLLECTIVE.ORG.”
Activists’ 25-year fight to revive an East Village community center
Dharma Niles, Deputy News Editor • Mar 12, 2024
A front entrance with the text “Electric Lady Studios” written in a retro white font on two reflective walls.
‘An exploitative environment’: The interns behind Electric Lady Studios
Julia Diorio, Music Editor • Feb 20, 2024

Boston bombing suspect deserved Miranda rights

Although the Boston terror suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has finally been read his Miranda rights, constitutional scholars are still debating whether it was appropriate. Must Dzhokhar, as a U.S. citizen, necessarily be Mirandized?

One can argue that the Boston Marathon bombing was a rare case and a legitimate exception to the rule. There may have been knowledge about an imminent threat, and reading his Miranda rights could have compromised such important information.

Indeed, there is an idea that states cannot intrude upon certain fundamental rights, but none of these are absolute. Free exercise of religion is not an absolute right. Polygamy is not allowed. Free speech is also not an absolute right. Fighting words, imminent danger and obscenity are all curtailments of free speech.

Similarly, Miranda rights are not absolutely guaranteed. They should not be read initially if there is an imminent security threat. If Tsarnaev was read his rights, perhaps he would have kept silent and not given the information about the Times Square plot, or not have shed light on acting alone with his brother. However, carving out an exception is a slippery slope.

A very controversial constitutional moment was in 1977 when the Nazi Party in America decided to march through Skokie, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago populated by Holocaust survivors. The Chicago authorities moved to ban all political demonstrations in public parks. The American Civil Liberties Union defended the right of the Nazi Party to march, their argument being that the principle of free speech supersedes the content of speech.

Therefore, if we purport to stand for these ideas of rights and liberties, and we claim that terrorists are fighting against our way of life, then we have to be the strongest, most positive instantiation of the things we stand for — even if they are enemies. Are we willing to trade off less safety for more freedom?

 

A version of this article appeared in the Wednesday, April 1 edition. Please email the WSN editorial board at [email protected].

View comments (4)
More to Discover

Comments (4)

Comments that are deemed spam or hate speech by the moderators will be deleted.
All Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 

  • G

    GuestMay 1, 2013 at 7:24 pm

    Not necessarily, I think it is justified to deny a right temporarily to a terrorist in such a way that might save innocent lives.

    Reply
  • A

    AsianMay 1, 2013 at 4:38 pm

    Yes, terrorism is inexcusable…but yes, he should be given his rights.

    Reply
    • N

      Not soMay 1, 2013 at 7:25 pm

      HOME

      OPINION

      Boston bombing suspect deserved Miranda rightsPosted on May 1, 2013by WSN Editorial Board

      Although the Boston terror suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has finally been read his Miranda rights, constitutional scholars are still debating whether it was appropriate. Must Dzhokhar, as a U.S. citizen, necessarily be Mirandized?

      One can argue that the Boston Marathon bombing was a rare case and a legitimate exception to the rule. There may have been knowledge about an imminent threat, and reading his Miranda rights could have compromised such important information.

      Indeed, there is an idea that states cannot intrude upon certain fundamental rights, but none of these are absolute. Free exercise of religion is not an absolute right. Polygamy is not allowed. Free speech is also not an absolute right. Fighting words, imminent danger and obscenity are all curtailments of free speech.

      Similarly, Miranda rights are not absolutely guaranteed. They should not be read initially if there is an imminent security threat. If Tsarnaev was read his rights, perhaps he would have kept silent and not given the information about the Times Square plot, or not have shed light on acting alone with his brother. However, carving out an exception is a slippery slope.

      A very controversial constitutional moment was in 1977 when the Nazi Party in America decided to march through Skokie, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago populated by Holocaust survivors. The Chicago authorities moved to ban all political demonstrations in public parks. The American Civil Liberties Union defended the right of the Nazi Party to march, their argument being that the principle of free speech supersedes the content of speech.

      Therefore, if we purport to stand for these ideas of rights and liberties, and we claim that terrorists are fighting against our way of life, then we have to be the strongest, most positive instantiation of the things we stand for — even if they are enemies. Are we willing to trade off less safety for more freedom?

      Reply
      • N

        Not soMay 1, 2013 at 7:25 pm

        AOKsjdoiasdjoiamnf

        Reply