Dear editor:
"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you."
These words — the Miranda warnings — are familiar to virtually every American who has ever watched a police procedural show. Yet while most Americans recognize these warnings, few know much about Ernesto Miranda, the man for whom they are named.
Ernesto Miranda was arrested on March 13, 1963, for rape and kidnapping.
After confessing to the charges, he was tried, convicted, and sentenced to 55 years in prison.
However, the United States Supreme Court overturned his conviction, ruling that his confession was inadmissible because he had not been informed of his constitutional rights beforehand.
Miranda was later retried without the use of his confession and was once again convicted, receiving a 30-year prison sentence. Tragically, four years after his release on parole, Miranda was stabbed to death in a bar fight.
In a final irony, Miranda’s killer was read his Miranda rights upon arrest.
Despite his serious crimes, Ernesto Miranda was afforded the full protections guaranteed by the Constitution.
These rights were not extended to him because of his character, but because every individual physically present within the United States — regardless of status or reputation — is entitled to due process under the law.
This historical lesson is particularly relevant today in light of the case of Abrego Garcia. According to varying sources, Mr. Garcia is either a Maryland husband and father unjustly detained, or a criminal, terrorist, gang member, and human trafficker.
Federal officials, including the president, have publicly asserted that Mr. Garcia does not deserve the protections of due process.
However, whether Mr. Garcia is a "good man" is immaterial.
Due process is not contingent upon character; it is a foundational principle designed to protect everyone, citizen and non-citizen alike.
If due process were reserved only for citizens — and no opportunity existed for individuals to contest their status — how would a person prove citizenship before being unlawfully removed?
Moreover, it is important to distinguish what is currently happening. The government is not conducting deportations, which involve the removal of individuals unlawfully present in the country.
Nor are they conducting extraditions, which involve transferring individuals to face charges in another nation.
Instead, the United States government appears to be engaging in extraordinary rendition: forcibly transferring individuals, without charges or convictions, to foreign prisons — specifically in El Salvador — and compensating foreign governments to detain them indefinitely.
Many commentators have warned that the United States is drifting toward authoritarianism.
In reality, with the erosion of due process, we have already arrived. Whether or not one supports the president’s policies, the dismantling of due process protections should alarm every American, regardless of political affiliation.
I urge all citizens to recognize the gravity of this moment. Please consider taking a few minutes to contact your senators and representative.
The defense of constitutional rights is a moral imperative. Once lost, these protections will not be easily regained.
Sincerely,
Marc Tetenman
Teton County, Wyoming
