I'll buy that. Though I think the Obama-ites are trying to appease the right. Look at all that stuff about how sure they read the Christmas bomber his rights, but the Bush guys did too. Either way I View This With Alarm (tm).
It's a sign that the people who should be clear on the concept are not. On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 8:10 AM, LRS Scout <lrssc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Doesn't matter if it were obama or mccain. > > Things are declining. Period, doesn't matter which side is in charge. They > both want bigger, more intrusive, more expensive government, just for > different reasons. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Stroz [mailto:boyz...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 9:56 AM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: in the oh hell no category > > > 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/AR2010050902 > 062.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:317806 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
