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 ...
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."
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!
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 :-)
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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?
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”.
It shows.
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?
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.