Dennis Blair, Obama's intelligence director, said that we made a little boo-boo by giving the Christmas Day Underwear Bomber his Miranda rights, which caused him to lawyer up.
Although this was from a quote, he later said his statement was "miscontrued." Why can't he talk clearly?
If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit....
Obama is the best I've ever seen at this and his coherts are learning fast...
then after theyve sweated the guy for a few days and gotten all the info from him, we tell him you have to the right to remain silent?
Yeah, I know, it makes us safer, but do you have any idea how this completely violates Miranda vs. Arizona, wherein the right to receive Miranda warnings is triggered by custodial interrogation? Have you forgotten how long it has taken to establish the privilege against self-incrimination, the sources from which it came and the fervor with which it was defended?
What? You say the privilege against self incrimination should not be given to suspected terrorists? Well, what about all those Christian terrorists that your friend Willy sees hanging out at your local Starbucks? Fortunately, the Supreme Court knows how to deal with you and Willy. As the Court said in the Miranda decision:
The privilege was elevated to constitutional status and has always been "as broad as the mischief against which it seeks to guard." Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 562 (1892). We cannot depart from this noble heritage.
All right Phil, you now have a chance to admit you were wrong. A year ago I lamented the ad hoc way we were treating terror suspects, and urged that Congress set standards for treating these guys. You responded Ad hoc is good.
Congratulations Phil - they listened to you, not me.
First, my memory as to details may be off, since it has been a couple months in some cases. but the basics are accurate.
There are currently at least three groups that we have strong suspicions of currently being in Yemen and plotting terrorism. There was a group from someplace like Minnesota that I read about in Dec. that disappeared. They are "disgruntled" Americans, I thnk from Somalia, who disappeared, and they are pretty sure they are in Yemen.
Second, there was a group reported from Western Europe. And third, there was a report of a group of ex-cons from the U.S. who have converted and are in Yemen.
That is three active groups, probably plotting terrorism. They seem to be working with the group that came one fuse away from a succesful plane bombing.
I will concede arguendo, and soley for this argument, that maybe we shouldn't water board or go Jack Bower. But telling Panty Boy to put a lid on it and not say anything more, when he just came from Yemen is really dumb.
The odds are pretty reasonable that he knows about some of these current plotters. Yeah. I don't want him Mirandized.
You quote that the consitutional privilege have always been "as broad as the mischief against which it seeks to guard."
That is my point exactly. When the crime is a murder (or robbery or jay walking) that has been committed already, and the only value is gaining evidence to convict, Miranda should have a strong value. Crime over. No danger.
If it is a gang, and they killed one person and may be killing another, interrogation is not to gain info to punish someone already in custody, but to prevent others.
In that situation, the mischief has not occurred, so I would react differently because the value of getting the information is greater.
If the situation is someone possibly blowing up a plane over SF or LA, killing 300 on board and XX number on the ground, I say the value of interrogation just went up, as did the level of michief.
Yes, if the value of the privilege is in relation to the mischief to be prevented, I say we need an ad hoc. We need to adapt to the danger.
Sorry. If they ever start planting bombs in movie theaters or football games, I am hawk.
Sorry. You can comfort the widows and orphans after by telling that that at least we didn't interrogate the Panty Bomber in a way that violated his rights.
(One of my fav movie scenes. Dirty Harry, after he shot the murderer in the leg and stomped on it to get info as to where the kidnapped girl was. He's called into the mayors office and the mayor lists the constitutional rights Harry violated. Harry responds. "Well, I'm all broken up over that man's rights!"
but it simply cannot be done under the Supreme Court decisions
if the suspect is entitled to Miranda warnings at all. You cannot interrogate and then tell him he has the right to remain silent.
That is why your ad hoc approach will not work.
But if Congress passes legislation deeming that persons charges with crimes of terrorism may be interrogated to provide us with the information we need to deter future terrorists acts, then the interrogation can be done lawfully.
And if you want to install a fail safe device in the legislation to prevent the statute from being declared unconstitutional, you could say any info gleaned could not be used against the suspect in court, absent the inevitable discovery doctrine.
If Miranda is a constitutional right, an act of congress can't change it, as long as you are placing it in the criminal sphere.
If it is just another crime, albiet a really bad one, congress can't deny Miranda, unless the court overrules Miranda.
However, if you remove it from crime, put it in the war powers category, or some other classification, then you would have more room.
I am glad you agree that some interrogation is "desireable." Yes, it is desireable to take steps against mass murder.
(On my way out. writing this quickly. language is lose, but I assume you can get the gist without quibbling over exact wording. If you can't, I'll clarify later.)
the police and law enforcement agencies. Send in the Army to interrogate the Panty Bomber first, and you do not have a Miranda problem.
Provide by statute that the army has preliminary jurisidiction over suspects charged with terror crimes and that info the army gains cannot be used against him in court, and then the army turns him over to law enforcement.
Problem solved.
Outsource terrorism interrogations to Mossad..
I agree that you provide that what is gained by interrogation can't be used in court, since the purpose of the interrogation is not to gather "testimonial" judicial evidence but to prevent.
Although, if there is an emergency, why not allow both. An exigent search for safety reasons will yield otherwise illegal info, and they just create an exception. Is it Harris v. NY? To lazy to look it up. Why not the same here?
That aside, going down the slippery slope, if can you provide by stat that the army has primary jurisdiction over these crimes why not shift primary jurisdiction over computer crimes, counterfeiting, or other offenses that may affect the national interest and could result in havoc?
Congress can create courtsand limit jurisdiction, as you know, but I really don't know if Congress can give the army jurisdiction of what would otherwise be judicial matters.
I really have a huge problem with that. Sorry, I can't see it.