The Next Detainee?

Meet Megan McRee, an American kicked out of Russia for allegedly contacting Islamic extremists via the Net. McRee is now being questioned by the FBI. If she asked for a lawyer, would she get one?

Comments

[grant]

Apparently, the lady was seeking political asylum in Russia (hahahahahaaha) ... oh let me catch my breath... She left the US ten years ago because of CIA persecution. She is probably an amateur, otherwise you would have never heard mention of her. The Russians would have dealt with her quietly, and she would have never seen the light of day.

[Steve]

sounds like a head case. Don't think the bad guys will attack Hollywood, tho. That's their biggest base of support here.

If she IS an American citizen, she's due all the constitutionally guaranteed rights the rest us have.

[growler]

She is nuts.

Go read this:

http://www.comebackkid.com/megan.html

[Ric]

Get a lawyer? Sure if she is placed under arrest. Being questioned by the FBI does not entitle one to a lawyer.

[Warren]

Good to know she's a head case. Once we determine that, we don't have to worry about her "constitutionally guaranteed rights", right? Seems to me I read something along these lines somewhere before.
http://www.reason.com/0205/cr.bd.ill.shtml

[Thales]

Note to Steve and to Ric. Non-citizens are also entitled to most constitutional protections due to citizens when within an American jurisdiction. Any time she is "in custody," she is entitled to remain silent and to consult with an attorney. Once she is formally under arrest or has any judicial proceeding instituted against her, she is entitled to provide her own counsel or to have government appointed counsel.

[Thales]

Or at least that's how it's supposed to work. Maybe the downsized Bill of Rights 2.0 says something different. 🙂 For a close to home laugh, see http://www.theonion.com/onion3847/bill_of_rights.html

[Thomas]

My understanding is that she doesn't have a right to re-enter the US, much less a right to counsel. Now, if she's allowed to re-enter, the normal rules apply, unless she reenters as an enemy combatant, in which case they don't.

[Steve]

Note to Thales-My Constitution of the United States of America doesn't say anything about the rights of people who are not citizens. We may give them those protections out of the goodness of our collective hearts, but that's about it.

Note to Warren-Pretty sure I said she was allowed Constitutional guarantees, head case or not.

RTGDMFP, please.

[Dan]

Thales, non-citizens are protected by the Constitution due to a Supreme Court ruling, not due to specific allowances in the text of the Constitution itself. What the Supreme Court giveth, the Supreme Court can taketh away.

As for whether or not McRee would get a lawyer if she asked for one -- of course she would. Even the "enemy combatants" have gotten lawyers, after all.

[Brad S]

growler - I checked out that link. That chick's got issues, man...

[Evilcor]

McRee? Sounds vaguely Gaelic. For her sake, I hope she was never a Puerto Rican gang member; then she'd be in REAL trouble!

[Kevin Carson]

Steve:

It's been a while since I read the documents on the drafting and ratification of the C., but I'm pretty sure the word "person" was chosen instead of "citizen" for the major guarantees just so that basic rights of due process, etc., would be shared by all within the government's jurisdiction.

Derek and Thomas:
How do we KNOW she was an "enemy combatant" or building a dirty bomb, unless the government produces evidence of it in court? The whole point of requiring jury trials with the burden of proof on the state, is that we shouldn't have to take their word that somebody is guilty unless they can prove it to the satisfaction of a jury. After all, what if Bush's opponent in the next election was just declared an "enemy combatant" and held without charge? There've been too civil rights workers "shot trying to escape" or who "committed suicide in their cells" for me to trust the piggies on this one.

[Derek]

Guess it would depend on whether or not the authorities feel that she poses a major risk or not. I mean, was she building a dirty bomb or was she simply taking an interest in religious fundamentalist extremism? Did a little research on her via google and it could just be that she's mental. We'll see.

[Ric]

Thales, I haven't gone off link chasing but I responded to the post. It said nothing about her being in custody. Of course if she's in custody, she's been arrested and, I think we're back to my original post.
Of course American citizens have the right to a lawyer but absent arrest, she need not be *provided* one. I don't think we're too far apart really. In fact, after re-reading the question at the end of the post, I will move to your position: she will get her lawyer if she has one.

[Richman Hannah]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 212.253.2.205
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/21/2004 05:50:56
An oppressive government is more to be feared than a tiger