Eric Holder: Miranda Rights Should Be Modified For Terrorism Suspects

[spiritual_gunfighter]

Source: The Huffington Post

Attorney General Eric Holder said for the first time today on ABC's "This Week" that the Obama administration is open to modifying America's system of Miranda protections to deal with the "threats that we now face."

"The system we have in place has proven to be effective," Holder told host Jake Tapper. "I think we also want to look and determine whether we have the necessary flexibility -- whether we have a system that deals with situations that agents now confront. ... We're now dealing with international terrorism. ... I think we have to give serious consideration to at least modifying that public-safety exception . And that's one of the things that I think we're going to be reaching out to Congress, to come up with a proposal that is both constitutional, but that is also relevant to our times and the threats that we now face."

Holder, who was making his first appearance on a Sunday morning news show, also declared that the Pakistani Taliban was behind the attempted bombing of Times Square by Faisal Shahzad last week.

"We've now developed evidence that shows that the Pakistani Taliban was behind the attack," Holder said. "We know that they helped facilitate it. We know that they probably helped finance it. And that he was working at their direction."



Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/09/eric-holder-miranda-right_n_569244.html

[no_hypocrisy]

1. How does Holder propose getting the testimony into the court record

if there is a modification of Miranda rights?

[napi21]

30. It depends on how congress writes the law. There weren't ALWAYS Miranda rights you know.

ie: all current rights remain EXCEPT the right to remain silent.

[EFerrari]

31. Miranda doesn't give you rights. You already have those rights.

Miranda advises you of your rights to prevent you from claiming you didn't know your rights and to prevent the judge from throwing your case out on those grounds, afaik.

[Travis Coates]

81. Correction

there have always been Miranda rights they just weren't always called that. I don't need some cop to read a card to me for me to know when it's time to shut up and ask for a lawyer.

[No Elephants]

122. Really? Which case did Miranda overrule then?

Just because the SCOTUS has not had the opportunity to articulate a right before does not mean it did not exist.

[IndianaGreen]

38. No Miranda = cops can torture and beat you

until you sign a false confession. This is the stuff we used to criticize other countries for!

[SnakeEyes]

53. Not true

Miranda is a reminder of your rights. Just because you haven't been reminded of those rights doesn't mean they can then torture and beat you into confession. A coerced confession would still be inadmissible in court.

Right now, Miranda doesn't *have* to be read to you unless the cops want/need self-incriminating statements. If they already have the goods on you and any statements from you are just icing then Miranda isn't important. They will still read it, should you decide to talk. If they didn't read you Miranda they just couldn't use any self-incrimination statements in court.

[EFerrari]

59. You're right but I can't help thinking that a secondary gain we get

from Miranda is a cop reminding himself what your rights are.

[madokie]

66. Thats the most important aspect of it no doubt

[No Elephants]

120. It's not a reminder for everyone. Some people don't know they have those rights.

Sure, most people who watch TV do know now. But, that was not always so. Even now, many juveniles and some adults don't knonw they have those rights until they hear them from the cop.

[Angry Dragon]

2. So now they want different rights for different people

If this comes about, it is only a question of time before we have no rights. Only the rights that they wan to give us and that would be none.

We have the money and the power and you will do what we say or else. Feudal system here we come

[msongs]

12. Obama already supports different rights for different people, nothing new here. nt

[Angry Dragon]

83. Could you explain more please

[xxqqqzme]

45. And I had 'hope' we would return to

the rights so trashed by the last administration. This is most distressing.

Why is that the Constitution stood us in pretty good stead for 224 years, but in the last 10 it is suddenly broken and just has to be 'fixed'?

[harun]

71. +1

[Iowa]

79. Absolutely correct. This is dangerous stuff and yet another step toward a police state. eom

[iamjoy]

3. Not Exactly The Change We Hoped For

:(

[4dsc]

4. When did Holder become a republican?

ITs hard enough that the democratic party has to defend the constitution against the attacks from the right but when members of your own party start to shit on it then something is lost here.

[Xenotime]

144. The right listed should be modified not Miranda itself. Is that what I'm reading?

[rug]

5. Ironically, Arizona adds this to the Miranda warnings.

"If you are not a United States citizen, you may contact your country's consulate prior to any questioning."

[Wizard777]

6. I would rather establish that Constitutional right ONLY apply to American citizens.

If you want to think of America as a club. You don't get the benefits until you are a member of the club. But we should not be contemplating giving up our rights like this. Why don't we make the Pakistanis who are the source of this attack to give up their rights?

[skepticscott]

8. Well, if you'd like things to be that way

knock yourself out and propose a Constitutional amendment. Because as it stands, many of the rights it guarantees apply to everyone, not just citizens.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wizard777]

98. The amendment is already there. It's the XIV amendment privileges or immunities clause.

Also Article IV. In both "privileges or immunities" is a reference to the bill of rights. Both say it's "Citizens" that are entitled to it's protections. It is also set apart from the due process clause. That's differentiates Constitutional law from the law of the land.

[X_Digger]

108. No.

Plyler v. Doe

“The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may
claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State
shall ‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’
Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a ‘person’ in any
ordinary sense of that term… The undocumented status of these children vel non
does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the
State affords other residents.”


Wong Wing v. U.S.

“The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of
citizens. It says: 'Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the law.' These provisions are universal in their application to
all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of
race, of color, or nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of
the protection of equal laws.' Applying this reasoning to the fifth and sixth
amendments, it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the
United States are entitled to the protection guarantied by those amendments,
and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of
life, liberty, or property without due process of law. “


Yick Wo v. Hopkins

the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's statement, "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here."

[Wizard777]

111. They are entitled to due process of law. But not the privileges and immunities of citizens.

What due process gives them is a right to informed of charges against them, representation, a means of compelling witnesses, and a jury. Are they entitled to have evidence improperly seized tossed on the exclusionary rule? Absolutely not! That's an immunity that only citizens are entitled to.

[X_Digger]

114. The exclusionary rule does apply to aliens in the US

See US v. Alvarez-Machain

The exclusionary rule does not apply to aliens outside the US.

Why? Because of the language I pasted above from the 14th amendment- "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

[Wizard777]

117. Irrelevant. privileges or immunities establishes the first eight amendments applies to "Citizens."

That is followed by an exception for due process and equal protection. Ignoring the privileges or immunities clause will not make it go away. I wouldn't put it past the court to make a mistake in the construction of the XIV. They have bastardized the IV amendment to the point they have actually restored the very thing it was meant to prohibit. A Writ of assistance. Especially if you're in a vehicle. The second you set foot in a car your IV amendment rights vanish into thin air.

[X_Digger]

121. Yes it's irrelevant if you ignore things that contradict your wishes.

Fact is, in a series of cases, different courts have decided that yes, most of the bill of rights does apply to those within our jurisdiction, regardless of their citizenship status.

You can wish and hope, and squint your eyes just so but that doesn't make your statements true.

[Wizard777]

155. If I'm wrong then we can't have immigration laws, boarder checkpoints and Visa's.

One of the things the Privileges and Immunities Clause does is grant CITIZENS free ingress and egress to the several states. If these rights apply to all people regardless of citizenship our Immigration laws would become a moot point. Right there we bloody well are. Also boarder check points and Visa's become illegal because they would violate their right to free ingress and egress.

The only rights a international alien is entitled to is Due process and equal protection. No one has proved anything different yet. There has been very few suits that have involved the Privileges and Immunities Clause. But the few that there have been further confirm that rights belong to citizens. If Holder sues Arizona. They'll clean his clock if they file a cross complaint against him for violating the Privileges and Immunities Clause. He trying to force them to extend the rights of CITIZENS to non citizens in violation of the US constitution. Non citizens are only entitled to due process and equal protection.

[X_Digger]

160. Whole Cloth.

Exceptions have been carved out for our borders. The fourth amendment doesn't apply at our borders- not even for citizens. Go ahead, try and tell a customs agent that he must have a warrant to search your person and effects when you come back from Mexico. I double dog dare you.

:eyes:

[No Elephants]

125. Try reading this..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_and_Immunities_Clause

And this.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_assistance

[Wizard777]

154. Madison repeatedly used the word "privileges" interchangeably with the word "rights."

I have found nothing to refute my claim. That link only bolsters my point. One of the things the Privileges and Immunities Clause does is prevent you from being treated as an alien in another state. It prevents them from saying you are an alien in this state and entitled to the same protections as citizens of this state. So it establishes that aliens can be denied rights. But the only rights that any state or even the federal government must extend to aliens of another country is due process and equal protection.

It would even pass the legal tests cited. The compelling government interest in denying rights to aliens is to compel compliance with our immigration laws. Why would anyone go through the process of becoming a citizen if they could have the same rights just by coming here in violation of our immigration laws? Why should we reward people for violating out immigration laws? Right there we bloody well are. Millions of aliens violating our immigration laws because they can currently get the rights of citizenship without submitting to the immigration and citizenship process. The second we start doing it the way the Constitution says we should. This problem will stop or be less severe. Once it's established that the only rights international aliens have is due process and equal protection. They might to stay home where they would have more rights. Once it's established that they must become a citizen to enjoy full rights. People will start doing the paperwork and going through the process. But not until then.

[No Elephants]

123. No, Miranda was not an "immunities" case.

[EFerrari]

17. Why would you want anyone to give up their human rights?

Because that's what you're really talking about.

[Wizard777]

84. Not really. Constitutional rights and human rights are different.

I'm real big fan of human rights and even the guy that authored the first known document on human rights. That's Cyrus the Great of the Persian Empire. Some of our Constitutional rights are duplications of human rights like freedom of religion. Not a real popular subject around here. But a human right none the less. But our Constitutional rights are protection from governmental power. Why in the hell would you or anyone else want to offer protections from our government to foreigners hell bent on destroying Americans and America? The very government constitutionally charged with stopping these individuals. I'll also take this time to point out another part of our constitution. Article 3, Section III. Treason. It's the only crime declared by the constitution. That says you cannot give an enemy Aid or Comfort. Your wanting to give them both aid and comfort by giving them Constitutional rights to protect them from the power of our government. What you are protecting them from is the governments power to stop their attacks upon us.

The human rights in the constitution I'm not worried about. They are redundant. They also appear in international laws that we are bound by. Sure they can practice their religion here and even be free of cruel and unusual punishment. But being free from unreasonable search and seizure is not a human right. I don't see why it would be a big deal to deny these protection from the power of our government to foreigners. When all they have to do is present a compelling government interest and SCOTUS will deny that right to even American citizens. I also don't legal precedence being set by cases involving foreigners who's only purpose for being here is to destroy us or our way of life. Why not kill two birds with one stone? They can destroy us with bombs and destroy our way of life with legal precedences set by the trial resulting from the bombing. Basically I don't want foreigners creating legal arguments or compelling interests that will also take away my rights. They don't have the same interests or stake in our country and shouldn't have the same rights.

[EFerrari]

90. John Yoo, is that you?

[IndianaGreen]

21. Tell that to José Padilla. a natural born American citizen tortured and imprisoned by Bush

Accused Terrorist Jose Padilla Sues Law Professor John Yoo

Published 1, January 6, 2008

In a curious lawsuit, accused terrorist Jose Padilla has sued Law Professor John Yoo. Yoo is the supposedly one of the authors of several memos supporting President Bush’s enemy combatant policy and has been linked to the abuse that resulted from that policy. Yoo and Georgetown Professor Viet Dinh have been criticized for their roles in creating these abuses that include a formal torture program and the denial of basic constitutional rights.

Jose Padilla’s case remains one of the most disturbing in U.S. history. After President Bush stripped him of his constitutional rights and held him without charge, he was subjected to cruel conditions and denied access to the courts and counsel. Neither Democrats nor Republicans did a thing in Congress despite an outcry from the nation’s lawyers and civil libertarians. All of the politicians running today on civil liberties were strangely silent for years as this abuse occurred in full knowledge of the public. Every effort to get judicial relief was block by cynical legal moves by the Justice Department to move Padilla or his case. The Supreme Court ultimately adopted the most technical of technicalities to avoid ruling on his case: the caption on this case was wrong because it failed to name the right government official. Of course, since the government was hiding Padilla and moving him around like a Where’s Waldo exercise, it was hard to name the right official at the time of original filing.

Ultimately, the Justice Department charged Padilla on crimes entirely unrelated to the original alleged crime: planning a possible nuclear attack on a major city. That was the sensational allegation trumped by John Ashcroft at an infamous press conference — forcing the White House to later retract Ashcroft’s statements.

Padilla is a U.S. citizen arrested in the U.S. He was however, denied the most basic constitutional rights for years and, according to his lawyers, remains mentally disturbed from his harsh treatment by the government. He was held without criminal charge for 3½ years at a Navy brig in Charleston, S.C.

Yoo was deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel and provided much of the justification for these infamous policies as did Viet Dinh. The lawsuit was brought by Padilla and his mother, Estela Lebron, and asks only $1 in damages. It is clearly meant to secure a moral judgment against Yoo. Padilla attorney Jonathan Freiman, a professor at Yale Law School, filed the action. Yoo is a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley. For a copy of the complaint, click here

http://jonathanturley.org/2008/01/06/accused-terrorist-jose-padilla-sues-law-professor-john-yoo/

[Wizard777]

86. Bush should be jailed for what he did to that citizen. No arguments there.

[Posteritatis]

56. What a ridiculous idea

No Fourth Amendment protections for, say, permanent residents? That'll go over really well.

[Wizard777]

87. If they become a threat National Security or commit serious crimes they lose the Status.

They are also denied other rights. Like voting or running for public office. They cannot even become employed in the public sector.

[Posteritatis]

96. But that's not what you said. You said they shouldn't have any constitutional rights at all.

And as I said, that's an incredibly stupid idea.

[Wizard777]

99. Take it up with Congressman John Bingham (Ohio). He's the one that wrote the XIV amendment.

He's the one that said privileges or immunities of "CITIZENS." Take it up with the Founders. They are the ones that wrote Article IV. Again privileges or immunities of "CITIZENS." Privileges or immunities is a reference to the bill of rights. Do you want to enforce the Constitution or just the parts you agree with?

[X_Digger]

109. The 14th applies to 'persons' not just citizens.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

See the following cases-

Plyler v. Doe, Wong Wing v. U.S., Yick Wo v. Hopkins

[Wizard777]

116. Irrelevant! I am not discussing ius commune. I'm discussing Constitutional Law.

This is the relevant portion of the XIV amendment.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

Privileges or immunities is a reference to the bill of rights. Specifically the first eight amendments. These constitutional right only apply to "Citizens." Article IV also says that only "citizens" are "entitled" to privileges or immunities. What comes after that is them saying the first eight amendments only apply to citizens BUT we will extend to all people (regardless of citizenship)Due process and equal protection of law (ius commune/law of the land.) So it's the privileges or immunities clauses in Article IV and the XIV Amendment that specifically tells us that The first eight amendments only apply to "citizens" with an exception for due process and equal protection. Those two apply to all people.

Good thing I'm not a judge. Because I've seen the irrelevant cites you have offered so many times. I would be threatening people with contempt and jail for offering just one more irrelevant due process cite. You would need some privileges or immunities cites to continue the case and stay out of jail. But alas I'm only a Wizard. LMAO

[X_Digger]

124. Nice *attempted* dodge.

Courts have ruled (and upheld all the way to the SCOTUS) most of the bill of rights being applied to resident aliens and illegal aliens, using the second clause of the second sentence of section one.

You should know that there is a dearth of cases regarding PorI, after the slaughterhouse cases. Substantive due process case law is quite broad. Selective incorporation (via SDP) is quite well established.

You can ignore them if you wish, but the rest of us can see the dodge for what it is.

[Wizard777]

156. Slaughterhouse interpretation of the XIV was later abandoned by the courts.

It is now interpreted as much more than a protection to freed slaves. It is now interpreted to include common law that the Slaughterhouse interpretation didn't.

[X_Digger]

159. Say wha???

Selective incorporation is _still_ being done.

This term there's a selective incorporation case- McDonald v Chicago, asking whether or not the second amendment is incorporated against the states via substantive due process. Gura (one of the lead attorneys) tried to raise a PorI argument, all the justices shot him down.

Man, where do you get your information?

[Heywood J]

57. You mean that naturalized-citizen Pakistani,

who even under your logic would have the rights you seek to deny. Never mind two hundred years of Supreme Court precedent and treaties that say each right listed in the Constitution applies to every person within the borders.

WONG WING v. U S, 163 U.S. 228 (1896)

And in the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 369 , 6 Sup. Ct. 1064, it was said: 'The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: 'Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.' These provisious are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.' Applying this reasoning to the fifth and sixth amendments, it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guarantied by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

You fail.

[Wizard777]

91. SCOTUS doesn't always get it right. Look at their recent repeal of campaign finance laws they -

previously up held. Constitutional law is separate from the law of the land. I do agree that they are entitled to the equal protection of the law of the land. Like our laws that say you can't blow stuff up. But not an equal protection of Constitutional law. Constitutional law does not afford equal protections. An individual may do anything that is not prohibited by law. But a government may not do anything that is not authorized by law. That's hardly Equal. SCOTUS might catch their mistake and reverse their position in the future. Especially if they take a article 3 Section III approach. Treason. It's the only crime defined by the constitution. That says you may not give an enemy aid or comfort. He you are wanting to give them Constitutional protections from governmental power. The governmental power to stop their attacks upon us. Basically what you are saying is that during WWII the second the Japanese or German army set foot on American soil they would have had constitutional rights that we must respect. Don't think so. SCOTUS FAIL!

There is also this lil gem from the XIV Amendment. "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;" The "privileges or immunities" is a reference to the bill of rights. It is the "privileges or immunities" clause that allows the federal government to enforce the bill of rights upon the states. This is also set apart from the due process clause. Both the Article IV and XIV Amendment says that it is citizens that are entitled to the privileges or immunities of the bill of rights. Not everyone on earth or even everyone in America. Both specifically state that it is "Citizens" that entitled to the privileges or immunities. There is NOTHING in the bill of rights that protects the privileges or immunities of foreigners.

[No Elephants]

126. Constitutional law is the supreme law of the land, not "separate from the law of the land."

And privileges and immunities is NOT a reference to the Bill of Rights.

Good grief.

[Wizard777]

157. The Constitution is law governing Government. It also governs the making the laws.

While the Constitution can be viewed as higher law. It is separate from common law. Privileges and Immunities most certainly is a reference to the bill of rights. Specifically the first eight amendments.

[X_Digger]

61. Yeah, that'll work well.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men* are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

*- 'cept if you're not from here. In that case, screw you.

There, fixed it for you.

[No Elephants]

129. That is not from the Constitution. It's from the Declaration of Independence, which

was never adopted as law. It is what its name says it is, a declaration to the nations of the world that the colonies were declaring their independence from Great Britain, a then unprecedented measure, and the reasons for that measure. It conferred no legal rights on residents of the colonies, let alone on us today.

[Travis Coates]

82. Constitutional rights do NOT only apply to Americans

They are basic human rights that apply to any person on the planet.

At Sobibor something like 200,000 Jews were gassed. The duly elected government had decided, by law , that they had no right to Life or Liberty. 600 of them in the Labor camp chose to exercise their God-given right to defend their lives & freedom ( contrary to the law ) by killing most of their S.S. gaurds and storming the wire. Over half of them died while forcibly demanding their rights to Life and Liberty. Rights that the societal construct of the time said they didn't have. The state denied their rights but those rights did exist wholely apart from the state.

[Wizard777]

85. You do NOT have a constitutional right to life.

It only says that you may not be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law. But you may be deprived of both life and liberty.

As for places like Germany. The holocaust was done by due process of law. The Nuremberg laws to be exact. But it was done as a matter of German law. All Genocides are almost always committed as an operation of law. Genocide is a crime of government or authority. Not so much a crime of people.

[Travis Coates]

88. I don't NEED a Constitutional right to life

I have a basic human right to life w/ the accompanying right to defend my life by any means necessary.

To paraphrase Ted Nugent, I don't need a document to explain to me that I have the right to defend my life. That right exists independent of the 2nd amendment or any law of the land it is an inalienable right. Inalienable means “ can not be transferred to another” (American Heritage Dictionary) that means that you can’t take it away.

[Wizard777]

95. try explaining that to the executioner as he sticks the needles in your arm.

If you had a right to life in America. The death penalty would be illegal in America. Personally I believe the death penalty should be illegal. But you're going to have to establish that right to life in law first. That means taking on the Roe v. Wade crowd. They can be a scary bunch.

[Travis Coates]

101. Right to life

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Right established.

I have the right to defend my life by any means necessary , that includes fighting the executioner. What I don't have is a right to a guaranteed outcome.

ETA After reading some of your posts I think we basically agree on this subject There is a difference between a human and a civil right. I can't stop the government from taking my life but I damn sure have the right to try. I'm not completely sure where I'm at w/ all of this in terms of terror suspects. Are they criminals or POWs if they're POWS inter them in a POW camp until the war is over. If not then what, do we protect their rights at the cost of our country?

[Wizard777]

102. That's from the declaration of Independence. That was replaced by the US Constitution.

So it's no longer in force. The Declaration of Independence is little more than a list of complaints against King George and a rejection of his rule. It doesn't bare the force of law. Also sending men to fight in the revolutionary war could have violated their inalienable right to life. War is a good place to get killed.

[Travis Coates]

103. Please go back and read my edit NT

[Wizard777]

105. I did and I pretty much agree.

[No Elephants]

130. No, the Constitution did NOT replace the Declaration of Independence. They are two

entirely separate documents, written for two entirely different purposes. See Reply #129 for why the Declaration was written. Nothing ever replaced the Declaration of Independence. I guess we decided to stick to the position that George III was a tyrant and we should therefore be independent from his rule. Therefore, we never needed to replace the D of I.

The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation. Both were written to say which powers the colonies, and then the states, would be ceding to the central government.

I would simply ignore your posts on the law and its history but I worry that someone reading your posts will take your word on those subjects.

[Wizard777]

158. My main point is that the D of I bears no legal force.

[Wizard777]

104. EXACTLY!

I really don't have a problem with non citizens receiving due process. That's merely being informed of charges, having representation, a means of compelling witnesses and a jury. But are we going to use the exclusionary rule to throw out evidence of the bomb he was making because a cop didn't get a warrant before kicking the door in. Hell no! If they are a citizen. Absolutely the evidence is gone. Both Article IV and the XIV Amendment would allow that. Only "citizens" are entitled to "privileges or immunities." The exclusionary rule provides a immunity that non citizens are not entitled to.

[No Elephants]

127. You're conflating. There's never been a genocide under the COTUS.

[Travis Coates]

143. Tell that to the American Indians NT

[Morning Dew]

94. Good luck proving your citizenship while you're being detained incommunicado. n/m

[teknomanzer]

115. Faisal Shahzad was a citizen...

he would have been a "member of the club." What do you do then?

[No Elephants]

128. Apparently, you ask Congress to change the law.

[RobinA]

149. I Never Get

the "you must be a citizen to have certain rights." I thought the whole Enlightenment idea of things was that People have certain natural rights just because they exist. If you believe that Americans have certain rights, why doesn't everyone have those same rights? Unless, of course, America IS an exclusive club, blessed by god and all that rot. But then we get back to the "God is on our side" military propaganda crap that almost made me toss my lunch when I visited the Air Force Academy.

[bullwinkle428]

7. How long before we have our very own "caste system" established?

Hope and change, indeed!

[dixiegrrrrl]

43. "UNTIL we have our own caste system"?

We have always had a caste system.
Most of it based on racism and sexism.
Of late we seem to be focusing on Latinos and people from the Middle Eastern countries.

The one commonality for the USA caste system is that rich white men seem to always be in the top caste.

[bullwinkle428]

72. Oh, it's always been there in the de facto sense; I was thinking

in terms of de jure!

[No Elephants]

133. It's also been there de jure as well. Slavery, Native Americans not being quite human,

married women being somewhere between property and minor children and gays having no right to make love.

Those were the laws colonial MEN brought over with them from England and the colonies adopted them, as did the states (except for the bit about Native Americans, which our founders came up with all on their own). And many of them got enshrined in our original Constitution as well.

[No Elephants]

132. Not only racism and genderism, but also money, as your last sentence implies, and orientation.

Basically, hetero, wealthy male WASPs were long on the type of the heap and change has been


S


L



O



W


and continues to be.

[Demeter]

9. The DC Bubble Culture Is Insane

Cowering behind their concrete barriers, scaring themselves.

They know that in a real democracy, they would be hanging from lamposts by now, so in fear they set it up to ensure that a real democracy results. Through blood, sweat, and tears. Their blood, and ours. Our tears and our sweat.

[w4rma]

10. WTF does he want to remove from our rights and protections? (nt)

[pinboy3niner]

11. It is not clear that he is talking specifically about Miranda

Miranda may be the context, but it's hard to tell if he has Miranda in mind in this portion of his remarks. We may be in the area of "the fog of (rhetorical) war".

I'll wait to hear more, as he surely will be pressed to elaborate on his comments.

[Wizard777]

16. "Public safety" is a very broad brush. Your driving was a threat to public safety. No Miranda!

Anyone with a gun can be construed as a threat to public safety. No Miranda! Selling pot is a threat public safety. No Miranda! Holder will give that inch and the FOP legislative committee will take the mile. Once they have made the polices work much simpler. Of course they will need a raise to do that job made much simpler by the demise of Miranda. You have to remember the police state mentality. If don't have a badge you are the enemy.

[iamjoy]

20. No Miranda for Drunk Drivers!

After all, 17,000 Americans are killed very year in DWIs in the United States. That's over 5 times the number killed in the 9-11 attacks. So, if we want to talk about threats to public safety...

[gmpierce]

67. iamjoy

A lot of constitutional protections have been dumped in the case of DWI. These are cases decided by our Supreme Court within the last 20 or so years.

Without benefit of counsel, the state can knock you down and forcibly take a blood sample. There is a list of other constitutional rights that have been taken away. A lot of attorneys have complained to no effect because according to our Supreme Court "it's the law".

[iamjoy]

70. I Thought I Was Joking

I guess I was naive...

[pinboy3niner]

22. Broad brush, certainly, but you're going for slippery slope

I'm still not clear on exactly WHAT he was thinking of. We've had other issues around apprehended terrorist suspects that also have to be on his mind. If it was, indeed, Miranda, you're right--we have every reason to fear that slippery slope.

[Wizard777]

29. Lets just say that in a legal landscape. A slippery slope is best painted with a broad brush.

[IndianaGreen]

24. Are you aware that Scalia has been saying for years that Miranda should be repealed?

Google Scalia and Miranda.

[pinboy3niner]

34. I'm aware of Scalia's view

But I don't see what that has to do with Holder.

I'm looking to see Holder explain exactly what he meant by his comments. If he's seriously entertaining the notion that Miranda should be limited, we have every right to be concerned. As it is, I'm simply not clear on what he meant.

[dixiegrrrrl]

46. From the article:

"the Obama administration is open to modifying Miranda protections to deal with the "threats that we now face."
""The system we have in place has proven to be effective,"

"I think we have to give serious consideration to at least modifying that public-safety exception "

The above are quotes from the article.

PS: there is a poll at the article about modifying Miranda rights.
Feel free to vote.

[pinboy3niner]

47. I voted No

[No Elephants]

134. He was on Meet the Press yesterday and it's perfectly clear he mean Mirandas.

You can google and read the transcript.

[pinboy3niner]

152. You're right. There was a succession of interviews that made it clear

The first report used paraphrasing and inserted bracketed material, without a direct quote using the word, "Miranda." Now, there's no doubt. Thanks for your reply.

[bowens43]

13. unfucking believable

this administration is every bit as vile as the last......

[RainMickey]

119. Agreed. Just when I thought we'd reached a point where another shoe couldn't drop......

..the entire closet crashes down on us. Shameful.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[atreides1]

39. We must remain adamant to the point we compel the world around us to change.......as always.

We compel the world around us? We've tried that or have you forgotten about Vietnam, Chile, El Salvador, Honduras, and let's not forget about Iran and Iraq?

And because we felt we should compel the world millions have died, maybe not as many as under Hitler, Stalin, or Mao, but still millions. You would put us into that same club?

How many civilians do you want to kill? Are you willing to go and pull the trigger yourself, or would you prefer some kid in a uniform gun down an entire vilage, so you don't have to get your hands dirty?

You're thinking makes you as bad as the terrorists, maybe even worse.

[Mr. Sparkle]

15. If this is true, then it is a new low in the Obama administration, imo.

The existing laws are able to deal with any terrorist actions effectively, I am at a loss to see any reason for changing them.

[IndianaGreen]

18. Bush Lite

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

-- Benjamin Franklin

[O is 44]

19. Dumb and very disappointing if true n/t

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndianaGreen]

25. Those that won't uphold the Constitution, will destroy America from within

and there are beaucoup of them in both parties!

[No Elephants]

140. How about those who stand by and do nothing about it?

[scentopine]

27. America is slowly surrendering to the Taliban. We are becoming more and more

like them, religious, reactionary, ignorant. The Taliban control our legislative policy and priorities. I guess in the spirit of appeasement and bi-partisanship, this is the political behavior that defines the modern "centrist". Everything is for sale. Everything.

Our government is failing us in ways too numerous to list.

[Wizard777]

100. Amen! We're currently too busy worrying about respecting their rights to defeat them.

:banghead:

[Travis Coates]

112. First we need to decide

Are they criminals, traitors or enemy combatants?

If criminals they have a right to a fair trial (including Miranda)

If traitors the same W/ the option of recieving the death penalty.

If enemy combatants they get intered in a POW camp for the duration.

How hard is that?

[Wizard777]

118. Exactly! But can you actually expect an executive to make a decision?

The problem is that they are trying to preserve so many options it's actually preventing us from moving forward. Because if they start making executive decisions those decisions are going to start eliminating options. Basically they are afraid to make the bed because they will have to lay in it and you can have your cake and eat it too until you start making hard decisions. Then you start setting precedence and limiting options.

[newspeak]

148. Anybody remember the first WTC bombing-the parking garage

The perps involved were tried and convicted. Case closed and life went on. Little boots gets in office ignores the PDB reports, ignores warnings from the previous administration that terrorism would be the first priority. After 9/11, what does little boots do--(of course with help with our incorruptible media)-struts around publicly announcing that he hit the trifecta--gonna get em dead or alive and starts wars with some prime oil enriched countries. Oh, and pass the unpatriotic bill because he really, really wants to protect us. Now, all we hear in the media is terror, fear, fear, fear---people killed-our people their people, torture there and here--such obscene things done in our name. Yet, it would have been different if they would have found the perps and tried them--but that wasn't the agenda. No one can justify war-war that has increased terrorism. Little boots and his band of greedy sociopaths have started an avalanche-that may be quite lucrative for his pals, but devastating to this country.

[amandabeech]

153. How do you suppose the powers that be will determine the end of the war on terror?

May I suggest a reading of 1984?

But enough with being flip.

This is one tough question, but I think that we make ourselves safe by getting out of the messes that we are in overseas and being much more careful about who immigrates or visits here. Surely, the latter isn't great, but I see it as having fewer Constitutional problems and a much less steep slippery slope than starting down the ski jump of dismantling our Constitutional protections.

Around the time of the 2008 election, there was an article written by a Georgetown law professor who was on the Harvard Law Review with Obama. The prof said that Obama viewed the Constitution as a flawed document. Maybe this is Obama's first step in fixing it. Personally, I'm going with the founders rather than Obama.

If Obama really wants to change the Constitution, then he better come up with an amendment and get that passed rather than starting down that ski jump.

[No Elephants]

135. +1

[glowing]

28. Is this admin turning out to be a more eloquent speaking Bush 3rd term or what?

Why they hell bent on creating a system that is "the same, but equal"... Does hypocrisy know no bound?

[BootinUp]

32. Holder has said things before that

Obama has had to slap down, hopefully this is one of those situations.

[IndianaGreen]

35. Holder also refused to prosecute John Yoo

or any of Bush/Cheney's torturers.

[saigon68]

73. Holder is a coward ( A Spineless coward)

[X_Digger]

63. *nod* Holder spoke of renewing the assault weapons ban in Feb last year. *smack* n/t

[Travis Coates]

113. Have you noticed

The same people who are up in arms (so to speak)about this were applauding the renewal of AWB?

Just sayin

[2Design]

33. omg - no more law of the land - no more usa - this is a terrible idea n/t

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ixion]

37. Way to keep up the march towards the Corporate Police State, Mr. Holder

You're making the neocons cackle with glee.

[RufusTFirefly]

40. Yeah. Constitutional rights are absolute. Except, of course...

.. for people we decide (without benefit of a trial) that we don't like.

Kind of like the First Amendment is absolute, except of course for stuff we don't want to see or hear.

[Jefferson23]

41. These are the dangerous ideas, and I am so ashamed they are coming

from a Democrat.

[No Elephants]

141. +1

[Jefferson23]

150. Thanks, one thing I will say in Holders defense is that he will go

to the Congress...very unBushie thing to do. Another concern is when you look at our Congress
who can trust them to not do damage?

[hardtoport]

42. Can we conclude Obama is not on our side now?

Or are we still clinging to the 11 dimensional chess defense?

Obama is screwing up this country in ways Bush only dreamed of. Getting rid of Miranda rights and opening up the coast to drilling offshore are Republican wet dreams come true. And yet, Republicans will still hate this man for the color of his skin, even though he is the best Republican president they've had since Reagan.

As someone who worked her butt off to get him elected, it breaks my heart to say this, but I will be as happy to see him leave office as I was to see him get into office.

[Inuca]

68. "Obama is screwing up this country in ways Bush only dreamed of."

OK, I give up! Saying things like this is 100% teaparty mentality and it's truly disapointing to see so many posts of the same ilk around here. Putting aside for a moment that you do not really know what Holder/Obama may want to do (Holder only made a very general comment out of which it is difficultto infer much), but even assuming that it's going to happen and it's going to be rather bad, what you said and I quoted in my subject is not hyperbole, it's idiocy. Ah, and by the way, "best Republican president since Reagan" falls in the same category.

What the hell has happened to DU :puke: :spank: :grr: :shrug: :cry: :cry: :cry: ????

[Iowa]

80. This is not accurate....

"Saying things like this is 100% teaparty mentality..."

What you are saying is not correct. Tea partiers despise Obama for these types of reasons:

1) Tea partiers tend to be uneducated, knee-jerk, reactionaries. They easily buy into emotionally charged propaganda without even trying to understand the underlying issues.
2) Tea party types despise Obama because they have been told by propagandists that he is a liberal or a socialist. They despise anyone perceived to be liberal/progressive.

DUers who express frustration with Obama tend to do so for these types of reasons:

1) DUers tend to be more highly educated and more likely to delve into the issues the country faces. They also tend to be resistant to emotionally charged propaganda, regardless of the party pushing it. They are more likely, therefore, to hold politicians in their party accountable when they are betrayed.
2) DUers who express frustration about Obama tend to do so when his actions are at odds with liberty, human rights, and other progressive ideals.

DUers who express frustration with Obama tend to do so for reasons that are diametrically opposed to everything tea partiers stand for. DUers who express frustration with Obama are not like tea partiers in the least. In fact, they are the exact opposite. It is not correct to equate DUers who are frustrated with Obama, with tea partiers who are frustrated with Obama... they are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

[Inuca]

106. Of course they are at opposite end of the spectrum

I agree with that. Maybe I did not express myself clearly enough because of frustration. The commonality that I see is not in the position they take, nor in expressing frustration (I don't feel it, usually, but I do not have a problem with those who do, as long as it is based on facts and on a rational interpretation of said facts). But saying that Obama is screwing up the country in ways that Bush did not even dream of is not a fact and is not rational, no matter how frustrated or disappointed you may be. And that's what the teabaggers do, they scream made-up innanities.

[No Elephants]

142. There are altogether too many similarities, especially in the legal positions

taken in court by both the Bush administration and the Obama administration. They have been identical, except that Bush never proposed taking away rights of citizens to Miranda rights nor did Bush's D of J ever compare homosexuality to marrying your child and bestiality. And legal positions are, to me, the most important because the law usually outlasts a President. Indeed, it often outlasts a Supreme Court.

[Iowa]

147. DUers tend not to "scream made-up innanities"...

Frustrations expressed are usually issues-based and grounded in progressive ideals. We see a fair amount of frustration-based hyperbole on DU, but you specifically ruled out the possibility of hyperbole in the post you replied to. You assigned a far more sinister motive while lamenting the demise of DU and comparing fellow DUers to tea-partiers. That is simply not a correct interpretation of what's truly going on, IMO.

[newspeak]

110. Nah, * still holds the record

suspending habeas corpus, posse comitatus--starting a war based on lies-commercially creating the "war on terror" after 9/11-ignoring warnings of 9/11-illegal torture. Basically trashing the constitution. Privatizing parts of the military--feeding his war profiteering buddies-paying them for shabby work and poor services-funneling money to Iraq (unaccounted). Obama has just continued some of *'s main memes--but I will never forget the eight years of damage the repukes did to this country.

[krabigirl]

145. Answer: he never was. and neither will the next one, or the next one, unless we really make changes.

[Jefferson23]

151. I don't believe Holder is looking to get rid of Miranda rights, he

does want to go to the Congress for evidently, leverage on some level. He will need to explain that obviously, but it's our lawmakers
that make me uncomfortable on this too..how much will they concede to Holder? We'll see, maybe I am over reacting, but I don't like these ideas at all either, after Bush, enough is enough already.

[Turbineguy]

44. Why change it?

These terrorists think they're on a mission from God. They are proud of what they do and seem to want to talk about it.

[AzDar]

48. Fuck that.

[X_Digger]

65. +1 n/t

[scheming daemons]

49. Not what he said.... OP is very misleading

Some people like to invent controversies where none exist, I guess.

[Jefferson23]

50. It is true that Holder doesn't state what exactly should be modified.

That he believes it might be necessary is true, correct?

"And that's one of the things that I think we're going to be reaching out to Congress, to come up with a proposal that is both constitutional, but that is also relevant to our times and the threats that we now face."


That is the concern, imo.

[RainMickey]

138. How about issuing a hit on an American citizen who has never had a day in court?

Misleading?

[nyy1998]

51. So whatever happen to the bill of rights of the Constitution?

[IndianaGreen]

97. It is now toilet paper!

The state is absolute!

[City Lights]

52. Um, NO!

:thumbsdown:

x(

[ProSense]

54. "Constitutional law already permits..."

Constitutional law already permits law-enforcement officials to question a suspect in custody, without Miranda warnings, if public-safety considerations justify doing so. For at least 25 years, it has been clear that law enforcement does not have to provide Miranda warnings before asking a suspect questions that, as the Supreme Court has put it, are “reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety.” Thus, if the FBI captures a suspected terrorist bomber, and has grounds for concern that other attempted bombings might be in motion, the FBI can non-coercively interrogate the suspect for information about those other suspected plots without giving the suspect Miranda warnings. One crucial consequence is that any statements the suspect makes during that questioning that also incriminate himself can be used against him in a later criminal prosecution.

Yet the Court has recognized and elaborated the public-safety exception in cases unlike many of today's terrorism cases, and thus the boundaries of the exception in the terrorism context remain unclear. When the FBI or other government agencies capture a terrorist suspect, they will often want to question him or her for two related, but different kinds of purposes: (1) for information that will protect the public against any immediate security threats and (2) for more general intelligence about others who might have assisted the suspect in the (completed or attempted) act of terrorism for which he has been apprehended, about the nature and organization of the terrorist groups he or she is associated with (if any), and the like. While the public-safety exception permits pre-Miranda questioning for the first purpose, how that exception applies to this second purpose is far from clear.

Is that a problem for effective counterterrorism efforts? Before addressing that question, it is important to clear up a common confusion. There is not much doubt that the FBI can non-coercively question a captured suspect for more general intelligence information, without Miranda, if the government does not use any of the suspect’s testimony to incriminate him at a later criminal trial. Constitutional law does not impose any free-floating, all-purpose, affirmative obligation on law-enforcement officials to provide Miranda warnings anytime they have a suspect in custody; as Orin Kerr recently pointed out, constitutional law imposes only the more specific obligation not to use any incriminating statements taken from a non-Mirandized suspect against him at his later criminal trial. If the FBI and other agencies simply use the information to go after the terrorist organization and other suspects – if the FBI gives this information to the government of Pakistan, for example, which then uses it to capture other suspects there – the fact that this information was obtained through non-coercive questioning, in the absence of Miranda, obviously does not create any legal problem.

link

Holder knows what he's talking about.

[ClarkUSA]

55. The OP is not only misleading but its premise is based on the HuffPo writer's cluelessness...

... regarding the Constitution. Holder never said "Miranda Rights Should Be Modified For Terrorism Suspects". This is what Holder actually said:

"We're now dealing with international terrorism. ... I think we have to give serious consideration to at least modifying that public-safety exception. And that's one of the things that I think we're going to be reaching out to Congress, to come up with a proposal that is both constitutional, but that is also relevant to our times and the threats that we now face."

What's wrong with "reaching out to Congress to come up with a proposal that is... constitutional"? Hmm?

Furthermore, the HuffPo writer, the OP and most of the folks on this thread that have expressed outrage are terribly ill-informed as to the Constitution:

Constitutional law already permits law-enforcement officials to question a suspect in custody, without Miranda warnings, if public-safety considerations justify doing so. For at least 25 years, it has been clear that law enforcement does not have to provide Miranda warnings before asking a suspect questions that, as the Supreme Court has put it, are “reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety.” Thus, if the FBI captures a suspected terrorist bomber, and has grounds for concern that other attempted bombings might be in motion, the FBI can non-coercively interrogate the suspect for information about those other suspected plots without giving the suspect Miranda warnings.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/05/should-congress-codify-public-safety.html

"Holder knows what he's talking about. Those who don't need to stop pretending that using the words civil liberties makes them experts on the Constitution." http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=291804&mesg_id=291950

[Inuca]

58. Oh, but it feels so good

and noble to feel outraged! Jumping to conclusions seems also to do wonders for one's self-esteem.

[ClarkUSA]

60. lol! Yes, it's a Rorschach test in many ways.

:thumbsup:

[Odin2005]

62. Obama FAIL!

Looking more like a REPUBLICAN all the time! :grr:

[CLANG]

64. That is so un-progressive and un-liberal.

[Mari333]

69. hmmm sounds like BUSH

same old shit, same old shit.

[Zhade]

74. I don't recall even that murderous piece of shit suggesting this.

"Change"

[krabigirl]

146. this is a neocons wet dream

[rasputin1952]

75. WTF...NO!

We've had enough chipping away at The Constitution.

We've survived every thing that has been thrown at us because we have The constitution. It is the Law of the Land...period!

[New Dawn]

76. Not surprised in the slightest.

He has Neocon views on government powers.

[No Elephants]

136. No difference between New Democrats and the DLC. The DLC subscribed to the PNAC memo.

[awoke_in_2003]

77. NO...

the original WTC bombers were read their rights, went through the US Justice system (not a military tribunal), and are still in prison. They were treated like criminal, not potential martyrs, and have been largely forgotten. Different rights for different people is not a good thing.

[Coco2]

78. Holder is a protoge of Janet Reno, that he would destroy Miranda is no surprise.

subject line says it all.

[KamaAina]

89. Great to see him parroting Krauthammer's columns

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[merkins]

92. "He who would trade freedom for safety deserves neither. "

K&R

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ShortnFiery]

107. This is UN-SAT. eom

[DemoTex]

131. Part-time Constitution on the fast-track to being obsolete.

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a god-damned piece of paper!" - George W. Bu$h (according to Capitol Hill Blue, but unverified).

[bamacrat]

137. What?

If Miranda is working why change it? This constant cowering to the right is beginning to...no wait.. is insulting to the left and a sad spectacle.

[No Elephants]

139. And you wonder why Pres. Obama has not nominated liberals to the bench?

After Miranda, Congress tried to do away with the need to read Miranda rights by passing a law. The SCOTUS overruled Congress's attempt.

Would the Roberts Court do the same? I doubt it.


"I suspect you of being a terrorist, Lord only knows why, but I do. Zap. Your rights as a citizen are gone. But, don't grieve too much. They had already been whittled down a lot by Bushco and Obamaco. And Americans let them. So, losing your rights as a citizen sounds a lot worse than it is. You already lost many of those years ago."


Buh bye, America. You were great while it lasted. I loved you. I really loved you.