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


And they have the right against self incrimination…..


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.


May 16, 2010 Posted by | Counterpoints, Editorial, Government, Law, Media, PoliticalDog Calls, Politics, Updates | , , | 3 Comments

Holder is right……..

The FBI agents , along with NYPD Detectives that interviewed Faisal Shahzad after he was taken off a flight at New York’s JFK Airport questioned him First…..

Then finding nothing of immediate danger…read him his rights…..

A lot Congressman are mad about that….

Tough Shit……

The FBI agents and NYPD detectives are law enforcement officers…..

The deal with crimes….

Trying to set a van on fire is arson…..

Using firecracker’s to do it…is using explosives….

It appears that the suspect was singing like a bird because right after the FBI, NYPD  and ‘other’ people got finished talking to him….

Things started happening (arrests ) in Pakistan……

In the end this whole thing is going to end up in front of a judge…..

Wither they make a deal..or there is a trial (unlikely )…..

With the track record in these things…

Since this guy IS singing

It’s better to get things right……

Holder also said that Shahzad, 30, a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Pakistan, could face life in prison if convicted on terrorism charges. An FBI complaint issued Tuesday accused Shahzad of five felony counts of attempting to detonate explosives in Times Square and said he had admitted his involvement. Shahzad has not yet appeared in court, however. A federal court appearance originally set for Tuesday was postponed amid indications that interrogators wanted to continue questioning him before bringing him before a judge.

Some congressional Republicans have criticized the administration’s handling of the Shahzad case, questioning the decision to read him his Miranda rights and saying he should have immediately been treated as an enemy combatant.

Holder rejected such criticism under questioning at Thursday’s hearing. He said the Supreme Court has held that Miranda warnings have a “constitutional dimension” and that every American who is arrested has a right to hear them.

He added that “there are exceptions to Miranda, and that is one of the ways in which we conduct our interrogations of terrorism suspects.” He cited a “public safety exception” that allows police or federal agents to question suspected terrorists about such matters as whether they are acting alone, know of other threats or have anyone coming to help them.


May 6, 2010 Posted by | Breaking News, Counterpoints, Crime, Government, Law, Media, Men, Other Things, PoliticalDog Calls, Politics, September 11, Updates | , , , | 3 Comments