Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sen. Lindsey Graham: Miranda rights 'counterproductive' (in interrogating U.S. citizens)
Politico ^ | 2010-05-06 | Kasie Hunt

Posted on 05/06/2010 7:44:13 AM PDT by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: South Carolina; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 111th; 11idiotsdrivel; 1dishonestpost; 2010; acornpaidforthis; assclownpost; cinoattack; clownpost; congress; dailyobot; dncporpaganda; donttreadonme; elections; ignorance; liarschoir; liberalfascism; libertyordeath; lindseygraham; lping; madeuppropaganda; mccain; mclameslapdog; mirandarights; mirandavsarizona; mirandawarning; nwo; obotsattack; paulbotsignorance; paulbotstupidity; policestate; rapeofliberty; rino; soros; totallystupidpost; traitor; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last
To: NeoCaveman; Sudetenland
No offense, but I find your post combined with your screen name to be high in irony.

Glad I read the thread and saw yours. I was about to reply to Sudetenland: "Your post and screen name dangle as ripe temptation to Godwin."

61 posted on 05/07/2010 7:02:53 AM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Blonde
Seems like things are supposed to be hard on law enforcement officers, and the accused are supposed to get as much help as possible. That has been our system from the beginning.

Yes...many brave men (and women) fought to get it that way, where the individual is protected from the immense power of the state and its potential abuses. I am deeply grateful for their dedication and am proud of the great republic known as America!

62 posted on 05/07/2010 7:23:16 AM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: All; rabscuttle385; ansel12; Sudetenland
It seems that many FReepers need a refresher on Miranda. I wonder...how long ago was the last time some of these commenters read the decision or reviewed the finer points regarding it. Some things are being totally ignored. For example...

Mirandizing is not "required."

Unsolicited, pre-arrest, un-Mirandized testimony is perfectly admissible.

The Miranda warning prevents a defendant from using the defense claim that he was unaware he was under arrest and subject to the different rules involved with having The State remove his freedom of movement, etc. It's a protection for the prosecution, but also a protection for the citizens against the state's use of ambiguity to conduct coercive interrogations.

It's more than just, "you expect me to follow all those laws but not to know a few rights?!"

Disclaimers: IANAL, and I wrote "citizens" but admit not knowing if that's too restrictive legally in the historical context or not. Guess I need a refresher :-)

63 posted on 05/07/2010 7:31:04 AM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gondring; NeoCaveman

If the name offends you, then perhaps you need to educate yourself on history . . . or read the profile for an explanation. Your failure to do either pegs you as ignorant.


64 posted on 05/07/2010 7:38:53 AM PDT by Sudetenland (Slow to anger but terrible in vengence...such is the character of the American people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Sudetenland
If the name offends you, then perhaps you need to educate yourself on history . . . or read the profile for an explanation. Your failure to do either pegs you as ignorant.

LOL!

My knowledge of history should be obvious from my comment. And your profile's explanation simply supports my point.

65 posted on 05/07/2010 7:45:16 AM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
“What I would suggest as a good compromise is that the public safety exemption be redefined…so law enforcement can go to a judge somewhere and make the case that the detainee is a suspected member of Al Qaeda or the Taliban [or a Tea Partier, or a conservative, or anyone not currently in political favor] and have the judge approve continued interrogation without Miranda rights,” Graham said.

Asshat. He talks about Al Queda and the Taliban to sell the law, which would be fine, that's the way it should be. But he won't put the restrictions in the law to require it to be used in line with the way it was sold.

66 posted on 05/07/2010 7:46:51 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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.

Really? I don't like it either, but for the opposite reason. It reminds me of the Nazis and the Soviets with the "Rodina". It's got a creepy, totalitarian feel to it to me.

67 posted on 05/07/2010 7:50:36 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla
If, instead, we simply changed that so that US law protections only apply to US citizens, regardless of location... then foreign terrorists could be locked up indefinitely, or interrogated, without jeopardizing the Constitutional rights of US citizenry.

I agree that's the heart of the problem, and I agree with the solution as well, as long as it applies only to terror and terrorism . Then they can't do the thing they usually do and sell the new powers in the law as necessary for dealing with terrorists or child molesters, and proceed to use them on all suspects.

68 posted on 05/07/2010 8:00:58 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: starlifter
"Or, in other words, uneducated or stupid people don't have rights."
No, rather "uneducated or stupid people" have the responsibility to educate themselves and to inform themselves. Why should it be anyone else's responsibility to inform those who are too apathetic to inform themselves?

This is how a society of self-reliance and responsibility has devolved into a society of brain-dead dependents who want government to provide them with everything.
69 posted on 05/07/2010 8:07:47 AM PDT by Sudetenland (Slow to anger but terrible in vengence...such is the character of the American people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
Okay, yo comprendo. Missed the irony and for Neo, I was unfamiliar with the Godwin reference.

I think Godwin is correct. It is amazing how often nazis or Hitler crop up in a political discussion and the probability increases as the discussion lengthens.
70 posted on 05/07/2010 8:19:03 AM PDT by Sudetenland (Slow to anger but terrible in vengence...such is the character of the American people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

Spoken like a true liberal.

I remember the Miranda decision of 1966, by the whacked out leftist, libertarian, Earl Warren court that Ronald Reagan and all other conservatives despised so much.

I was totally baffled by the Miranda decision and I still am, but it is another one of those 60s stunts that the left/libertarians got away with and Reagan’s attacks on the Warren Court helped win me to him.

In 1966 it was Miranda, in 1973 it was Roe V Wade, and 1965 was the Kennedy, “turn America into a third world cesspool legislation”, those were heady days for liberals, 180 years of history thrown away as “wrong”.


71 posted on 05/07/2010 9:57:07 AM PDT by ansel12 (Romney-"I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Spoken like a true liberal.
[...]
I was totally baffled by the Miranda decision and I still am, [...]


It shows.

72 posted on 05/07/2010 1:12:16 PM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
by the whacked out leftist, libertarian, Earl Warren

Are you are unable to distinguish between "libertarian" and Earl Warren's push to centralize power (e.g., broadening the commerce clause to trample on the rights of states and individuals), use the judiciary in an activist role, and institute such things as federally imposed racial quotas? Or are you just smearing?

73 posted on 05/07/2010 1:26:00 PM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Gondring

Earl Warren was known as a “Great Civil Libertarian”.

Earl Warren cannot be separated from his generations long reputation of being a libertarian judge.

“The Changing of Views

Actually, Mr. Warren’s votes in the criminal cases illustrated the phenomenon of a man growing more liberal with age. He was, in succession, a crime-busting District Attorney, a law-and-order State Attorney General, a progressive Governor and a libertarian Chief Justice.”


74 posted on 05/07/2010 1:55:25 PM PDT by ansel12 (Romney-"I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Okay, so you consider The New York Times to be a reliable and valid arbiter and definer of political affiliation...

...now I understand why your views are so bizarre and distorted.


75 posted on 05/07/2010 2:55:09 PM PDT by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
and yes Earl Warren as a SC Justice was seen as a libertarian hero.

i just showed you two major areas in which Warren is reviled as a traitor by Libertarians, and yet you still persist in your delusions.

Please seek professional help.

76 posted on 05/07/2010 7:35:26 PM PDT by Calvinist_Dark_Lord ((I have come here to kick @$$ and chew bubblegum...and I'm all outta bubblegum! ~Roddy Piper))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: ansel12; Gondring
Earl Warren was known as a “Great Civil Libertarian”.

Ask Japanese Americans incarcerated in camps during WWII what they think about that.

More to point: where the hell did you get the idea that Civil Libertarian = Political Libertarian?

That's just crazy.

77 posted on 05/07/2010 8:12:03 PM PDT by Calvinist_Dark_Lord ((I have come here to kick @$$ and chew bubblegum...and I'm all outta bubblegum! ~Roddy Piper))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Calvinist_Dark_Lord

I don’t care about what you don’t like about Earl Warren, I dislike him much more, and probably for much longer, he was too libertarian for me and Reagan.

“As a consequence of this and other decisions, President Dwight D. Eisenhower regretted that he had named Warren to the Court because he considered his ideas much too liberal. The President had expected Warren to be, like himself, a moderate Republican who would not rock the ship of state. But Warren’s libertarian decisions led radical conservatives to call for his impeachment.”


78 posted on 05/07/2010 8:24:33 PM PDT by ansel12 (Romney-"I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Calvinist_Dark_Lord
Ask Japanese Americans incarcerated in camps during WWII what they think about that

It is believed that is one reason that Earl Warren became more libertarian on the Supreme Court, was to make up for things like that.

"While Attorney General of California after Pearl Harbor, Warren played an unwholesome role in putting Americans of Japanese descent into wartime internment camps; in later years he made up for his anti-libertarian actions by endorsing a law against interning alleged subversives even in wartime."

"Warren's turnaround from California prosecutor to Washington civil libertarian runs all through the story of his 16 years as Chief Justice."

Earl Warren was not as libertarian as someone like Noam Chomsky, but he did earn the label of being one our most libertarian, justices.

79 posted on 05/07/2010 8:38:52 PM PDT by ansel12 (Romney-"I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Gondring; bamahead

You know the drill: some conservatives think liberals and libertarians are one and the same, while some liberals think conservatives and libertarians are one and the same.


80 posted on 05/10/2010 7:55:13 AM PDT by rabscuttle385 (Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson