Author Topic: Miranda might lose some teeth.  (Read 7050 times)

Battle Monkey of Zardoz

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,915
  • A more Elegant Monkey for a more civilized Forum.
Miranda might lose some teeth.
« on: May 09, 2010, 09:16:58 PM »
This will go the way that the Patriot Act went. Promised to only be used in Terrorism cases, yet we find out LE uses the act for all sorts of criminal investigations. Get ready for Miranda to go bye bye.


- Officials Consider New Tactics to Keep Pace With Evolving Terror Threat

http://foxnews.mobi/quickPage.html?page=22995&content=38300104&pageNum=-1

U.S. officials are considering new tactics -- including re-examining the right to remain silent -- in the ever-evolving war against Al Qaeda and its affiliates, with some saying the changes are needed to keep up with foreign terror groups in the wake of the failed Times Square bombing. 

Officials say the plot proves foreign networks are intent on using American citizens to launch deadly attacks on U.S. soil. Attorney General Eric Holder and White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan said Sunday that the investigation has revealed that the Pakistani Taliban were behind the failed attack, and that suspect Faisal Shahzad -- a U.S. citizen -- likely acted on their direction. 

It would mark the first time the militant group has breached America's defenses to launch an attack and signal a shift in focus, from attacks inside Pakistan to a more global target range -- using people like Shahzad as well-placed pawns. 

"We certainly have seen with the Shahzad incident that they have not only the aim, but the capability of (infiltrating the United States)," Attorney General Eric Holder said on ABC's "This Week." 

To combat the changing landscape of the war, both the administration and Congress are considering changes to the law to better address potential plots inside and against the United States. 

Holder, whose Justice Department has taken criticism for reading rights to terror suspects like Shahzad and alleged Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, revealed Sunday that the administration plans to work with Congress to propose possible changes to Miranda rights. 

"This is in fact big news," Holder said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "It is a new priority." 

Holder would not reveal many details but acknowledged he may try to change the law so investigators have more time to question terror suspects before reading them their rights and so flexibility is added to allow more evidence to be admissible in court. 

"We're now dealing with international terrorism, and I think we have to think about perhaps modifying the rules that interrogators have, and somehow coming up with something that is flexible and is more consistent with the threat that we now face," Holder said. "We certainly need more flexibility." 

Holder specifically called for changes to the so-called public safety exception which allows interrogators, as in the case of Shahzad, to hold off on reading a suspect his rights if they have reason to fear an imminent threat to public safety and need information fast. 

Holder stressed that any modifications would be "constitutional." 

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said on "Fox News Sunday" that determining how to deal with Miranda rights is essential as the country faces "more and more homegrown terrorists -- yes, American citizens." 

On a separate track, Sen. Joe Lieberman has proposed legislation that would revoke U.S. citizenship from anybody arrested overseas for affiliating with a foreign terror organization. The bill would expand a 1940s-era law that requires citizens fighting in a military force that is an enemy of the U.S. to renounce their citizenship to include those who are part of a terrorist organization. 

Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa., introduced a companion bill in the House. 

Holder questioned the bill's constitutionality on Sunday, but Lieberman stressed its importance in fighting the evolving terror threat. 

"Al Qaeda and the other terrorist groups are changing their mode of operating. And increasingly, they're looking for American citizens to carry out these plots, and one of the reasons is the passport that lets them -- like Shahzad -- come in and out of the country," Lieberman said. "The passport is part of a tool that the terrorist groups have now. It's probably the main reason why the terrorists in Pakistan wanted to use Shahzad. He had an American passport. We've got to stop that." 

Brennan told "Fox News Sunday" that while he's not sure what motivated Shahzad to seek U.S. citizenship, America's enemies are looking to "take advantage" of potential recruits like him. 

Brennan said that citizenship allowed Shahzad to travel back and forth to Pakistan "numerous times," presumably without raising red flags. 

The Times Square attempt has raised questions about the effectiveness of U.S. intelligence against a growing and evolving network of threats. Brennan defended the administration Sunday for its success in thwarting a series of terror plots to date and pledged to "refine our system as needed." But others say the attempted bombing, along with the Christmas Day plot and the Fort Hood shooting last year, shows that America's defenses are being penetrated. 

Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee, said Sunday that the plot means counterterror officials have even more to worry about -- with the Pakistani Taliban being added to a growing list that already includes Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and "homegrown" plots. 

"This now becomes a very, very complex picture," he told Fox News. "We need to be in the business of prevention."

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”

Abraham Lincoln


With the first link the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.

PTK

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,318
Re: Miranda might lose some teeth.
« Reply #1 on: May 09, 2010, 09:51:25 PM »
Quote
U.S. officials are considering new tactics -- including re-examining the right to remain silent

...

Holder stressed that any modifications would be "constitutional."

Fifth amendment?? Anyway, in my opinion, removing rights at the rate they're being removed tends to be an impetus for a less than pleasant reaction from folks being questioned/arrested. =|
"Only lucky people grow old." - Frederick L.
September 1915 - August 2008

"If you really do have cancer "this time", then this is your own fault. Like the little boy who cried wolf."

griz

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,054
Re: Miranda might lose some teeth.
« Reply #2 on: May 09, 2010, 09:53:08 PM »
Quote
Holder stressed that any modifications would be "constitutional."


Given that the Miranda case was decided on constitutional grounds, it will be interesting to see their reasoning on this.
Sent from a stone age computer via an ordinary keyboard.

Nitrogen

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,755
  • Who could it be?
    • @c0t0d0s2 / Twitter.
Re: Miranda might lose some teeth.
« Reply #3 on: May 09, 2010, 10:16:22 PM »
I find it interesting that plenty of liberals thought it would have been BUSH that would have done this.

<--- This liberal included.
יזכר לא עד פעם
Remember. Never Again.
What does it mean to be an American?  Have you forgotten? | http://youtu.be/0w03tJ3IkrM

taurusowner

  • Guest
Re: Miranda might lose some teeth.
« Reply #4 on: May 09, 2010, 11:23:57 PM »
Maybe I read it worng, I just skimmed, but does this just revoke the citizenship of someone caught overseas fighting against the US?
Wouldn't it be better to leave their citizenship so they can be tried for treason? 

I'm skeptical of anything Holder and his liberal buddies do, as well as anyone in .gov regardless of party, but can someone give me a theoretical example of how this would be misused?  I can see where wiretaps and such in the US are wide open for abuse, but it seems that the whole "being overseas aiding the enemy" thing makes it a little hard to just apply this to anyone for anything.

Monkeyleg

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,589
  • Tattaglia is a pimp.
    • http://www.gunshopfinder.com
Re: Miranda might lose some teeth.
« Reply #5 on: May 09, 2010, 11:36:24 PM »
It doesn't make much sense to interrogate someone and then, after the information has been extracted, read him his right to remain silent. Why bother to Mirandize him at all?

I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that there's already a provision in the law that enables law enforcement to forego the Miranda warning under extreme circumstances.


Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: Miranda might lose some teeth.
« Reply #6 on: May 09, 2010, 11:39:15 PM »
The Obama admin clearly doesn't have a clue how to deal with terrorism.

Heard on the nooz that they're contemplating witholding Miranda rights for the first 4 hours after they catch a terrorist "criminal".

If they think Shahzad is a criminal to be tried in criminal court, then they need to give him his full rights straight from the beginning.  They do not get to ignore or violate his rights for 4 hours before his rights kick in.  I can't imagine any honest criminal court beijng able to convict him based on evidfence obtained in those first 4 hours.  That means we'll end up either with dishonest courts convicting terrorists or honest courts acquitting them.  I don't like eiter alternative.

Now that it appears Shazad is an agent acting on behalf of the Taliban to carry out irregular warfare, I don't think it makes any sense at all to treat him like a common criminal.  He's a captured warfighter, so give him basic Geneva Convention protections and put him in front of a military tribunal.  Perhaps persue the treason angle and hang him if you really want to make an example, or strip his citizenship a la Lieberman and then send him down to Gitmo.

But to claim that you can deny criminals their rights for the first 4 hours?  

Yeah, no.  That ain't gonna fly.

Battle Monkey of Zardoz

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,915
  • A more Elegant Monkey for a more civilized Forum.
Re: Miranda might lose some teeth.
« Reply #7 on: May 10, 2010, 12:35:55 AM »
Here is my postition.  If you are not an American citizen, you get no Constitutional Rights.  Period.  If you are a US citizen, caught in a foreign land, aiding/fighting with a terrorist group, you get no Constitutional rights.  If your an American citizen, caught on US soil, aiding/fighting with a terrorist group, I can see a narrowly tailored miranda law.

But 2 words come to mind, about this;  Missioin Creep. 

For your enjoyment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_invocations_of_the_USA_PATRIOT_Act
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”

Abraham Lincoln


With the first link the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.

PTK

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,318
Re: Miranda might lose some teeth.
« Reply #8 on: May 10, 2010, 12:39:00 AM »
If you are not an American citizen, you get no Constitutional Rights.  Period.

Funny, the Constitution makes no such distinction of citizenship. It simply states that certain rights are enumerated within for all people. =|
"Only lucky people grow old." - Frederick L.
September 1915 - August 2008

"If you really do have cancer "this time", then this is your own fault. Like the little boy who cried wolf."

Battle Monkey of Zardoz

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,915
  • A more Elegant Monkey for a more civilized Forum.
Re: Miranda might lose some teeth.
« Reply #9 on: May 10, 2010, 01:02:27 AM »
We will have to agree to disagree on this. With cases like this, I am more concerned about protecting the rights of American Citizens. I know what the constitution says. But I do not believe that constitutional rights apply to say som store keeper in Yemen, who gets arrested
for stealing

 If we went with what you are saying, anytime anyone in the world got arrested, the US would have to get in there and make sure their constitutional rights are protected.

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”

Abraham Lincoln


With the first link the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.

kgbsquirrel

  • APS Photoshop God
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,466
  • Bill, slayer of threads.
Re: Miranda might lose some teeth.
« Reply #10 on: May 10, 2010, 03:36:41 AM »


Given that the Miranda case was decided on constitutional grounds, it will be interesting to see their reasoning on this.

Reasoning: We're the government and we know better than you?


Quote from: HTG
He's a captured warfighter, so give him basic Geneva Convention protections and put him in front of a military tribunal.

And agent of a foreign power or entity, caught on our turf, out of any recognizable uniform, attempting to blow up a non-military target. I think that falls under the heading of espionage and war crimes. So, it would seem as far as the Geneva convention is concerned, you can put him on trial for being a spy and a war criminal. A guilty on either count tends to carry some rather harsh sentences last I checked.

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,836
Re: Miranda might lose some teeth.
« Reply #11 on: May 10, 2010, 04:14:58 AM »

Now that it appears Shazad is an agent acting on behalf of the Taliban to carry out irregular warfare, I don't think it makes any sense at all to treat him like a common criminal.  He's a captured warfighter, so give him basic Geneva Convention protections and put him in front of a military tribunal.  Perhaps persue the treason angle and hang him if you really want to make an example, or strip his citizenship a la Lieberman and then send him down to Gitmo.


Yeah, the problem with this reasoning is that it gives the Government the power to strip individuals of constitutional rights by simply alleging terrorist connections.

Folks keep repeating that it makes no sense to treat terrorists "like a common criminal."  Last I checked, McVeigh went through the civilian system just fine and he's now been sent onwards from this world.

What is it that the criminal system can't do, that needs to be done?
"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

griz

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,054
Re: Miranda might lose some teeth.
« Reply #12 on: May 10, 2010, 09:09:04 AM »
<snip>  but can someone give me a theoretical example of how this would be misused?

Sure.  A power hungry administration could declare a pesky, but law abiding, opponent to be a terrorist, and lock them up without a trial.  You may say that is far fetched, and I would agree.  But look at the stink that erupted when Sarah Palin used the term "reload".  I don't trust our politicians enough to eliminate constitutional protections.
Sent from a stone age computer via an ordinary keyboard.

taurusowner

  • Guest
Re: Miranda might lose some teeth.
« Reply #13 on: May 10, 2010, 09:15:37 AM »
Quote
On a separate track, Sen. Joe Lieberman has proposed legislation that would revoke U.S. citizenship from anybody arrested overseas for affiliating with a foreign terror organization.

Wouldn't said opponent have to be overseas and affiliating with a terror organization?

White Horseradish

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,792
Re: Miranda might lose some teeth.
« Reply #14 on: May 10, 2010, 09:50:38 AM »
Wouldn't said opponent have to be overseas and affiliating with a terror organization?
Define "affiliating with a terror organization". I suspect that definition is rather stretchy.
Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.

Robert A Heinlein

Jamisjockey

  • Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26,580
  • Your mom sends me care packages
Re: Miranda might lose some teeth.
« Reply #15 on: May 10, 2010, 10:19:21 AM »
Yeah, the problem with this reasoning is that it gives the Government the power to strip individuals of constitutional rights by simply alleging terrorist connections.

Folks keep repeating that it makes no sense to treat terrorists "like a common criminal."  Last I checked, McVeigh went through the civilian system just fine and he's now been sent onwards from this world.

What is it that the criminal system can't do, that needs to be done?

Even worse, the Government gets to determine what a Terrorist is.  Speak against the Gobberment....you're supporting terrorisim....no rights for you!

JD

 The price of a lottery ticket seems to be the maximum most folks are willing to risk toward the dream of becoming a one-percenter. “Robert Hollis”

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,799
Re: Miranda might lose some teeth.
« Reply #16 on: May 10, 2010, 11:05:07 AM »
Weren't a bunch of liberals out there just itching to label the Tea Party people at terrorists after the NY bomb stuff?
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,799
Re: Miranda might lose some teeth.
« Reply #17 on: May 10, 2010, 11:08:19 AM »
Yeah, the problem with this reasoning is that it gives the Government the power to strip individuals of constitutional rights by simply alleging terrorist connections.

Folks keep repeating that it makes no sense to treat terrorists "like a common criminal."  Last I checked, McVeigh went through the civilian system just fine and he's now been sent onwards from this world.

What is it that the criminal system can't do, that needs to be done?
Back when I was discussing this, the issue was pulling foreign fighters/terrorists captured by our military in a foreign land into our own criminal courts.  I can support using military justice in a situation like that.

Doing that to US citizens or someone here legally, especially someone arrested within the US is an entirely different matter, IMO.
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: Miranda might lose some teeth.
« Reply #18 on: May 10, 2010, 09:53:10 PM »
Funny, the Constitution makes no such distinction of citizenship. It simply states that certain rights are enumerated within for all people. =|
Funny, I don't remember the US bothering with constitutional rights for the Nazis and Nips.  We spent a lot more effort trying to bomb, shoot, shell, or sink 'em than we did Mirandizing them or hiring lawyers for 'em.

Yeah, the problem with this reasoning is that it gives the Government the power to strip individuals of constitutional rights by simply alleging terrorist connections.

Nobody said the distinction would be the arbitrary decision of the Prez, that a mere allegation was sufficient to settle the matter. 

Balog

  • Unrepentant race traitor
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,774
  • What if we tried more?
Re: Miranda might lose some teeth.
« Reply #19 on: May 11, 2010, 01:48:43 AM »
Hasn't the use of Patriot Act "terrorist with a WMD" language against hillbillies with meth labs shown us that fed.gov can't be given the power to declare the rights of citizens null and void?
Quote from: French G.
I was always pleasant, friendly and within arm's reach of a gun.

Quote from: Standing Wolf
If government is the answer, it must have been a really, really, really stupid question.

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Re: Miranda might lose some teeth.
« Reply #20 on: May 11, 2010, 03:44:51 AM »
Quote
Funny, I don't remember the US bothering with constitutional rights for the Nazis and Nips.  We spent a lot more effort trying to bomb, shoot, shell, or sink 'em than we did Mirandizing them or hiring lawyers for 'em.

And yet the Japanese internment camps were shut down long before the war ended, and German-Americans were not bombed or shot. Funny, that.
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

PTK

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,318
Re: Miranda might lose some teeth.
« Reply #21 on: May 11, 2010, 03:46:57 AM »
Thank you for not completely misunderstanding my point. It's a rare occurrence when we agree. ;)
"Only lucky people grow old." - Frederick L.
September 1915 - August 2008

"If you really do have cancer "this time", then this is your own fault. Like the little boy who cried wolf."

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,836
Re: Miranda might lose some teeth.
« Reply #22 on: May 11, 2010, 05:32:40 AM »
Funny, I don't remember the US bothering with constitutional rights for the Nazis and Nips.  We spent a lot more effort trying to bomb, shoot, shell, or sink 'em than we did Mirandizing them or hiring lawyers for 'em.
Nobody said the distinction would be the arbitrary decision of the Prez, that a mere allegation was sufficient to settle the matter. 

The Nazis and the Japanese (I always thought "Nips" was an offensive racial slur, but I might be mistaken - never came across it much in my life) most definitely did get constitutional rights.  They got POW status when captured, and faced full military trials when they were accused of war crimes.  If the Gov had simply copied what they did for the Nazis in the war on terror, this debate would not be happening.

What do you envision being the standard for determining when there is sufficient proof to strip someone of the civil rights normally afforded to the accused? 
"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

Balog

  • Unrepentant race traitor
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,774
  • What if we tried more?
Re: Miranda might lose some teeth.
« Reply #23 on: May 11, 2010, 11:11:57 AM »
Constitutional rights != POW rights under the various international conventions. I also note that the various conventions do not afford the same protections to people not in uniform who are not part of an organized .mil.

And let's face it, Bush could've insisted terrorists be interrogated by tickling their feet with cotton candy and the lefties would still have called him a war criminal. I don't in any way agree with the policies as anyone who's been reading Politics for a while knows, but let's not get too crazy here.
Quote from: French G.
I was always pleasant, friendly and within arm's reach of a gun.

Quote from: Standing Wolf
If government is the answer, it must have been a really, really, really stupid question.

cassandra and sara's daddy

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20,781
Re: Miranda might lose some teeth.
« Reply #24 on: May 11, 2010, 12:38:12 PM »
We will have to agree to disagree on this. With cases like this, I am more concerned about protecting the rights of American Citizens. I know what the constitution says. But I do not believe that constitutional rights apply to say som store keeper in Yemen, who gets arrested
for stealing

 If we went with what you are saying, anytime anyone in the world got arrested, the US would have to get in there and make sure their constitutional rights are protected.



so in a nutshell infringement on constitutional rights is ok when it suits your agenda but all other times its an outrage and we should man the  barricades?
It is much more powerful to seek Truth for one's self.  Seeing and hearing that others seem to have found it can be a motivation.  With me, I was drawn because of much error and bad judgment on my part. Confronting one's own errors and bad judgment is a very life altering situation.  Confronting the errors and bad judgment of others is usually hypocrisy.


by someone older and wiser than I