"CAPTURED!!!" A tweet by the Boston Police Department last Saturday, starting with this single word, signaled the end of a reign of terror that gripped the city for six days and resulted three deaths and nearly 300 injuries. But the declaration has done little to shift the spotlight from the bombings to other subjects. Instead, the due process of terror suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has become the center of debate. In a controversial decision, the Obama administration declined to read the suspect his Miranda rights, invoking a public safety exception that originated from a 1984 Supreme Court case. Furthermore, there have been calls, led by Senators Kelly Ayotte, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, for the suspect to be designated as an enemy combatant. The appeal by these three senators is not only inappropriate in this context, but also endangers all citizens of the United States.
The reading of a suspect's Miranda rights is an act that has become embedded in national culture. It is commonplace for television shows and movies to include scenes of law enforcement officials reading a suspect his or her legal rights to due process. But, contrary to popular belief, this is not always required. There is a public safety exception, which is meant to allow law enforcement officials to ensure the safety of a crime scene before reading a suspect his or her Miranda rights. Citing this exception, law enforcement officials declined to read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev his legal rights upon his capture, in the hopes of questioning him to ensure that the terror had indeed reached its end.
The decision to use this exception is questionable. It implies that law enforcement officials have reason to believe that there is an ongoing threat. While it is impossible for average citizens to make a fully informed judgment of this move, we need to remain vigilant in the protection of American citizens' rights to due process. Only when more information regarding the extent to which there was an ongoing threat is brought to the public's attention can we make a fair judgment on this decision.
What we can make a reasonably informed judgment on, at this point, are the calls by a number of senators, including Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, for Tsarnaev to be labeled an enemy combatant and interrogated as such. Doing so would not only set a terrible precedent, but would jeopardize the legal rights of other American citizens in the process. The right of habeas corpus, the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney are all very clearly spelled out in the Constitution to ensure that American citizens are tried fairly for crimes they may have committed. Without these guaranteed rights, there would be nothing barring the federal government from wrongfully interrogating its enemies without just motivation.
The Supreme Court previously decided that enemy combatants of the United States apprehended on a foreign battlefield may be held for an indefinite period of time. The purpose of this is very clear: it does not make strategic sense to release a captured combatant to the enemy, only to have to face this enemy again on the battlefield. This, however, is clearly not the case with Tsarnaev. As an American citizen with no clear ties to Al Qaeda, who committed a crime on American soil, he ought to be tried in a manner consistent with his constitutional rights.
It would be inappropriate to confine and interrogate Tsarnaev for the period of 30 days that Senator Graham has suggested, during which time the government would look for evidence to justify its detention. This system, in which suspects are essentially guilty until proven innocent, is contrary to the basic presumption of innocence.
Although it may be a natural human instinct to react strongly after the events of last week, it is important to not lose sight of the implications of our actions. If we designate the suspect as an enemy combatant, in addition to using the public safety exception, we will be in serious danger of setting a precedent that the government may infringe on the rights of an American citizen. Doing so would carry serious consequences into the future. Instead, we should end Tsarnaev's legacy fairly, in criminal court.
