Sen. Lindsey Graham: Miranda rights 'counterproductive' (in interrogating U.S. citizens)

Politico ^ | 2010-05-06 | Kasie Hunt

[rabscuttle385]

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) wants to allow the government to interrogate U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism without warning them of their right to remain silent—a proposal that would dramatically rewrite the rules regarding suspects captured inside the United States.

“Miranda warnings are counterproductive in my view,” Graham said at a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing Wednesday.

“The homeland is part of the battlefield. So this idea that you get to America, the rules dramatically change, to the benefit of the suspect – the terrorist – makes no sense,” he said.

Graham told POLITICO he is working on legislation that would redefine the so-called “public safety exemption” to Miranda warnings. Under current law, police can question a suspect to obtain admissible evidence without informing them of their rights if they believe that there is an “exigent danger” – like a ticking time bomb — that another crime is about to be committed.

[Wolfie]

Make no difference to me, but this will be for ALL suspects, in ALL crimes.

[rabscuttle385]

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) wants to allow the government to interrogate U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism without warning them of their right to remain silent—a proposal that would dramatically rewrite the rules regarding suspects captured inside the United States.

Check this out.

Once the damnable McCain and his lap dog Graham have served their purposes, their leftist "friends" might choose to label conservatives, libertarians, and Tea Partiers as "domestic terrorists" and summarily strip them of their rights as U.S. citizens.

[Onelifetogive]

a proposal that would dramatically rewrite the rules regarding suspects captured inside the United States

This guy has a college degree (and presumably a television) and has likely heard the term "You have the right to remain silent..." about 1,000,000 in cop shows over the years. I don't imagine it was news to him.

[Touch Not the Cat]

.
“Miranda warnings are counterproductive in my view,”

That was the position of some LEOs a few decades ago.

Now, however it just sounds ominous.

[driftdiver]

So give terrorists rights but take rights away from Americans.

Hot tar and feathers for these slime.

[TomGuy]

I would be more concerned about having specific safeguards written into such a new law.

I don’t trust the likes of Lindsey Graham or future politicans.

Too many times the seemingly innocuous laws they write have devastating unintended consequences.

[rabscuttle385]

fyi

[TChris]

They aren't "Miranda" rights; they're Constitutional rights.

Miranda just means that a LEO has to give every suspect a lesson on his Constitutional rights before asking him questions.

[pray4liberty]

First dig of the spur to take ALL our rights away. Welcome to the New World Order.

[Sudetenland]

Sorry folks, but Miranda "rights" are another of the (very activist) Warren Court's creations. The requirement that a suspect be "Mirandized" isn't in the Constitution nor the amendments thereto.

Just one in a long list of invented rights that have weakened our justice system into one in which the rights of the accused prevail over the rights of the victim.

Miranda is just another liberal hinderance to effective law enforcement.

[Navy Patriot]

Another candidate for the "How stupid is" list.

If terrorists are held as illegal combatants at Gitmo, Miranda is unnecessary.

If they are held as criminals in any US justice facility, Miranda is absolutely necessary for conviction.

An exception for "terrorism" will never pass Constitutional test. SCOTUS must reverse Miranda universally.

Ghramnesty is a maroon.

[ansel12]

The Miranda decision was another one of the leftists/libertarian big victories during the 60s from the libertarian hero, Earl Warren’s radical court.

[Tarpon]

It’s just a short hop to now everybody who hates big government is a terrorist.

[throwback]

This is unrelated, but anybody else have a problem with this term “homeland”. When and why did that come into common use? So if this is the homeland, what other lands are there? I think the use of this term sets expectation that this country is the property of the world, and, therefore, the people of the world should be allowed to come and go and do whatever business they please here without the consent of the citizens. The idea that this is a integral nation with citizens is now obsolete.

[Sudetenland]

Correct. Miranda simply makes a legal loop hole for criminals. The rights pre-existed even the Constitution and must be respected, but the Miranda requirement is an invention of the left.

[dools007]

When I drive my car I’m expected to know all the laws pertinent to driving. Ignorence is no excuse. The cop stopping me does not read my “rights”.

Only clever lawyers could cook up the Miranda nonsense with respect to nondriving crimes. I doubt a single innocent person has benefitted from Miranda. Only criminals benefit from it.

[TomGuy]

The requirement that a suspect be "Mirandized" isn't in the Constitution nor the amendments thereto.

IIRC, it has something to do with that pesky Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

[ansel12]

What in heck does that have to do with Miranda?

[Sudetenland]

Nowhere does it say anything about requiring the suspect to be read his rights. That is a creation of the Warren Court, it’s not in the Constitution.