While Republicans decry the encroachments into the Constitution by the federal government's social programs under a Democratic administration, some have no hesitancy in encroaching on the Bill of Rights in the name of national security. With the arrest of Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber, they have renewed their clamor that terrorist suspects should not be given Miranda warnings or other constitutional rights; should be subjected to "enhanced interrogation"; and be processed in military tribunals rather than civilian courts.
The entire argument is predicated upon the presumption of guilt. Yes, in this case, it appears that we have caught the perpetrator red-handed. The evidence of his guilt is overwhelming, so the argument for treating him differently has some visceral appeal. But let's test it by the facts of this very case. For a considerable period of time, law enforcement (and I imagine a vast majority of the world) suspected the man seen on a security camera taking off and changing his shirt and looking furtively at the car with the bomb in it was the terrorist. He turned out to be completely innocent, but for some time, he was clearly a suspect. If arrested, should he have been given his Miranda warnings and other constitutional rights; should he have been subjected to "enhanced interrogation"; should he have been processed in a military tribunal, if they decided to proceed against him?
We cannot have two systems of justice depending on how strong the case is against the suspected terrorist -- the person probably guilty forfeiting constitutional rights and the person possibly innocent retaining them. And the fact is that the FBI could have questioned Mr. Shahzad without advising him of his rights under the "public safety exception" for a considerable period of time, which apparently they did. There is also the unsubstantiated assumption that terrorist suspects are otherwise unaware of their rights until advised of them, and it is that advice which suddenly terminates their cooperation. It is certainly desirable that as much information as possible be obtained from someone involved in terrorist activity, but the Constitution does not carve out exceptions for those who are clearly or probably guilty. There is current discussion about enacting laws which may give law enforcement greater latitude when dealing with terrorist suspects. But we should proceed with great caution in doing so. Neither anger nor fear is sufficient to diminish constitutional rights which protect us all -- the innocent along with the guilty.
Many of them denied their rights Republicans are working deseperately to retroactively create approval for actions that can only be deemed at best innept.
When is the last time any federal judge has been disciplined for misconduct on the bench? Never. We've (I'm not alone here) documented dozens of federal felonies. But when even one man is above the law, there is no law. As Justice Brandeis put it:
"Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself."
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
And you wonder why I've lost faith in our system....
With all respect, I have yet to see a single honest judge in fifteen years, either in Colorado or federal courts. The other shoe of the Denver Players prostitution scandal is about to drop, and I have been told by my sources that OTHER judges will be implicated.
According to Senior Judge John L. Kane of the District of Colorado, the Tenth Circuit would not even censure a judge who solicited a bribe. Chief Judge Edward Nottingham of that District was caught patronizing Elliot Spitzer-class hookers on a weekly-basis, even when he was courting his third wife -- his federally-mandated financial disclosure statements showed that there is no way that he could afford over $1,000 a week on hookers. Judge Robert Blackburn of that District vacated a $1.3 million wrongful termination suit against a fireman and had the winning attorney suspended for a year, even though the state bar investigator admitted after his investigation that the attorney had done nothing wrong. Water deals. Land deals. Mishpucha discounts on public land to developers, facilitated by Roy Romer. The quashing of the Silverado criminal prosecution of Larry Mizel and Neil Bush by the Bush #41 administration. I can't even begin to get my mind around the breadth of corruption in this state. [continued]
Maybe keeping the focus on the single "whacko" who truly couldn't find his own a$$ with both hands brings up the right to remain silent,, but it also keeps the focus off the real problem,,,funding!
I've never heard the MSM announce any type of funding that wasn't from another terrorist group and if you just pay attn to other nations you'll soon learn what terrorism is really a used for....
At a June 2007 hearing, witnesses testified that there was a pattern of complicity between Colombian terrorists and multinational corporations -- including the Alabama-based Drummond Co. Inc., which allegedly paid members of a Colombian terrorist group to kill three union organizers. Other companies with operations in Colombia that were mentioned at Delahunt's hearing include Occidental, Coca-Cola and ExxonMobil.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15535
I guess they all still have the right to remain silent/guilty!
Did you see that former Pres. Bill Clinton is now endorsing that individuals on 'suspect lists' be stripped of fundamental rights?
This is no ordinary suspect; this suspect is an American citizen and in America
you have to be given your Miranda rights regardless of the crime. However if the suspect
was not an American then he or she could be considered an enemy of the state and thus
be denied any legal rights (I see such terrorist actions by someone who is not a citizen as
a act of war). Although from a human point of view “every man has a right to shut his or her
mouth” whether or not you let them know.
Miranda warnings are more for the protection of all Law Enforcement agencies. It is not a free pass, although when a crime is in process, a victim or dictums lives in the balance it is a test of America and Americans. A test we passed with Faisal Shahzad
Even with all our protections, a few people in Prison are innocent and pay the ultimate price. Most recently in Todd Willingham in Texas. These are mistakes nobody can make right.
We are living in the ultimate age of science, and Shahzad was caught not by forgetting who and what America is and stands for, but because of the technology we have developed. After Shahzad was captured and given his Miranda warning, he continued to talk, is talking even still. This is absolute proof that all our laws, all our protections work. Work for the Police, work for the people.
America is in a state of Panic, and when panic takes over freedoms are lost. The GOP is fomenting this panic by insinuating this Administration isn’t keeping us safe. These Politicians and rightwing pundits are stoking fear and panic, Again. Don’t fall for their line of bull.
My loyalty is not to a person, to a party, or even our country. My loyalty is to the Constitution alone, and there it will remain.
A "right" is something no one can take away from you. If a judge can take it away from you, you don't have it. "To take away all remedy for the enforcement of a right is to take away the right itself”. Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270, 303 (1884). But fear not, Comrades! The Great Sarokin is on the case, assuring us that the provisions of the Soviet Constitution of 1937 are absolutely inviolable.
As Americans, we should be ready to die rather than allow the erosion of our individual liberties and the rule of law in the name of "safety". That way lies dictatorship and totalitarianism.
That's why I'm on Judge Sarokin's case. The rule of law is most often sacrificed for expediency, and judges are the most consistent culprits. He's a very bright man, and has the training and education to know better. Other folks around here, not so much.
MrB: "As Americans, we should be ready to die rather than allow the erosion of our individual liberties and the rule of law in the name of "safety". That way lies dictatorship and totalitarianism."
Absolutely. But if you do take a principled stance, you better expect to be labeled as angry, and even paranoid schizophrenic. Americans have become so complacent that they don't understand that when one loses his rights, it creates a precedent capable of ensnaring them. Whether it is me, Jess Radack, or Faisal Shahzad, we are all canaries in the coal mine.
(And I wish I thought the Obama administration was doing more to pull us back from that cliff edge! But at least they seem to have applied the breaks!)
And I thought the Tea Partiers were morons....
Isn't it true that Miranda is basically and FYI kind of thing? I mean, even if a person is not read their Miranda rights, those rights still apply to them. Is that correct?
Is it true that the rights covered by Miranda are afforded not only to citizens, but anyone on our soil?
So basically, NOT mirandizing the suspect puts the case in more jeopardy than it otherwise would have been.
I asked because the republicans are implying that mirandizing someone actually *confers* such rights onto that person. I am just wondering why the media doesn't make it clear that reading Miranda doesn't give someone rights. I keep hearing people say "why should he have the right to a lawyer?" or "he shouldn't have the right to remain silent." The truth is that the accused has such rights whether or not they are explained to him.
We're all probably guilty. After all, that is why our government keeps us under constant surveillance....
-- Gerry Spence
Enjoy what you believe to be your freedom, while it lasts. When they come for you, you may find that there is no one left to help, Pastor Niemoller.
Gerry Spence, have you ever heard of over-writing?