Jamesb101.com

commentary on Politics and a little bit of everything else

Miranda Warning and Terrorist arrests……..

For as long as I can remember people arrested in America get their Miranda warning recited to them…

Police officers and Fed’s both have the same basic rule to follow….

As soon as possible

Read them their rights……

After  9/11 a lot of people kinda got pissed off and decided to heck with their rights……

But there’s s problem with that…

When the Fed’s get to court…..The first thing the defense attorney is gonna go after is all the information obtained BEFORE said subject was read his/her rights….

Now nobody wants the bad guy/girl to lawyer up…..

But that is THEIR right if we’re trying them in a civilian court…..

I believe the government has the right to find out if the officers or anyone else is in immediate danger BEFORE giving an Miranda warning to a bad guy….

But that has a time line attached to it…

When we get down to the intelligence vs criminal prosecution argumenet….I want the intell..that’s hands down..

But in those cases……the governemenet can’t have it both ways….

Get the information…..

Then cut the deal…..

Don’t give away the process…

People are presumed innocent before convinced by a court of law

Right?

And they have the right against self incrimination…..

Right?

Here’s a Op Ed piece from the New York Times on the issue……

For nearly nine years, the threat of international terrorism has fueled a government jackhammer, cutting away at long-established protections of civil liberties. It has been used to justify warrantless wiretapping, an expansion of the state secrets privilege in federal lawsuits, the use of torture, and the indefinite detention of people labeled enemy combatants. None of these actions were necessary to fight terrorism, and neither is a dubious Obama administration proposal to loosen the Miranda rules when questioning terror suspects and to delay presenting suspects to a judge.

A change to a fundamental constitutional protection like Miranda should not be tossed out on a Sunday talk show with few details and a gauzy justification. If Attorney General Eric Holder really wants to change the rules, he owes the public a much better explanation.

At the most basic level, it is not even clear that the warning requirement can be changed, except from the bench. The Miranda warning was the creation of the Supreme Court as a way of enforcing the Fifth Amendment. Since 1966, it has reduced coerced confessions and reminded suspects that they have legal rights.

The Rehnquist court warned against meddling with the rule in a 2000 decision forbidding Congress to overrule the warnings to suspects, which over the decades became an ingrained law enforcement practice.

In 1984, the court itself added a “public safety” exception to Miranda. If there is an overriding threat to public safety and officers need information from a suspect to deal with it, the court said,the officers can get that information before administering the Miranda warnings and still use it in court. We disagreed with that decision, but in the years since, the exception has become a useful tool to deal with imminent threats.

The question now is whether the exception needs to be enlarged to deal with the threat of terrorism. Clearly an unexploded bomb or a terror conspiracy would constitute a safety threat under the existing rule. But must investigators “Mirandize” a suspect before asking about his financing sources, his experience at overseas training camps, his methods of communication? In a world that is differently dangerous than it was in 1984, these seem to fit logically under the existing exception, without requiring a fundamental change to the rule.

Miranda does not seem to be an impediment to good antiterror police work, as Mr. Holder himself noted on Thursday before the House Judiciary Committee. Investigators questioned Faisal Shahzad, the suspect in the Times Square bombing attempt, for three or four hours before giving him a Miranda warning, receiving useful information both before and after the warning. He readily waived his right to a quick hearing before a judge.

More……..

Advertisements

May 16, 2010 - Posted by | Counterpoints, Editorial, Government, Law, Media, PoliticalDog Calls, Politics, Updates | , ,

3 Comments »

  1. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by James Finley. James Finley said: Miranda Warning and Terrorist arrests……..: http://wp.me/pAL4p-2Su […]

    Pingback by Tweets that mention Miranda Warning and Terrorist arrests…….. « PoliticalDog101.com -- Topsy.com | May 16, 2010 | Reply

  2. dawg the Drug War crapped on Miranda rights a long time before 09.11.01 and the hooey Patriot Act nonsense

    Comment by Timothy Leal | May 16, 2010 | Reply

  3. to a point you’re correct…

    Comment by jamesb101 | May 16, 2010 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: