Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Battle Monkey of Zardoz 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."
-
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. =|
-
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.
-
I find it interesting that plenty of liberals thought it would have been BUSH that would have done this.
<--- This liberal included.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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. =|
-
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.
-
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?
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.
-
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?
-
<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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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!
-
Weren't a bunch of liberals out there just itching to label the Tea Party people at terrorists after the NY bomb stuff?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Thank you for not completely misunderstanding my point. It's a rare occurrence when we agree. ;)
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
Saying "Non citizens do not have the same rights as citizens" is a pretty far cry from your characterization there csd.
-
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. T
well those citizens interred in the camps had their rights infringed a bit. especially the babies
The day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, California Governor Culbert L. Olson and State Attorney General Earl Warren (later chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court) worked with sheriffs and district attorneys to dismiss from civil service positions all first-generation Japanese Americans (Issei) and their U.S.-born children (Nisei). Attorney General Warren froze their assets so banks would not honor their checks. Licenses to practice law and medicine were revoked, and commercial fishermen were barred from their boats. Insurance companies cancelled the policies of Japanese clients; grocers refused to sell food to Japanese shoppers. This was followed by the civil authorities’ drive to round up and intern Japanese Americans, a proposal that was loudly seconded by the West Coast press, especially the excitable San Francisco-based Hearst newspapers.
The strong anti-Japanese spirit of the times is captured well in the following video:
After Pearl Harbor Californians feared the next attack would strike their own shores. In a fit of paranoia, both officials of the state government and ordinary citizens suspected that their Japanese American neighbors were spies and saboteurs for the Empire of Japan. Governor Olson demanded that the federal government do something about this internal threat to national security.
In testimony before a congressional hearing on February 4, 1942, General Mark Clark, the deputy chief of staff, and Admiral Harold R. Stark, chief of naval operations, said people on the Pacific coast were unduly alarmed. General Clark estimated the chances of a Japanese invasion of California were “nil.”
But Clark and Stark’s reassurances calmed no one. A few days earlier a commission appointed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to investigate the Pearl Harbor attack reported that spies, some of them Japanese Americans, working in Hawaii had helped the Japanese war planes reach their targets. The authors of the report did not present any evidence to support this charge, but it did not matter. Soon The Los Angeles Times was calling for the relocation of all Japanese Americans from California, and Lieutenant General John De Witt, army commander of the West Coast, asked his superiors for permission to evacuate all Japanese from California, Washington, and Oregon. The army was not inclined to grant such a request.
When Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson raised the issue with President Roosevelt, FDR told Stimson to do whatever he thought best. Stimson passed this along to his assistant secretary for domestic security, John J, McCloy, who put the relocation plan into action. Writing to Fourth Army headquarters in San Francisco McCloy said, “We have carte blanche to do what we want as far as the president is concerned… He states there will probably be some repercussions, and it has got to be dictated by military necessity, but as he puts it, ‘Be as reasonable as you can.’”
Stimson was opposed by U.S. Attorney General Francis B. Biddle, who regarded the relocation plan as “ill-advised, unnecessary, and unnecessarily cruel.” He was joined by the director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, who dismissed the evacuation of Japanese Americans as “utterly unwarranted.” Nonetheless, on February 19, 1942, FDR issued Executive Order 9066 which suspended the civil rights of Japanese Americans and authorized Stimson to designate military exclusion zones (such as the entire West Coast) from which, for the duration of the war, the United States could bar any person without having to prove that individual’s disloyalty or ill intent. On March 21, Congress unanimously passed a bill authorizing the removal of Japanese Americans from the West Coast.
Over the next three months, U.S. troops systematically removed more than 120,000 Japanese Americans from their homes and relocated them to desolate places inland, such as California’s Owens Valley. In most cases they were given no more than ten days to sell or rent their homes, farms, and businesses, and store their possessions (they were permitted to take only hand luggage with them). In 1945, when the Japanese Americans returned to their homes, in many cases they found their possessions had been looted and their homes and businesses purchased for pennies on the dollar by their white neighbors. In 1942, when Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr., had protested to FDR that the Japanese Americans were being exploited and their property scattered, the president replied, “I am not concerned about that.”
Not until 1976 did a U.S. President—Gerald Ford—rescind Executive Order 9066 and issue a formal apology to Japanese Americans. In 1990 President George H.W. Bush sent out checks for $20,000, tax free, to the 60,000 survivors of the internment camps. In a letter that accompanied the check, President Bush wrote, “A monetary sum and words alone cannot restore lost years or erase painful memories, neither can they fully convey the Nation’s resolve to rectify injustice and to uphold the rights of individuals. We can never fully right the wrongs of the past. But we can take a clear stand for justice and recognize that serious injustices were done to Japanese Americans during World War II.”
heck j edgar hoover was against it the death rate for kids under 5 was quite remarkable in the camps.
-
c&sd, for once, you and I are in 100% agreement regarding universal rights. :)
-
c&sd, for once, you and I are in 100% agreement regarding universal rights. :)
So when I captured terrorists in Iraq and didn't Mirandize them, when I kicked in doors and conducted search and seizure ops w/out a warrant, when our snipers set up shop in a families house for a few days etc etc we were violating the Constitutional rights of all those poor widdle Iraqis? Man, I feel just awful now.
-
Not once have I said that, but thanks for twisting my words until you can kick me in the teeth for my opinions. :)
-
Funny, the Constitution makes no such distinction of citizenship. It simply states that certain rights are enumerated within for all people. =|
If you aren't saying that all people have Constitutional rights, then I think it's less "Balog twisting words" and more "PTK speaking unclearly." Maybe I'm not understanding you here, but it certainly seems like you're saying non-citizens have the same rights as citizens.
-
On US soil, yes. That's rather the entire point of the Constitution, no? To protect all humans here in the USA? =|
And no, that doesn't count those breaking laws by violating our borders - but folks that are here LEGALLY, all have the protections of the Constitution. More than once, fuzzy thinking on that point has ended up having internment camps on USA soil, for USA citizens that people don't like. :(
-
But I thought the Constitution made rights universal for all people...?
Clearly there's a disconnect here.
-
the disconnect happens when folks treat the us constitution like a lil protective field they take with them when they go adventuring. my house my rules works internationally as well as when we live with mommy and daddy. when we forget that we end up with saint pancake or the folks jailed in haiti who were trying to help kids.
-
If Constitutional rights are universal, I can't see how we'd ever be able to wage a war.
Perhaps some see this as a feature and not a bug?
-
Ah, well we agree then. Perhaps you thought (on US soil, legally) was implied in your statement, but I honestly did not see that.
-
Fair enough. I'm glad to see that we aren't at odds. It would be hard to understand people not getting what the Constitution is for...
Slippery slope, and all that. We've seen where that leads, time and again. Hell, even the Union did some pretty horrible things in the 1860s. :(
-
Pragmatism is a terrible philosophical idea in all areas, but it's suicide politically.
-
The Constitution follows the flag. Outside the realm of military engagement, of course, US citizens do retain a degree of Constitutional protection - from the action of their own government of course.
But PTK is correct to say that the Founders did not believe they were 'creating' rights, but rather protecting rights that already existed in all men.
"All men are endowed by their Creator ..." wasn't just rhetoric to them, you know.
-
"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." He added, "And the sky is blue, in addition to the sun rising in the east."