proven guilty, are no different than any other criminals, and have the Fifth and Sixth Amendments backing them up, they should be guaranteed the rights enumerated in the Miranda warnings.
Innocent until proven guilty is the phrase that is used to describe someone who has not been found guilty of a crime, such as a suspect, who must await trails until that decision can be made. Terrorist suspects are in the same boat as robbery suspects in that they have yet to be found to be completely guilty. Many people who are suspects often end up not being guilty of the crime for which they are being accused. As every suspect is considered to be innocent until they are proven guilty, they should be entitled to the rights that are drawn out in the Miranda warning. A suspected terrorist is as innocent as any suspected criminal until decided otherwise before a court.
Terrorist suspects are just like any other criminal suspects. They have committed a crime, they have done something wrong against another person, organization, or something larger, such as the United States, and they have been caught. Someone who is suspected of terrorist activity should get the same treatment and rights as a person who is suspected of robbing a store or murdering a family member. Indeed, it seems that people who have committed a heinous crime such as murder or rape are entitled to more rights than someone who is suspected of engaging in terrorist activity. In reality, there is no difference between the different types of criminals. If one criminal is entitled to the laws that are displayed in the Miranda warnings, than those that are accused of terrorist activity should get the same benefits.
As was the case in Miranda versus Arizona, the U.S. Supreme Court case that birthed the Miranda rights (Sonneborn, 2003), the criminal suspects that are denied their Miranda rights are essentially denied their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. The Fifth Amendment protects criminals from abuse of government