DOJ’s New Miranda Policy Betrays Constitution & Power of Judiciary

[midnight]

Source: Fire dog lake

New rules allow investigators to hold domestic-terror suspects longer than others without giving them a Miranda warning, significantly expanding exceptions to the instructions that have governed the handling of criminal suspects for more than four decades.



That exception was seen as a limited device to be used only in cases of an imminent safety threat, but the new rules give interrogators more latitude and flexibility to define what counts as an appropriate circumstance to waive Miranda rights.

A Federal Bureau of Investigation memorandum reviewed by The Wall Street Journal says the policy applies to “exceptional cases” where investigators “conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat.” Such action would need prior approval from FBI supervisors and Justice Department lawyers, according to the memo, which was issued in December but not made public.



Let us not forget, this attempt by the administration is not aimed at terrorists and enemy combatants on foreign soil, it is aimed squarely at individuals arrested on domestic soil under the regular Article III criminal system. The law is quite established that the reading of the Miranda warning does not confer rights upon the arrestee, the rights are inherent and flow from the Constitution.

Read more: http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/03/24/doj-betrays-constitution-judiciary-on-miranda/#comments

---

Wow talk about your revisionists????? "In sum, we conclude that Miranda announced a constitutional rule that Congress may not supersede legislatively. So as long as we have war we have our rights taken away"...

[midnight]

1. I removed a paragraph and their is a link... I hope this

meet the edit issue-thanks.

[RufusTFirefly]

2. Someone in the Obama Administration must be channeling Ed Meese

U.S News: You criticize the Miranda ruling, which gives suspects the right to have a lawyer present before police questioning. Shouldn't people, who may be innocent, have such protection?

Meese: Suspects who are innocent of a crime should. But the thing is, you don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.

(October 14, 1985)"Justice under Reagan: Reagan seeks judges with 'traditional approach' (interview)". U.S. News & World Report 99 (1): p. 67. ISSN 0041-5537.

from Wikiquote

Anxiously awaiting the apologists (and the un-reccers) on this one.

:popcorn:

[midnight]

3. The police already have their way around the miranda rights

if your driving and they pick you up... They wave all your rights under a OWI....

[pokerfan]

4. No big deal

It's just a god-damned piece of paper. :sarcasm:

K&R

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/03/you-have-the-right-to-remain-a-terror-suspect/72964/">You Have the Right to Remain a Terror Suspect (The Atlantic)

[howaboutme]

5. I'm starting to see a correlation between the USA and Gaddafi

No rights, corruption, cronies rewarded, subversion and paranoia against the people, the rich running the government, rights of the people eroded. It means nothing D or R. Different players, same outcome.

[midnight]

6. "Miranda is a constitutional rule, not an interrogation policy," the ACLU said Thursday.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/24/obama-curtails-miranda-rights-for-american-terrorism-suspects/