right. it is absurd. we have rights and we don t read them. to me miranda is the equivalent of civil rights. it is like reminding black people they don t have to sit at the back of the bus every time they get on the bus. i am so glad you both say that. if i could mention that that was a great analogy. yes, it was very good. i was actually looking at it from the complete flip side of you, tom. my view is, and this is to me i don t understand, but conservatives now seem to be arguing the government gives us these rights and can withhold them. it is an old position for conservatives to take. my point is, you have this right and the government may not infringe upon whether they tell you or not. unless a confession is voluntary it can t be used against you in a court of law. it doesn t mean no one in authority can never ask you a question. and to tom s point, if it happens to be true that what the constitution requires is it be voluntary and not that
without mir ran dieing them. you are going to say no they won t hold them for 10 years? they was a hyperbole, but they could hold them for some amount of time and ask them a lot of questions. the reason that is relevant here is there seems to be qeet enough information to convict this guy without what he says in the hospital room. it is just to the guy he hijacked. it is not like we need his statements to convict him. it would be useful to get some national security information. but unless you declare him an enemy combatant, you can t hold him forever without reading him his rights. correct. what they are read a miranda after 12 hours or something? 16. we could have held him a little longer. the other thing, the miranda rights, you have your miranda rights whether they are read to you or not. that s the thing. that s what i was talking about. the romance of reading the