Comment: The judge was right that you do have

(See in situ)


The judge was right that you do have

those rights whether you were read them or not.

It's interesting that it's impossible to protest they weren't explained without admitting you know what they are and waiving your right to remain silent. Perhaps a lawyer could come up with a way to press the issue, but would also have to claim whatever the suspect said was in light of not knowing, just as in the original Miranda case.

The significance of "enemy combatants" not being read them is that it's done intentionally, then defended as because they are claiming those rights don't exist for that individual. If there's a discrepancy over Mirandizing otherwise, there is room to claim the arrestee only talked because they didn't know. They didn't neglect to mirandize the Chechen kid so he wouldn't know, but so they can torture him and advance the concept of legal torture under the motivation of making someone talk.

Defend Liberty!