MIranda and human rights

In speaking of the Times Square bomber yesterday, the question of Mirandizing came up, and in a very reasonable series of responses, Frank suggested that this right should be extended to Americans. It was also pointed out that this was difficult in a battlefield situation, and I have to agree. But I got the sense that part of the potential disagreement comes from some core difference of pre-assumption. While my opinions about these things are only my own, I felt it might be useful to make them explicit.
1) That the basic human rights given to Americans are given not as a gift, but because they are "self evident" and intrinsic. Law is not granting privilege, but rather acknowledging the true nature of man. Attempting to guide us toward spiritual and social growth by discouraging the natural human instinct to deprive rights and tear the flesh of those who frighten us. These are not rights to be "given" to Americans but not to others.
2) The best way to protect our country is to protect the core principles that make it such an incredible, wonderful dream. An ideal of freedom and possibility that arises from human aspirations going back to the beginning of time. The idea that the maturation or humanity of a society is displayed best by the way it treats those powerless in its grasp. Again, this is not about the lives and comfort of the "enemy"--it is about the disposition of our own souls. If one takes the position that the spiritual reality has nothing to do with this--we care only about survival, then the discussion must be whether coercive tactics, or lack of Mirandizing, best contributes to that survival. A perfectly valid conversation.
3) My belief is that coercive tactics do NOT make us safer. That Mirandizing DOES. My logic works like this: it is critical for us to find and punish the actual guilty people. Critical also that we protect the innocent. I notice in discussions like this that almost never do those in favor of harsh tactics (let's lump the Miranda conversation under this umbrella just for convenience) refer to "terrorism suspects." They refer instead to "terrorists" as if they have certain knowledge that that is what these people are. Excuse me? I thought that was what the legal process was about, the determination of guilt, and the decision of appropriate punishment.

Miranda, and the various prohibitions against torture, exist at least in part because we understand the human tendency to rush to judgement, to lynch based on "everybody knows the bastard's guilty!"
"he confessed!" when we know that there has probably never been a society where the police, under killer emotional stress, have not applied force to elicit false confessions. Where the insane have not confessed to crime they did not commit. Where false witness was not a tool of vengeance (why else would it be in the 10 Commandments?). Where honest mistakes are not made by, say, soldiers trained to kill and protect, NOT to be CSI or Profilers while figuring out who was shooting at them, and why.
"Extending" rights to people is probably technically accurate. My belief that the Founders considered these rights innate and unalienable can be debated, but I think it appropriate to make my case here explicit. Protecting the rights of strangers is protecting my own rights, and the rights of my family--knowing that to many, I am the "Other" and that arguments about taking my rights have been made, and not always behind closed doors. I won't go there.
4) So that would be my position. Those on the other side would seem to believe that:
a) Torture extracts more valid and valuable information than non-coersive means.
b) That human rights are granted by the state rather than intrinsic in our existence.
c) That granting a suspect a lawyer, and reminding them of their right not to self-incriminate weakens the legal system's ability to bring the guilty to justice.
##
All of these things are points I have heard made by sane, honorable people. They would seem to support a different POV on the human condition, the proper course of society, and the nature of reality than that I hold. That pesky thing I've noticed where people talk about "terrorists" rather than "terrorism suspects" bothers me...it suggests a level of assumed omniscience in government employees...but is often given by people who, under other circumstances, seem to take the position that government can't be trusted to do anything right.

This really troubles me, and would seem to be double-speak. Perhaps (and I mean this sincerely) I am missing something. But it feels like it comes out of raw fear, and that primal urge to hurt those who frighten us, and a belief that "I know a bad guy when I see one." The typical police officer or soldier might be twice as moral and wise as the average citizen--and under the daily survival stress would STILL be capable of extraordinarily inhumane behavior. "Cry havoc and loose the dogs of war." Open those gates, and you unleash the most horrific potentials of the human psyche. This isn't about soldiers and cops being bad people. This is about them being human beings. I really, really, don't want to ask them to exhibit restraint or judgement that seems beyond the ability of human beings. I don't want to give men with guns the belief that they can determine who is guilty. Inevitably, soldiers and police must make such decisions: someone shoots at them, shoot back! Someone is running down the street carrying a gun and a sack of money, it's a bank robber! Or as Dirty Harry said "I see a naked man running after a woman, with a knife and a hard-on, I shoot the bastard." I get that, under stress, you have to make snap decisions. But when that instant stress diminishes, THAT is where we have to cool down, and make the very best judgment about guilt or innocence. Understanding in the process that we have to protect ourselves not merely from the "bad guys" but from the imperfections of our own minds and spirits.

This is difficult stuff. People who think differently from me on this are still good and decent people--and tend to be the kinds of folks who actually place themselves in peril to protect our country and community. No one who has ever read a single one of my books could hallucinate that I have anything but the highest respect for them. And yet...if human beings didn't cheat under pressure, didn't make mistakes to give "their team" advantage, we wouldn't have this odd thing called referees at every damn sporting event.

We're imperfect. We are afraid. We cheat for the home team. We believe our tribe is better, and that the "Other" isn't quite as human as we. Bad combinations under stress.