The War on Terror Spectator
So Miranda Is Hobbling Police Investigations After All
Imagine if Bush were saying this.
Last week’s announcement by Attorney General Eric Holder that he will ask Congress to expand the “public safety” exemption to the Miranda rule as it applies to terror suspects deserves a moment of attention before we move on again to oil spills and immigration.
For four decades, liberals have insisted that Miranda and its proscriptions are “part of the Constitution” and that abridging them would mean the beginnings of a police state. Had George Bush, Jr. made this suggestion, it is fair to anticipate that the New York Times probably would have run an eight-column headline screaming, “Bush Proposes Repealing the Constitution.” So what gives?
Now Holder wants to enlarge a small exemption carved out in New York vs. Quarles (1984), which says that the rule can be temporarily suspended where there is a “threat to public safety.” But doesn’t all crime pose a threat to public safety? A lone criminal who is not part of organized crime or a terror network may not pose an immediate threat to public safety, but wouldn’t failing to interrogate him or invalidating his confession later because of technical errors eventually endanger public safety as well?
This is exactly the issue Justice Byron White raised in his famous dissent from Miranda vs. Arizona (1966) when he wrote:
In some unknown number of cases the Court’s rule will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets and to the environment which produced him, to repeat his crime whenever it pleases him. As a consequence, there will not be a gain, but a loss of human dignity.… There is, of course, a saving factor: the next victims are uncertain, unnamed, and unrepresentative in this case.
This warming turned out to be prophetic, to say the least.
Probably no single phrase better encapsulates liberalism’s 50-year romance with criminal suspects than the familiar quotation, “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say may be held against you. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, the state will provide you with one.” After the Supreme Court handed down Miranda, hundreds of criminals had their convictions overturned because of retroactive application. Many were admitted murderers. Thousands of other confessions have since been thrown out before they ever reached the courtroom.
All this turned loose a lot of potentially dangerous people. Perhaps more damaging, however, was the psychological toll on the public in watching the courts flounder over whether an obviously guilty person should go free. A typical case was the murder of 9-year-old Pamela Powers in Des Moines in 1968 by Robert Anthony Williams, a 23-year-old drifter. Williams came under suspicion when Powers disappeared at a YMCA event and a 12-year-old boy saw him carrying a large object wrapped in a blanket from his upstairs hotel room. Williams was read his rights and refused to answer police questions. While he was being transported to jail, however, a police officer remarked that the family might want to give the missing girl a “Christian burial.” An hour later, without prompting, Williams volunteered to lead police to the body.
It took the courts fifteen years to decide whether this confession violated Miranda. Williams was convicted at trial but the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the verdict, saying that mention of a “Christian burial” had constituted “psychological coercion.” At a second trial, Williams’s implicit confession was excluded but the dead body was ruled admissible on the grounds that its discovery was “inevitable.” Several years later, the Eighth Circuit ruled the discovery was not inevitable and ordered another retrial without the body as evidence. Only a narrow 1983 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court finally made the conviction stand.
The effect of this dithering was twofold. It both undermined law enforcement and emboldened criminals. Miranda was not the most important case. Even more critical was Mapp vs. Ohio (1961), which established the “exclusionary rule,” saying that physical evidence obtained through an improper search must be excluded from trial. This can include murder weapons, bloody clothing and even dead bodies. (In the Powers case, the body was excluded under this rule.) As a result, casual readers of newspaper accounts of these “evidentiary hearings” often know far more about the circumstances of the case than the jury sitting at trial.
Perhaps not coincidentally, crime rates, which had been declining steadily since the 1930s, took flight after 1966, quickly reaching heights never before seen in American history. Murder rates tripled and remained at that general level until 1993, when the introduction of “broken windows” hypothesis of policing by New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani finally set off a national trend that brought crime back to early 1960s levels. (“Broken Windows,” first described in a 1984 Atlantic Monthly article by James Q. Wilson and George Kelling, said that police should put as much effort into maintaining public order as in solving individual crimes. It essentially constituted a return to pre-Warren Era policing.)
From 1966 until 1996, approximately 500,000 more Americans were murdered than would have been if crime rates had stayed at their 1960s levels. It would be no exaggeration to say that Americans experienced a 30-year “Crime War,” suffering 500,000 casualties. It may not be difficult to remember how big a part crime played in the political arena, but recall that Mike Dukakis essentially lost the 1988 Presidential election when he gave a mealy-mouthed response to CNN anchor Bernard Shaw’s question, “What would you do if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered?” Crime was always one of two or three top national issues.
Throughout this ordeal, liberals and jurists — and above all criminologists — insisted that the Warren Court decisions were having no impact. Criminologists are the strangest of all. They are the only people on the planet who believe punishment does not affect crime. Instead, they argue that all crime is determined by demography, specifically the size of the crime-prone 18-to-26 cohort. The 1960s and 1970s did see a “youth bulge” in the Baby Boom, but the drop in crime since 1993 has had no correlation to population statistics. Poverty and “root causes” are also part of the mix but policing plays no part.
Now 40 years later, facing an entirely new threat of international terrorism, the attorney general of what is probably the most doctrinaire liberal administration in American history has decided maybe policing does make a difference after all. Only six months ago the same people were telling us we might be reading Miranda rights to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield. When Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian citizen, bought a ticket to Detroit and tried to blow up the airplane, he was immediately “Mirandad” even though he was not a U.S. citizen. The protections of the Fifth Amendment were not just a pact among the American people — i.e., the Constitution — they were an ideal form of government we were about to impose upon the rest of the world.
Now Holder has changed his mind in the case of Faisal Shahzad, who is a U.S. citizen and arguably had a much greater claim than Abdulmutallab. It turns out Miranda wasn’t so innocuous after all.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (55) | Leave a comment
More Articles From The War on Terror Spectator
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/05/21/so-miranda-is-hobbling-police
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Darin| 5.21.10 @ 7:12AM
The liberal mindset seems to think that it's perfectly OK for fellow liberals to do things for which conservatives would get a pass.
If there's one good thing about the Obama presidency, it's that it is clearly showing the bias of the media to anyone paying attention. This Bush was crucified for (e.g., Katrina response) are the same things Obama gets a pass on (e.g., oil spill response). Bush was attacked for not preventing 9/11. Obama gets narry a whisper for the attempted airline bombing over Detroit, the attempted car bombing in Times Square, and the attack at Fort Hood. Bush is attacked for getting us into Iraq (despite Congressional approval) and not getting us out. Obama hears nothing despite the fact that we're still in Iraq and even plusing up troop levels in Afghanistan. And the list goes on.
Purpleguy| 5.21.10 @ 11:12PM
Your equating 1800 people killed by Katrina when there was plenty of warning to an oil rig explosion that killed 11 with no warning? Disaster relief with capping an oil well?
Bush was warned about 9/11 - not exactly the place or time, but warned by the outgoing Clinton administration ...and they didn't even have a meeting about Al Qaeda until Sept 2001, right before 9/11. And you equate isolated bombers with that? It's not like Bush had the foiled plots too, even after 9/11 - the shoe bomber for example?
Bush broke the Constitution by going to war in Iraq. The Republican Congress doesn't have the authority to waive it's rights and give it's power to declare war to the President. Read it - only Congress has the right to declare war. Not to mention it was the wrong war, and we let bin Laden get away... Obama is trying to wind down both Iraq and Afghanistan, with the mess left by Bush. And you equate all that? That's idiotic ... typical conservative hyperbole to make what you do okay 'cause see Mommy - he did it too... how dumb.
A pen| 5.22.10 @ 9:58AM
H.J.RES.114: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 October 11, 2002 Passed
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind.....ote_charts
Also you should read the Congressional Research Service report http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40682.pdf
detailing troop deployments and proposed deployment. Keep in mind that since military operations are dynamic the current status must be checked daily and today the deployments are rising fast as two new theaters are opening, N Korea and Iran. Before you start whacking conservatives you better look at your boss and his failing policy of appeasement which is not lowering world tensions it is increasing them.
Alan Brooks| 5.23.10 @ 7:51PM
"This Bush was crucified for (e.g., Katrina response) are the same things Obama gets a pass on (e.g., oil spill response)."
BUT JUST WAIT A SHORT WHILE!
Conspiracy theorists are at this moment cooking up new conspiracies in their heads of how Obama's administration had something to do with the BP spill.
Bush was sometimes blamed for Exxon Valdez's 11 million gallon spill-- and this one will be larger.
Think about how imbecilic the theories are: that Bush 41 or Obama would take time out from their schedules to arrange larg scale oil spills?? Such is even more tinhat than controlled WTC demolition theories.
ontheright| 5.22.10 @ 4:10PM
1. The oil rig explosion may have been avoided/prevented had the Obamalinsky administration done their jobs and actually enforced regulations already in place, instead of giving BP passes...look it up.
2. The 9/11 catastrophe may have been avoided/prevented had the Clinton administration taken only one of the several opportunities it was presented with to nab Osama...look it up.
3. The Clinton administration and Congress at the time had made myriad comments that the Iraqi leadership, Hussain in particular, posed a global threat due to his possession of WMD and his willingness to use them - Kurds?...look it up.
4. Congress, during the Bush administration, declared the war against Iraq, not Bush...look it up.
Again, just regurgitated, liberal/DNC talking points. Grow up and pay attention, it may help you to survive the coming dark days ahead.
Nancy| 5.22.10 @ 9:21PM
Purple one: did you ever have an original thought? Your comments also sound like dim talking point. According to you, Obama is the end all, no matter what he does.
If we wait for you to quit drinking the Kool-Aid and smell the coffee, we will be so up the creek.
It's only through sheer dumb luck and inept terrorists, that we haven't had another major disaster.
And the article is so correct; if Bush had even talked about suspending Miranda rights for anyone, we would see it 24/7 on the main stream media. But nary a word. Hypocrites.
JmsA| 5.22.10 @ 11:51PM
Purpleturd,
Clinton warned Bush alright, that is after he allowed the hijackers to come in and overstay their visas, undergo flight training, as well as travel back and forth unmolested, while masterminding the 9/11 attack. He also had Jamie Gorelick, assistant to the Attorney General, help build a wall between the CIA, FBI and other intelligence agencies, which prevented communication with each other in matters of intelligence. This led to the FBI not having been able to act when informed that a middle eastern flight student had repeatedly advised his instructors he wished to forgo landing training. Now, why would any sensible flight student wish to forgo landing training? You don't need to answer that; it's pretty self-explanatory, though maybe not for you. The problem is that following the defection of Senator Jim Jeffords to the democrats, Bush had to contend with an antagonist, democrat-controlled Senate. I just thought I point that out to you, as well as the fact of the 2000 election legal fights, during which time incoming administrations are preparing to take over the government, yet instead, Bush was defending his election, which by the way, most of the leading non-conservative newspapers in the country confirmed he would have won irrespective of the vote counting method used. But I digress. That same democrat controlled congress made life nearly impossible for the incoming Bush administration, delaying confirmation of Bush's cabinet, to the point of denying appropriations for even the building to be used to house his transition team, including his security team, though not that of CIA director, as after all, it was Tenet, who had been appointed by Bill Clinton.
By the way, did Clinton do anything about the attack on the Cole in Yemen? No, he didn't. He was too busy signing pardons for contributors to his wife's senatorial campaign and donors to his Presidential Library, like Marc Rich's ex-wife, and drug dealers from L.A. Furthermore, when he had the chance to blow Osama Bin Laden to kingdom come, as well as had him offered to him by the Sudanese, he passed on it. So tell me, who's most at fault, the guy who didn't do anything in 8 years, while chasing young female staffers around the White House, or the guy who had been in office barely 7 months when the attack took place? Don’t bother, I know your answer: It was Bush's fault. As to the shoe bomber attempt you mentioned, there was no security infrastructure in place as that left by Bush for the One, despite which, someone almost blew a plane over Detroit. How about the Fort Hood shooter? You're going to blame Bush for that, too? The recent failed, not foiled, N.Y. bomber attempt? And how about the two soldiers shot dead in AK? Well, given the fact that admitting there is such a thing as radical islam at play is so difficult to the Attorney General and others in this administration, such is not so surprising. Do you think the recent resignation by the intelligence advisor had anything to do with it? No need to answer. I suspect you'd deny it. I do believe though, our luck is going to run out sooner than later. So what's your point, if there’s actually a point regarding the shoebomber? The One's record, other than for good luck, is not exactly stellar.
I also see your disdain for the 11 dead from the Deep Water Horizon incident, as opposed to those of Katrina. The loss of few of many human lives is tragic, no matter the circumstances.
That said, you're right: There was plenty of warning about the latter, especially to the local authorities, namely Governor Blanco (D) and Mayor Nagin (D)., who opted to not do anything, while repeatedly advising the Bush administration everything was under control, when it wasn't. I guess you didn't see the yellow buses, which could have been used, had Nagin or Blanco ordered it done, to evacuate at least some of those most vulnerable from the City. Mayor Nagin, ironically enough, bought himself a house in Houston, and later got re-elected. So, no problem there, right? Bush wasn't in charge when the Army Corps of Engineers built the New Orleans levies, and he had nothing to do with the local fiscal mismanagement and neglect of it by local and state officials. The media then ran with the story, blaming Bush, and completely ignored the part played of the two local incompetents mentioned above.
As to Iraq, Bush made mistakes, yes, but through the efforts and selfless valor and sacrifices of our troops, managed to remove an anti-American, trouble making tyrant (please refer to the Iran/Iraq war, the invasion and occupation of Kuwait, and the murderous chemical attacks on the Kurds and Iranians, just in case you forgot), as well as kill enough Al-Qaeda, defeat it in Iraq and bring about the beginning of hopefully a strong and lasting democracy in that country. Did I mention that Bush also managed to greatly courtailed Al-Qaeda's fund raising in this country despite the opposition of most liberals in congress, not to mention an outright antagonistic media, including that nearing treason by the NY Times in disclosing classified information? Bush's mess, huh? What? You don’t know about the several elections carried out in Iraq? I'm affraid your ignorance is showing. Did you know that Germany was under control of the Allies for ten years following the cessation of hostilities at the end of WWII? This business of destroying dictatorships and democratizing countries is not as simple as your simplistic and febrile mind makes it out to be. Bush did the heavy lifting in Iraq and Afghanistan, removing Saddam Hussein from the former and the Taliban from the latter; and now the One, if he actually manages not to drop the ball, will claim all the credit for it. In the process, Bush managed to free more than 50 million people. On the other hand, what have been the One’s accomplishments in international relations, and giving speeches in Berlin and Cairo, as well as being awarded an Nobel Prize by a sycophantic group of vapid Nordics, doesn't’t count, OK? The One, if I remember correctly, actually sided with a petty, Hugo Chavez wannabe tyrant in Honduras. I guess that little fiasco did not work out so well for the One, nor the Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton, did it? No matter, the fawning mainstream media soon dropped the failure of the socialists in their attempt to take over Honduras. How about the One’s rapprochement with Hugo Chavez, or for that matter his kindred socialist spirits, the Castro brothers, whom no soon after his entreaties, slapped his hand away? I suppose that given your quite acute still BDS affliction, you could not countenance that. That's OK, though, I will continue to remind you, as I ask the forbearance of this great site and of other readers for my lengthy posts in response to your nonsense. As always, 11/02/2010
Tim| 5.24.10 @ 2:25PM
ALL Liberals are anti-American, period. Come spend some time here in Afghanistan with me. Oh, I forgot, you HATE the military. NObama is destroying this country day by day. See discoverthenetworks.org to see all your buddies out to destroy our great country. As to crime, having spent 20 years in LE, liberals have emasculated LE against crime. As to hyperbole, if you dared to do some research, you would KNOW that a democratic administration misused federal funds to fix numerous problems in the area over a long period of time. Liberals NEVER admit reponsibility for anything. As to the bowing NObama, a disaster as a President. You are likely a liberal with his/her hand out, ready to take from hard-working Americans who earn their way every day. Liberals are the excrement of our society and have turned our country into a toilet bowl. Liberal = shame. You and your ilk disgust me. Of course, we conservatives bleed for you so that you can live in a world where you support abortion, death, and anything anti-God and anti-faith. Well, in the end, you will meet your maker and justify your actions. He will be merciful, but very, very just. Be ready.
Richard Baker| 5.21.10 @ 7:36AM
Mr. Justice White WAS correct. The liberal mind, in the case of Holder, is a logical cesspool. If a rational thought intrudes, mental chaos ensues.
Ret. Marine| 5.21.10 @ 8:31AM
Regardless of the meaning of this article and I do understand, I still have a real hard time getting my head around the fact that a person, out of uniform, no patches of alligence, no nation state sponsored, entering this country in a time of war, gets mirandized, hello, is there anyone up there with the intelligence of a monkey? and these are suppose to be the smartest this admin. can muster to keep their fellow charges safe. Mental surfing is what we get when the AG cannot get the support he needs to have it both ways. Now if he would only get his head around the fact that this country is at war with muslims, he would not be "at war" with the American People.
Purpleguy| 5.21.10 @ 11:26PM
Go read the 14th and 4th Amendments - the American Constitution extends protections to all persons, citizen and non-citizen alike. That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to kill terrorists, but we aren't uncivilized are we?
A Pen| 5.22.10 @ 10:50AM
Treason;
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc.....-000-.html
One who claims citizenship and acts against the nation while at war should be charged with treason and tried accordingly. To mirandize a person is fine so long as they claim citizenship. If not they are combatants who if out of uniform are spies. The conduct of combatants is controlled by convention , not the constitution. The idea that our chosen form of law and government ought to apply to all others is exactly what the "left" claims is being a world police agency. This application of OUR law, having no boundaries, is an insult to all nations claiming sovereignty. Respect goes both ways in international relations. Do not disrespect the common laws of other nationals by applying anything other than universally accepted laws and rules. If Holder and Obama wish to change the conventions on war they ought to seek the proper venue.
Mike Giles| 5.22.10 @ 6:11PM
Until the plane landed AND he went through customs, the Underwear bomber was not under the jurisdiction of the US, thus the 14th didn't apply. They could have questioned him without the Miranda warnings.
Tim| 5.24.10 @ 2:33PM
Purpleguy - I would love for all you bleeding hearts to spend one day in the lands of the regimes you want to play fair with. They will come into your house and slit your family's throats and laugh while doing it. Rights? It is so easy for people like you (yes, like you) are so ready to be "nice" to people who want to kill you. You can NOT reason with these types of people. I wish everyone could come over here to Afghanistan and "talk" to the Taliban. You have no clue to how these "people" are. I have a novel idea ... come over here or, better yet, invite them to your home for a chat. You might not like to see how much bllod you and yours shed while you offer them their "rights". It is always amazing to see "enlightened" morons postulate. That is why America is dying slowly. Liberals multiply faster than Conservatives. We are responsible. Liberals breed at will, knowing the USG will take care of them no matter how many moronic offspring they produce. Our Country is dying than you very much.
Jeffry Pages| 5.21.10 @ 8:32AM
I must disagree with Attorney General Holder regarding Miranda Rights. Nobody should be denied Miranda Rights, if they are caught in a crime in our country. To deny even freedom fighters such as Faisal Shahrad his rights, is a violation of the 4th Amendment. When you decide to deny the rights of any accused, because you don't like the crime, where does it stop? Pretty soon, police will be denying rights to the guy who steals ice cream, because somebody is down on ice cream theft. This is a slippery slope and we should avoid it. Insure that everyone is afforded their rights!
Dai Alanye | 5.21.10 @ 9:12AM
Yes, by all means let us protect the rights of "freedom fighters" who engage in mass killings in order to overthrow the very document that protects the rights of all. But why stop with this Faisal Shahzad character? Invite all terrorists to drop in and enjoy the Fourth Amendment, and when arrested let them free on minimal bond to try again.
Preferably outside the home of Jeffry Pages rather than mine.
Troll Watch| 5.21.10 @ 9:59AM
This is the kind of stuff that happens when progressives went and voted for Obama instead of the reliable Ralph Nader. Unlike Obama he would have closed down gitmo, protected the Miranda Rights of terrorists, not engaged in an assassination program in Pakistan, pulled us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and all the other things that the candidate Obama lied about. I bet right now we are water boarding some poor terrorist and it is all Jeff Pages fault for not voting his heart. It is a heavy burden for Jeff I am sure. Next time he can do it right. Vote Green.
Doorgunner| 5.21.10 @ 11:54AM
This is the drooling moron who asserted, two days ago, that he had a Ph.D., and that he had taught in the UC system.
And yet, he doesn't seem to know the difference between words 'insure' and 'ensure'.
RetAF| 5.22.10 @ 8:46PM
Actually, the Geneva Conventions since 1949, apply to "freedom fighters". All spies, partisans and insurgents are required to be given Geneva Convention privileges. The first among these is the 'right' to be detained - without trial - until the end of hostilities. It is not crime to be a soldier.
Louis Jenkins| 5.21.10 @ 8:34AM
I find it odd that the Miranda Right is first on, then off. I heard about this last week. Why Miranda Rights the guy in the first place? Now we're sending messages that we're confused. So what is it going to be?
blarset | 5.21.10 @ 8:55AM
This administration wants the war on terror to go away- and be a more friendly police action for the poor misguided Muslims who staff its ranks.
They just need to love us and it'll all be ok.
Yeh thats the ticket-love.
Army Aviator| 5.21.10 @ 9:31AM
I've been reading comments by Dr. Pages for the past couple of days. Folks, this is the type of person, we fought wars for. We provided him the freedom to criticize our flag and our way of life. It's irksome to hear guys like this, who claim to have contributed so much to our country, when all they have done, is to tear it down. I'd fly again for my country if called on, but it sure hurts to have to suffer a fool who's main claim in life is that he "poisoned" the minds of our young folks at some southern California idiot farm. A wise man once said, and I believe it: "Liberalism can never compete in the arena of ideas." Mr. "Dr. Pages" would be shown for what he is, if any of us had the opportunity to debate him.
GW| 5.21.10 @ 3:49PM
I don't know if he's actually being serious, though. He's a troll, one who is bored and comes here to bait us. He might, in all conscious, be a liberal, but I can't believe someone would hold the views he espouses. We'd be best to ignore him.
Coleen Rowley | 5.21.10 @ 9:37AM
And Eric, or whoever you are, you don't know the half of it! Please read my last two HuffPosts on the "public safety exception to Miranda":
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....64138.html and
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....80218.html
You do have some of your Moussaoui facts wrong however. It's no longer believed he was the "20th hijacker" and his laptop did not contain the connections to the 9-11 plot. The evidence that connected him was in data (receipts, telephone numbers and a fingerprint) contained in his personal effects. The agents sought an emergency FISA warrant by the way. Emergency type exceptions to both the 4th Amendment and to Miranda already exist under constitutional law and are the best answer to helping detect and stop crimes as well as solve past committed ones.
I'd be happy to fill you in some more on these issues. What is being missed in this debate is that not only the technicalities of the Miranda rule, but attorney-client privilege which many attorneys argue contains no "crime-fraud exception", and the McDade "no contact" rule, if pushed to their logical extremes, can elevate the attorney profession over public safety when it comes to ONGOING CRIMES, not simply the solution and prosecution of past crimes.
Eric Damon| 5.21.10 @ 9:42AM
I must dispute the circumstances the author laid out in the Brewer v. Williams case. The case was not only about the issuance of Miranda warnings, but the continued questioning of the defendant after he had invoked his right to counsel. The police had been informed that Williams was represented by counsel and was not to be questioned, in fact, the attorneys had spoken directly to the officers involved and told them not to speak to their client. And contrary to the synopsis here, the officers did not simply "mention" the desire for a Christian burial for the victim, they gave a nice tear jerking speech to the defendant playing on their knowledge that he was very deeply religious. The Court ruled that the officers had violated the defendants 6th Amendment rights to counsel. The case syllabus can be found at http://www.law.cornell.edu/sup.....7_ZS.html. While the author may be right in his complaints about Miranda as a whole, using Bewer as an example is not on point, as the case was primarily about the right to counsel, not Miranda.
Ray| 5.21.10 @ 11:03AM
Just because you have legal representation, it don't mean that you can't be questioned by police. The Constitution stats that someone can't be FORCED (compelled) to testify against themselves. This is what the Miranda "right" is based upon. It doesn't remove the ability of law enforcement officers from questioning you, regardless of your retention of legal representation. No lawyer in the world can order the police to stop questioning a suspect. All the lawyer, and the suspect, can do is choose not provide answers to those questions .
buckeyeman| 5.21.10 @ 9:54AM
Wow! First you get hassled to produce your "papers" and now you get swept up without even getting Mirandized. Going out for ice cream is getting to be really dangerous. Obama and Jeff seem to be twin moron clones. Or maybe there's actually something in the ice cream that these two devour that makes on incapable of a rational thought. I'm going out for pizza just to be safe.
GringoBob | 5.21.10 @ 10:58AM
why the change ? simple - diversion as usual - armed with the ability to arrest and detain without recourse, can the arrest of Beck, Hannity, Coulter and rush be far behind - you think I'm kidding ? where you been the past 16 months ....
Oldefarte| 5.21.10 @ 11:18AM
Everyone should be aware that THE LAW IS TO PROTECT THE CRIMINAL, NOT THE VICTIM!!!!
Purpleguy| 5.21.10 @ 11:31PM
Better to let 9 guilty men go then to convict 1 innocent man ... that is our system of Justice. if you disagree, you are Un-American.
Oldefarte| 5.22.10 @ 11:39AM
I DISAGREE, and YOU ARE A.......MORON!!!!
Robert Pinkerton| 5.21.10 @ 11:23AM
Civil liberty begins with criminal procedure. Does no one here have imagination enough to put him- or herself in the place of one wrongfully arrested for a heinous crime?
"Confession is the queen of proof." says the Inquisitor, right down to his successors in business in the sub-basements of 2 Dzerzhinski Square and other authoritarian hellholes - including cases in which Chicago police tortured confessions out of suspects.
The Miranda warning is a blow struck against confessional jurisprudence, which, IMHO, is nothing less than the vilest abomination (And, yes, I mean abomination in every last Old Testament pejorative sense of that word.) that mankind has ever created. It invites torture and other forms of coercion.
Purpleguy| 5.21.10 @ 11:33PM
Those that don't agree with you simply don't believe they will ever be in the position to have to be Mirandized. That's one of the steps to losing our liberty and protection of freedom - but they don't get it.
Oldefarte| 5.22.10 @ 11:41AM
The 9/11/01 hijackers '''''GOT IT''''''', didn't they????????????
Robert Pinkerton| 5.23.10 @ 6:10PM
Here is a pertinelt URL:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010.....ure-trial/
Ken (Old Texican)| 5.21.10 @ 11:46AM
Mr. Pinkerton,
Thank you. You and I might be arrested as "terrorists" next, along with the "oath keepers" of the constitution in uniform and retired/discharged honorably.
With the godless communists, (pardon the shorthand), now in control of our government...I want a lawyer.
One thing:
"The power to tax is the power to destroy".
That power is not quite as straightforward as the "barrel of a gun", but just as dangerous, isn't it?
Echoing another poster here, thank God for the Second Ammendment.
Ken (Old Texican)| 5.21.10 @ 11:58AM
Folks,
One more time. (smile)
www.oathkeepers.org
Please click on the "orders we will not obey", and read 'em.
I have heard that the Texs Rangers have signed up en'masse.
God bless 'em.
Robert Pinkerton| 5.21.10 @ 1:32PM
Thank you in turn, Sir. I have bookmarked the site.
Unfortunately, too many occupants of positions as Police officer and allied cluster of trades, even military personnel, think of their duties as "A job, just a job, only a job." The boss says, "Move this here," and to such it is no skin off their {,i>bleep], so off they go to comply. Indeed, one should re-read Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem, especially where she discusses the banality of evil. John Ross picks up the theme in his Unintended Consequences, where one of his characters speaks of most L.E.O.s as "... just trying to pay their Visa bills..."
Too, it is worthwhile to read Stanley Milgram"s Obedience to Authority.
George True| 5.21.10 @ 1:09PM
"The power to tax is the power to destroy." -Ronald Reagan
To the above timeless and prophetic quote I would also add, "The power to indict is the power to destroy." Most honest and law-abiding citizens have no idea how frequently innocent people are falsely charged with crimes. It happens every single day in every state in the union here in America. Until it happens to you or to a loved one, you do not realize how utterly self-serving is our criminal justice system. And once you are charged, God help you, because the prosecution will not ever, EVER admit they were wrong, no matter how much incontrovertible evidence of it comes to light.
The Miranda right is one of the few small defenses a suspect has. While I do not think it should be extended to real terrorists, we must also remember our federal government shows an ever-increasing propensity to label anybody it wants to as a "terrorist". So I take a dim view of any administration trying to weaken Miranda.
Frankly, my recommendation is for any law-abiding citizen who has not committed a crime, if ever questioned by police about anything, to say NOTHING. Answer not one question, utter not one single word, not even your name. Let one and only one word come out of your mouth: Lawyer. Police do not "solve crimes" like the ones on TV. Rather, they clear cases. And if they can clear a case by getting you on the hook for something you said, even though you were just trying to be a helpful, upfront, honest, and good citizen.....they will. Even if you are not a suspect initially, you can quickly become one as a result of being a Chatty Cathy with them. Say nothing. Nothing at all. Not one word. No matter what they threaten you with. Not one single word, save one : Lawyer.
GW| 5.21.10 @ 3:57PM
I still haven't found anything in the Constitution where it says suspects *must* be read their rights. I know rights exist and am glad they do. But I don't know why police are compulsed to tell suspects they don't have to talk. Doesn't seem like it should be the police's responsibility. It only provides loopholes for confessed criminals to avoid punishment.
Purpleguy| 5.21.10 @ 11:41PM
Go read the 4th Amendment .. the Constitution doesn't specifically say we have a "Right to Life" either ... and your point is? The Miranda ruling came about exactly because the police can be tempted to be abusive in detaining or subduing a suspect - not criminal, not convict - a suspect. So, it's a suspect that is read their rights ... you assume they are a criminal or terrorist. Just like it is the American Nazi party's right to assemble, regardless of how abhorrent we think they may be, our Constitution has to apply in all cases or in none, because what you think abhorrent today, you might not tomorrow - we cannot be allowed to make that decision - the Constitution does it for us. Elsewise, anarchy will ensue.
Oldefarte| 5.22.10 @ 11:46AM
MORON, let me attempt to 'splain it to ya [and all of the other 4th amendment and constitution flag wavers out there in looney-toon Democrat circles]. These documents apply [and pertain] to CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and not to MUSLIM TERRORISTS THAT ARE ARE N-O-T CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY. Got it, douche??????????
Nancy| 5.22.10 @ 9:28PM
Purple, you pick and choose on the Constitution.
You have a different take on illegal immigration. The Constitution states that it is the responsibility of the Federal government to defend our borders, and provide for the general defense of the nation. There's more to the Constitution than the Bill of Rights.
Nancy| 5.22.10 @ 9:31PM
That's because Miranda rights came a full 150 years after the Constitution. Nothing in there about it. But it is the law of the land now. My fear is if we abandon it for the creeps, it could be abandoned for any of us.
No reason though that a law could come about that only allows that for citizens of the US.
Marc Jeric| 5.21.10 @ 7:09PM
Abu Hussein al-Nairobi chose his Attorney General carefully. Holder pardoned the Puertorican murderous terrorists; he was also the Castro's lawyer in the Elian Gonzalez case. And we still wants to try the 9/11 mastermind in New York, close to the Ground Zero, to be judged by a jury "of his peers". What peers - perhaps 12 other jihadi terrorists?
lechevre| 5.23.10 @ 10:49AM
Affirmative action definitely played a major part in getting this moron Holder through law school.
GBArg| 5.24.10 @ 10:11PM
It can't be soon enough for these ignorant, arrogant kids to be kicked out of our government. Sorry for my insult to kids, who are inherently better than anyone in the White House, or elsewhere in this horrible excuse for a U.S. administration.
jdu| 7.1.10 @ 3:20AM
beijing massage
Louis Vttion handbags | 12.9.10 @ 1:48AM
Hmm communism another delicate issue that causes dispute even between people that share the same opinion.
Loved the article and do agree with George's interpretation of it.
I come from a communist country so I guess my opinion is a bit blurred, but to be honest I believe that every social system has problems whereby the people suffer