Somehow, I do not think this is the 'change' everyone signed on for. Its bullshit, plain and simple. I only hope the Obama-ites can see the truth through their kool-aid induced euphoria.
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > All the uproar about reading alleged terrorists their Miranda rights > predictably rebounds to allow us all a few less rights. See the last > paragraph (of couse) for a sensible take. > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/09/AR2010050902062.html > > Miranda rights may be changed to fight terrorism, Holder says > > By Anne E. Kornblut > Washington Post Staff Writer > Sunday, May 9, 2010; 2:31 PM > > The Obama administration is considering changes to the laws requiring > police to inform suspects of their rights, potentially pursuing an > expansion of the "public safety exception" that allows officers to > delay issuing Miranda warnings, officials said Sunday. > > Attorney General Eric Holder, in his first appearances on Sunday > morning news shows, said the Justice Department is examining "whether > or not we have the necessary flexibility" to deal with terrorist > suspects such as the Pakistani-born U.S. citizen who tried to detonate > a car bomb in Times Square last weekend. > > "We're now dealing with international terrorism," Holder said on ABC's > "This Week." "And if we are going to have a system that is capable of > dealing in a public safety context with this new threat, I think we > have to give serious consideration to at least modifying that public > safety exception." > > The announcement marked a potentially significant change by the > administration as it tries to manage the politics of national security > after repeatedly coming under fire, mainly from conservatives, for > being too willing to read Miranda rights to terrorism suspects. The > administration is trying to thread a difficult needle: of taking a > harder line on terrorism while also doing so within the confines of > the criminal justice system. > > Holder and other administration officials said they would be engaging > Congress on putting together a proposal for the changes to the law, > which requires suspects to be told that they have the right to remain > silent and that their statements may be used against them in court. > They did not provide specifics of possible changes. > > Under the public safety exception, statements obtained pre-Miranda may > be used in court -- including to charge suspects -- if it is > determined that police needed to obtain information quickly to prevent > further crimes. Once an immediate threat is ruled out, the Miranda > warning must be read, under current law. > > The public safety exception dates back to 1984, when the New York > Police Department caught a man they believed was an armed rape > suspect, only to discover that his loaded gun was missing from his > holster. The Supreme Court ruled that it was legal for the police to > question the suspect before reading him his rights because the loaded > gun -- which he had tossed in a grocery store as he fled -- was a > threat to public safety and it was imperative that it be found > immediately. > > Holder referred to the case, New York v. Quarles, in his remarks > Sunday, saying it was time for the law to be updated. > > "That's one of the things that I think we're going to be reaching out > to Congress to do, to come up with a proposal that is both > constitutional, but that is also relevant to our time and the threat > that we now face," Holder said. > > > Yet the changes Holder would seek are not simply about the > admissibility of pre-Miranda statements in court, officials said. The > goal would be to give law enforcement officials greater latitude to > hold suspects within the criminal justice system and interrogate them > for long periods of time -- without having to transfer them to a > military system or designate them as enemy combatants, they said. > > That could mean seeking a change not to the public safety exception > but to a separate statute that governs how long a suspect may be > interrogated before being brought before a judge. Currently, there are > limitations on how long that period of time may last. > > Orin Kerr, a professor at the George Washington University Law School > and expert in criminal justice, said it is unlikely the Supreme Court > would defer to Congress if it sought changes to the scope of Miranda. > But there would be more flexibility on the detention statute, he said. > Changes, Kerr said, "make sense if you can define what a terrorism > case is." "The devil is in the details in these sorts of things," he > said. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:317776 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
