Inalienable Rights?

On Saturday in New York city a bomb was discovered in Time Square. By good fortune, the bomb did not go off. It has been describes as a poorly made device, of propane tanks fire works and fertilizer. An amazing 52 hours later the man the police suspect to be the bomber was in custody. His name is Faisal Shahzad he is an American citizen originally from Pakistan. When he was arrested he was given his Miranda warnings. The conservatives were angered by this. The theme of the complaint ran like this “if you read him his rights you can’t interrogate him properly”. By “interrogate properly” we can surmise they mean abusive and coercive treatment. This same call to withhold Miranda was made in the case of the underpants bomber, for the same reason. If he isn’t read his rights you can do stuff to him that is normally forbidden.
The difference here is a big one, Shahzad is an American citizen while Abdulmutallab was from Nigeria. The constitution does not contain a Miranda provision , but supreme court up held its constitutionality, so it’s the law. The Constitution provides that citizen and non-citizen face the same standard of treatment with regards to criminal procedure. This is a good thing. The power of the State after all doesn’t diminish just because you are from somewhere else.
The fact that conservatives are asking that rights be withheld for a little while, just long enough to extract the necessary information, tells me they most not understand the what rights are. The Miranda warning is the legal expression of a moral/ethical position. What the Miranda warning is shielding the suspect from abuse of power. The man in custody is facing the full weight and power of the State. It is acknowledged that in circumstances like this abuse is likely and in a nation of Laws protection from this potential abuse is necessary in the interests of justice. The notion of justice is important.
Those angling for temporarily withholding Miranda are telling us that this notion of justice is not impaired as long as the abuse comes before the legal protection. This is a fiction cemented in the belief that the Law is only procedure and underpinned by nothing. You can’t violate a right until it is possessed. This argument defies logic. Miranda like most rights are the distilled product of need. Rights are the answer to the question of how do we ensure Justice, equality and guarantee freedom. Rights delineated in constitutions the world over do not exist because someone recorded them in writing and declared them Law. The right to free speech, association , freedom of religion…. , existed before, some as conventions deeply embedded in our society. Constitutions were the formal written expression of something that already existed, but now had legal force. No longer could the agents of the state apply or deny rights as they wished.
The conservatives in their fear, in their zeal want to do just that. They seem to want to return to those days when whim dictated justice. No state should ever be asked to destroy itself in order to remain pure of principle. Until that time approaches we must remain dedicated not only to the process but of the moral and ethical underpinnings of the Law.