What I don’t get about this whole argument about whether terrorists or other criminals should be “Miranda-ized” is that the act of “reading someone their rights” isn’t what confers those rights upon them. The Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and for counsel exist whether the suspect is told of them or not.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
There’s nothing in there about “unless we don’t tell you about this part of the Constitution.” These are rights that are supposed to be conferred on anyone involved in the American legal system, apart from the exceptions described in the amendment. Despite the eagerness for a regime oftorture and beatings of suspects, the act of informing them of their rights makes no actual change in their legal status; it’s the suspect’s knowing assent to incriminate themself or to act without counsel that affects that status.
The huffing and puffing about whether law enforcement should have to let them know they have those rights is only going to taint an enormous amount of prosecution evidence going forward. Assuming, of course, that we keep the Fifth Amendment around.