Miranda is Obama's latest victim

[defendandprotect]

Miranda is Obama's latest victim

Glenn Greenwald 3/24/11


EXCERPT ONLY --

Today, the Obama DOJ unveiled the latest -- and one of the most significant -- examples of its eagerness to assault the very legal values Obama vowed to protect. The Wall Street Journal reports that "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 only previous exception to the 45-year-old Miranda requirement that someone in custody be apprised of their rights occurred in 1984, when the Rehnquist-led right-wing faction of the Supreme Court allowed delay "only in cases of an imminent safety threat," but these new rules promulgated by the Obama DOJ "give interrogators more latitude and flexibility to define what counts as an appropriate circumstance to waive Miranda rights."

For that reason, the WSJ is surely correct when it calls these new guidelines "one of the Obama administration's most significant revisions to rules governing the investigation of terror suspects in the U.S." Note that, in 7 years of prosecuting the War on Terror after 9/11, the Bush administration never tried to dilute Miranda guidelines (though doing so for them was irrelevant because they simply imprisoned even American citizens (such as Jose Padilla) without any charges or due process of any kind).

Ironically, it was the administration -- and its followers -- that defended the sanctity of Miranda back in late 2009, when the Cheney/Kristol/Limbaugh/Palin Right attacked Obama for Mirandizing the "underwear bomber" as soon as he was taken into custody. Back then, the White House and its loyalists stridently argued that Miranda does not interfere with effective interrogations and that, in any event, it is a pillar of our justice system that should not be eroded. We'll undoubtedly be hearing from the same precincts now -- from the very same people -- that diluting Miranda is necessary to Keep Us Safe; that it's fully within a President's right to change Miranda guidelines without Congress (just like he can start wars on his own); and that it's merely a tiny little change that pales in comparison to the Important Issues of the Day. For anyone who defends Obama's new decision here, shouldn't you also admit that Rush Limbaugh and Bill Kristol were right in criticizing Obama back then and demanding dilution of Miranda for Terrorism suspects?

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/24/miranda/index.html


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

Haven't read all of this -- the Wall St. Journal defending Miranda -- ?

[dennis4868]

1. Glenn Greewald....

has lost all objectivity in my mind....bye bye Glenn!

[Wilms]

3. Facts notwithstanding. Huh?

:eyes:

How about Evan Perez, then?

Before becoming president, Mr. Obama had criticized the Bush administration for going outside traditional criminal procedures to deal with terror suspects, and for bypassing Congress in making rules to handle detainees after 9/11. He has since embraced many of the same policies while devising additional ones—to the disappointment of civil-liberties groups that championed his election. In recent weeks, the administration formalized procedures for indefinitely detaining some suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, allowing for periodic reviews of those deemed too dangerous to set free.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704050204576218970652119898.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

:hi:

[bvar22]

9. Better yet, here is some great video of "Campaign" Obama.

Campaign Obama vs President Obama:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah

[Wilms]

11. Oh. But John Stewart isn't a "J O U R N A L I S T!"

When Bill Clinton introduced Obama at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and Obama blathered something about, "My God is an awesome God", I realized we were in for an awesome set-up.

Mange we can believe in.

[EFerrari]

6. The Young Turks: Obama's Executive Order on Miranda Rights

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x566921

ACLU via RawStory
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/24/obama-curtails-miranda-rights-for-american-terrorism-suspects/

Jonathan Turley
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/03/24/obama-orders-limits-on-miranda-rights-for-domestic-suspects/

[roguevalley]

8. too bad. even when he's right you won't listen.

Obama is a lawyer and there is no excuse to make for him. He just doesn't care anymore than dumya.

[Enthusiast]

13. Oh, he cares.

He just doesn't care about us.

[ananda]

2. Rights have been corroding for some time..

.. and obviously still are. Shame.

[Pirate Smile]

4. American Prospect: More On Yesterday's Miranda Overreaction

More On Yesterday's Miranda Overreaction

By Adam Serwer | Posted 03/25/2011 at 09:17 AM

Yesterday, The Wall Street Journal reported changes to the FBI's Miranda policy that have already been long known -- FBI agents now delay reading of Miranda in some terror arrests. Charlie Savage has more details:

In most cases, the memorandum said, after public safety questions have been exhausted, interrogators should advise the terrorism suspect of his rights. But in certain “exceptional cases,” agents may continue to ask questions without a Miranda warning “to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat.”

However, it said, such extended questioning must be approved by supervisors who would weigh “the disadvantages.” A footnote listed precedents ruling that prosecutors could not use self-incriminating statements made by a defendant before a warning.

While their was some consternation on the left and some predictable reactionary glee on the right, the reality is that nothing much has changed, because the FBI does not have the power to amend the Constitution.

Just to reiterate, Miranda doesn't govern interrogation; it governs admissibility of evidence. That's why it doesn't interfere with interrogation, because the only thing it impacts is whether a statement is admissible in court, not whether the FBI can use it as intelligence. The only thing the new policy will do is make it more difficult to convict terror suspects in court, although I suspect that FBI agents will only delay Miranda in cases where the evidence is so overwhelming that it doesn't matter. As a political gesture, it may convince Republicans that having Defense Secretary Robert Gates rubber-stamp the civilian trial of every jerk caught with a firecracker and a copy of the Qu'ran is a bad idea.

As I noted yesterday, former top FBI Official Phill Mudd has written, "I sat at hundreds of briefing tables for nine years after Sept. 11, 2001, and I can't remember a time when Miranda impeded a decision on whether to pursue an intelligence interview." It's. Irrelevant.

Yesterday, I suggested that changing the rules of admissibility might return us to the pre-Miranda era where cops could easily beat confessions out of their suspects. Robert Chesney explains that the Fifth Amendment still protects individuals against involuntary statements, so that wouldn't be the case.

The fight over Miranda is a prominent example of culture-war counterterrorism -- an area in which Republicans have managed to gin up outrage over a complete fiction that, to someone who spends their Saturday afternoons watching 24 episodes on DVD, sounds like a real national-security issue.

http://prospect.org/csnc/blogs/adam_serwer_archive?month=03&year=2011&base_name=more_on_yesterdays_miranda_ove

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

5. I'd note that admissibility is only of concern in cases without unlimited detention.

:think:

[EFerrari]

7. Precisely. n/t

[xchrom]

10. +2

[WillyT]

14. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

:applause::applause::applause:

:kick:

[Zhade]

15. You destroyed that argument so easily. Well-done!

NT!

[Enthusiast]

12. I ask that we all remember

that anyone can be accused of being a terrorist on the flimsiest of evidence.

[wildbilln864]

16. or even no evidence at all...

as they don't have to show it to anyone! k&r btw.