On Meet the Press this Sunday Attorney General Eric Holder made the following comments concerning whether a terrorist suspect should be read their Miranda rights in a timely manner.
Honestly I am stunned that any Attorney General, who is NOT Alberto Gonzales, would even suggest such a thing! And I am not the only one that is disheartened by this news.
Donna Marsh O’Connor, spokesperson for September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, had this to say:
Last week law enforcement agencies including the FBI and the NYPD successfully aborted an attempt to kill Americans by following the rule of law. According to Attorney General Holder the suspect Faisal Shazad was apprehended, read his Miranda rights, and began to proffer information vital to US interests, continuing to speak to this day. There is already room in Miranda for postponing the reading of rights in the interests of public safety and this was, indeed, invoked. Surprisingly, in the face of this success, Holder now maintains that we should "revisit" Miranda laws for those apprehended for alleged terrorist activities. We urge caution and we invoke reason: we have laws that work to protect our citizens and our security. We should not proceed down a road that may become a slippery slope towards the curtailment of fundamental due process rights that have served this nation well.
My question is what happens when the federal prosecutors bring their suspect to trial and the judge tells them that ALL of the information that they got out of him before he was Mirandized is inadmissible? What does America do then? Do they simply lock him up with no conviction and send a message to the world that America is no longer a country governed by the rule of law?
How do we stand on our soapbox and preach to other nations about democracy then?
What is it Benjamin Franklin said again?
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Holder is talking about codifying the existing public safety exception, not a waiver of Miranda. Miranda does not confer rights - they are present simply by virtue of the constitution.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the NYT article, Holder's concern is that there is too much room for interpretation of the exception (length of time, etc.) by the executive branch, which is why he is proposing that Congress get involved.
Well by Holder's own admission the suspects continued to talk after they were notified of their rights, so it appears the only reason the administration is thinking of addressing this is to placate the wingnuts on the Right.
ReplyDeleteTHAT is not a rational reason for altering this law.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your concerns on this issue.. I'm glad someone else is saying it..Thanks Gryphen.
ReplyDeleteevery time we give up our rights the terrorist win!! it's better to be safe then SORRY so read them their rights.. some make mountains out of mole hills.
The genius that was Ben Franklin also said "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy"...And Holder needs to stop watching 24.
ReplyDeleteI cannot think of a single instance where this administration has not failed when its conscience of principles has been tested. Obama has proven to be a moral relativist w/ whom politics always wins the day - sound eerily familiar? I once had hope that he might bring an end to that and give this country some desperately needed moral clarity, but that hope was dashed when he quashed the investigation of war crimes, and he just won't stop grinding it under his heel.
ReplyDeleteyeah this is a load of shit. but there's part of me that says it's a sign of the times, we're in a period of devolution (and palin making serious bucks while being one of the country's biggest ignoramuses is hard proof of that). we were supposed to be better than the rest, but we let fear guide us. no doubt it sucks.
ReplyDelete