Holder to dimbulbs Lieberman and GOP Senators: Miranda does not bestow a special right

[BurtWorm]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/06/holder-accuses-critics-of_n_565983.html

"<Mirandizing> is not conferring a right on somebody or giving them -- treating them in a special way," Holder said. "It is allowing us to make sure statements they give to us will be admissible in court."

The Attorney General then went through a list of terrorist suspects who were given the Miranda warnings "and still ultimately decided to speak with the government."

Holder's strongest pushback, however, came against those critics who have urged him to abandon efforts to try terrorist suspects in criminal courts instead of military tribunals.

"We want to make sure that we use all the tools that we have available to us in trying to prosecute this war," the Attorney General said, in defense of criminal proceedings. "If you were to take from us the ability to use the federal courts, you will weaken our ability to win this war. You will weaken the strength of this nation. We have to have the ability to use the Article 3 courts, the reformed military commissions, our military power, our diplomatic power. We need to have all these tools so that we are successful in this fight against al Qaeda and others who would do this nation harm."

...

[RandomThoughts]

1. I agree with Holder on people being told their rights.

But on another note.

Who are Americans, who are the people that are protected by different systems, and who is it that is harming the many people of America.

You could make an argument that the people hurting America, and other peoples, have been doing it for decades for their own gain.

[gratuitous]

2. The Miranda warning is to protect the prosecutor

The accused gets those rights, whether informed of them or not. And if the investigators and the prosecutors fail to give those warnings, the accused gets those protections anyway, and any statements given before the warning are inadmissible as evidence in court. If the prosecutor is hamstrung by inadmissible evidence, the likelihood of conviction goes way down.

Besides, I'm old-fashioned enough that I really want to see the perpetrator of a crime convicted for the crime, rather than some scapegoat who was scooped up in the heat of the moment because somebody important was so scared he wet himself. I feel a lot better when the criminal justice system convicts the criminals rather than hapless innocents. I guess this makes me sort of suspect in the eyes of such august personages as Sen. Lieberman. I relish their suspicion.

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. Hate to say it, but they know that. That has nothing to do with their objection.

What they want is to be able to turn our justice system into an oubliette into which they can throw enemies of the state - foreign or domestic - and never release them. After all, there is no way an accused terrorist can PROVE he is no longer a threat, therefore he must be considered an ongoing threat for the rest of his life.

They have no interest in justice, or its workings.

[old mark]

4. It certainly is NOT a "special right"-it was meant to insure the person

being questioned by the police KNEW his rights regarding such questioning and that legally he had the right to refuse to answer questions or say anything, and that he could ask for legal representation at any time, and that whatever he may say could be used against him in court,all rights we all have already.

mark