There’s no doubt that Levin is aiming this lecture at Glenn Beck, who even today defended his position on reading Miranda rights to citizens, terrorist or not. Levin points out that being read the Miranda warning isn’t even in the Constitution, but from a Supreme Court decision in Arizona vs. Miranda to advise a person of their constitutional rights. (He points this out because Beck has said that to not read the Miranda warning to a citizen would be shredding the Constitution for convenience.)
He then differentiates between an ordinary criminal and a terrorist who is working with the enemy. Levin suggests that if someone has obtained recent citizenship for the purpose of attacking this country, then conspires and trains with our enemies and returns, executing an attack on this country (failed or not), they are an unlawful enemy combatant. Levin argues that the first question shouldn’t be whether they are a citizen or not:
“This first question should be ‘is this a criminal or a terrorist?’ Somebody who tries to blow up a city block is a terrorist.”
Note: When Levin refers to the Russians, he is referring to a story today of how a few Somali pirates apparently met their fate after attacking a Russian ship.
I’m no legal expert, but it sounds to me like Levin is arguing for the way it should be, not necessarily interpreting the law as it is. Thus, Beck would still be right at this juncture in saying we should read the Miranda warning to citizens, regardless of whether they are terrorists or not. That may or may not reflect if Beck would agree with Levin on how it should be. I’m simply not sure if he’s made that declaration.