Obama administraton bows once again to Republican pressure curtailing rights of "terror" suspects.

[Better Believe It]

Who Needs Miranda? Not Terror Suspects, aka "Exceptional Cases"
by Abby Zimet
March 24, 2011

Apparently bowing once again to GOP pressure, the Obama administration has curtailed the rights of terror suspects with new rules that allow a delay in telling detainees their rights. The FBI memo applies when investigators "conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence." Wait. Didn't this guy used to be a constitutional lawyer?

http://www.commondreams.org/further/2011/03/24-0


--------------------------------------------

Rights Are Curtailed for Terror Suspects
By EVAN PEREZ
March 24, 2011

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.

The move is one of the Obama administration's most significant revisions to rules governing the investigation of terror suspects in the U.S. And it potentially opens a new political tussle over national security policy, as the administration marks another step back from pre-election criticism of unorthodox counterterror methods.

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.

The new guidelines could blunt criticism from Republicans, many of whom have pushed for terror suspects to be sent to military detention, where they argue that rigid Miranda restrictions don't apply. But many liberals will likely oppose the move, as might some conservatives who believe the administration doesn't have legal authority to rein in such rights. New York Republican Peter King, chairman of the House homeland-security committee, is among the lawmakers who welcomed Mr. Holder's call to change Miranda.

Read the full article at:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704050204576218970652119898.html

[Angry Dragon]

1. Fox News is a terrorist group

[FiveGoodMen]

2. He bows to republicans. I don't think he needs any pressure.

They're already on the same side.

[RufusTFirefly]

9. +1

A comment on Common Dreams makes a similar point.
I think we need to stop providing him with a "the Devil made me do it" excuse.

[hifiguy]

15. +2

He can't wait to surrender to whatever the Repigs ask for on any major issue.

[displacedvermoter]

3. Kick and looking for someone to defend this chess move

[roguevalley]

11. they will. I'm sure there is a law of physics that allows a human

being to speak out of both sides of their mouth while their head is up their butt.

[Bluebear]

4. How much "pressure" did THAT take?

[truebrit71]

5. So much for 'Constitutional Scholar" meaning anything anymore...

:eyes:

[Better Believe It]

13. Well he still is doing community organizing.

This time Obama is organizing and leading the business community!

[emilyg]

6. k

[gratuitous]

7. "Valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat"

Uh, maybe it's because I'm not a lawyer, but isn't that meaningless twaddle? If the information has be be gotten because it's "timely," but there is no immediate threat, uh . . .

Wait. What?

Maybe asking too many questions about this makes baby Jesus cry. Or makes Peter King wet his pants. There's gotta be a reason. Doesn't there?

[Bluebear]

16. Twaddle covers it.

[Rex]

8. Well fuck! Why even have a democracy or a representative form

of govt if we really don't believe in inalienable rights? This country has become a 'guilty until proven innocent' kinda place and it smacks of fascism. Never thought I'd see a Dem POTUS bowing down to the abuse of power we are seeing today.

Unficking believable! Why have any rights at all!?!?!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Newsworthy, would be when Obama didn't "bow to republicans".

But, what the hell, he's playing to his new base.

[nosmokes]

12. He doesn't bow he lubes up and bends over.

But in his defense so do quite a number of his party faithful.Which is why the Democrats are such an ineffectual tool.

[SidDithers]

14. Unrec...

SSDD.

Sid

[Bluebear]

17. kick