There is literally no point having rights at all if there are exceptions to those rights which can be used but authority when things get difficult or controversial. A right is universal, if there is an exception, its is no longer universal, there for no longer a right. If a right is not universal, it becomes a privilege.
The whole point of rights is to protect individuals when things get difficult, when people's emotions or political bias over ride actual justice.
When everything is normal and fine, what do you need rights for? Nothing what so ever. You only rely on them in the extremes, when things go wrong or when you are being unfairly treated by the state (or business). But that is exactly when government, law enforcement, etc want to suspend them, and they do. So, in the end, it become totally pointless.
Let's cut to the chase, what if, as in this case, granting an individual their full rights could deprive others of their rights, like the right to not be blown up by another bomb?
You are suggesting that rights only have value if there are no exceptions to those rights. I disagree.
Rights have value, but there must be a way to assign value to each individual right for each person, otherwise, when you cannot grant everyone in society all of their rights simultaneously, how do you decide who gets which rights and who does not?
You example is so extreme as to be redundant. You are essentially arguing for abuse of human beings, in a wild exaggerated "24" type scenario, that doesn't really exist.
If my rights depend on abusing other human beings, I don't want them. They are worthless, because one day it could be me, or you.
Are you really prepared to give up your rights if law enforcements believes you threaten the rights of others? Would you accept it if you could not challenge that? Really? I bet you just assume it only happens to other people.
Lastly, this notion of every one getting their human rights simultaneously is absurd. As I said, they are only required when things go wrong or are difficult for a public to be reasonable and fair. I don't need my right to not be blown up while a police officer is observing Miranda rights, for example. This suspect's right to a free and fair trial has no baring on my right to not be harassed by government, or be blown up. Its a totally false premise, which makes no sense.
It is not a zero-sum game. Depriving a right from a suspected terrorist does not necessarily guarantee the right of some other, unrelated person. Rights are rights, selectively applying them is the slipperiest of slopes.
There wasn't an assertion that depriving one person's rights necessarily (in all possible cases) guarantees others' rights. The implication was that there are real cases where this is the case.
Every criminal case could be similarly described as one in which allowing the defendant their legally guaranteed rights (to remain silent and have legal advice) could (through strengthening the defendant's case and allowing silence on the question of co-conspirators) lead to someone depriving others of their rights (not to be victims of crime, from murder to graffiti). The question is not how to weigh these peoples' rights against each other. Instead, we have set standards on what the police are allowed to do and what the police are not allowed to do. The question is whether the police are failing to follow these standards.
As to the other questions, if an actor deprives another person of their rights, we assign the blame to the actor alone and not to any third party who allowed it to happen unless it can be proven that the third party had the intent to allow it to happen and were therefore co-conspirators in the crime. Where rights conflict, the questions of who gets which rights and who does not are answered by writing laws and judicial opinions. Several hundred years of such work has produced ready answers for most situations.
The rights here are the Miranda rights, not the requirement to be told about them. There's no exception to those rights being discussed as far as I can tell, just an exception to the requirement.
The whole point of rights is to protect individuals when things get difficult, when people's emotions or political bias over ride actual justice.
When everything is normal and fine, what do you need rights for? Nothing what so ever. You only rely on them in the extremes, when things go wrong or when you are being unfairly treated by the state (or business). But that is exactly when government, law enforcement, etc want to suspend them, and they do. So, in the end, it become totally pointless.