[excon]

Hello:

One of my biggest complaints about Bush, and now Obama is that after we were attacked, we had to endure a second round while the president attacked the Constitution. Indeed. There is a move afoot, just this day, to make AVOIDING Mirandizing a terrorist suspect legal. This is just further example of an ongoing campaign to strip people of their Constitutional rights... It started right after 9/11. It's just more blatant now. They're not even ashamed of it anymore.

Not being a lover of terrorists, I'd support the idea - if it worked. However, it doesn't. That's because the underlying assumption is just flat wrong. That assumption being; Constitutional Rights are a get out of jail free card. It is, of course, empirically and historically wrong.

Now, our founders, who WROTE the Bill of Rights weren't weak kneed lilly livered liberals. But, they understood the power of the government to run roughshod over people. So they wrote the Bill of Rights into our law. Now, if you understand what the Bill of Rights does, you'll see that it doesn't give any advantage to suspects. It just takes away the unfair advantage the government had to railroad people. It EVENED the playing field. They changed what was UNFAIR - into fair. THAT, in my view, is what makes them so wonderful...

Plus, as a practical matter, we ARE the worlds largest jailer. That is a measurable, undeniable fact. I suggest those aforementioned rights can't be MUCH of a get out of jail free card, or that prize would not be ours. So, I ask you, how is taking away peoples rights going to make us safer?

I DO act contrarily to you, though. If, after we were attacked for our freedoms, instead of TAKING some freedoms away like Bush did, I'd have ADDED a few to the pot, and told Bin Laden where he could stick it. But, that's just me. I LOVE freedom. It's clearly not YOU.

excon

[thisisit]

I think anyone responding to this also loves freedom. You might say they don't, but I don't believe it.

[Catsmine]

I think anyone responding to this also loves freedom. You might say they don't, but I don't believe it.

He says these things to spark knee-jerk reactions. It's gotten a little shrill lately because we've slowed down.

I agree with you about more freedoms being a good thing, Ex. How's about we do away with criminal statutes altogether, move all the judges to the civil suit side, and reintroduce the Code Duello? Then you can sue or shoot and you get to choose.

[speechlesstx]

I thought we decided we were attacked because we were infidels that supported Jews and occupied Muslim lands.

As I understand it, Miranda only relates to your rights as far as a criminal trial goes. What does that have to do with interrogating a suspect for public safety intervention purposes? If the cops choose to question the suspect for such purposes aren’t they taking the chance that what the suspect says won’t be admissible in court? Doesn’t that still even the playing field?

I love freedom, too. I'd like to have the freedom from having to pay for some deadbeat's health insurance.

[speechlesstx]

P.S. I do agree with you, there's no need to 'reform' Miranda, I do like my rights. Where we probably don't agree is the need to stop treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue. Shahzad is an American citizen and needs to be afforded his rights. KSM and co. are not and need to be treated as foreign enemies.

[tomder55]

Not sure Miranda needs to be tampered with in this case since the provision needed is already in it . Actually ,what is amazing is that we have an AG who doesn't know the law.

It is my opinion that the extended questioning of Faisal Shahzad was justified and completely within the tenets of the Miranda requirements under the "public safety exception " established in 1984 [NEW YORK V. QUARLES... "concern for public safety must be paramount to adherence to the literal language of the prophylactic rules enunciated in Miranda."].

Also the dufus Holder should understand that the D*ckerson v U.S. (perhaps AMHD should review this type of editing ) decision regarding Miranda restricted Congress from modifying Miranda.

Where Holder accidentally gets it right is that there is a compelling interest in public safety to determine if another terrorist attack is imminent . That is why SCOTUS put the exception into the procedure in the 1st place.

When weighing everything in the balance it is preferable to risk getting a confession thrown out by a judge rather than not questioning a suspect who probably has information valuable in the execution of the war against jihadistan.Everyone scoffs at the notion of a ticking time bomb... that is until it's detonated .

With the public safety exception however there is no need to make that choice.

[tomder55]

Unconfirmed reports are circulating on the web that the over-all leader of the Taliban ,Mullah Omar ,was captured by the Pakistanis.

If this is true ;I think,given the administration's inclinations/or preferences to administer Miranda procedures on jihadists prematurely... and given the fact that the President never did assemble the so called “high-value detainee interrogation group” that would interrogate suspects in the politically correct manner ,that the Pakis should continue to hold Omar in custody ,and extract whatever intelligence they think is necessary to execute their part of the war against the jihadists.

[speechlesstx]

that the Pakis should continue to hold Omar in custody

If only we had some place to hold enemy combatants and interrogate them outside of our criminal justice system...

[excon]

the Pakis should continue to hold Omar in custody ,and extract whatever intelligence they think is necessary to execute their part of the war against the jihadists.

Hello again, tom:

And, to hell with what WE think is necessary to execute OUR part of the war?? Is THAT your position?? So, you'd rather have the Paki's inflict a little pain on him, instead of allowing our interrogators get what WE need to fight OUR war. Really? Your blood lust for blind vengeance is quintessential, cutting off your nose to spite your face!

You are to be commended, though for sticking to your fascist, UNAMERICAN, illegal, immoral, and debunked torture tactics...

excon

[tomder55]

Lol He'll sing like a canary once handed over .

[excon]

lol He'll sing like a canary once handed over .

Hello again, tom:

He'da sung anyway. I don't think he's ashamed of anything he did...

Ohhh... I'm catching on. You're thinking about the ticking time bomb in NY that he knows about. I get it... So, even if he DOESN'T know about it, or, perchance, there ISN'T one, you're going to stick bamboo shoots under his fingernails until he spills what he KNOWS, thereby saving countless American lives... You're going to pour water up his nose until he finally admits what you want him to admit, even though he only admits it to make you STOP pouring water up his nose.

And, you have the cojones to post that stuff on MY thread about the Constitution... Dude! You been watching entirely too much 24...

excon

[tomder55]

I can't think of any "crime " he has committed against us. However ;he has waged war against us and should be treated accordingly. He has also waged war against Pakistan and frankly ,I don't think our interest in holding him overrides Pakistan's national interests.

No ;I do not approve of bamboo shoots.

[tomder55]

And, you have the cojones to post that stuff on MY thread about the Constitution

Hey look ; I understand the Constitution better than many. Miranda is not in the Constitution .It is a court imposed remedy that probably should be looked at because it does indeed restrict our law enforcement agencies in the cases Holder is concerned about.

Where Holder got it wrong is that he thinks Congress can amend it. They can't by SCOTUS decree . Where change is needed is in SCOTUS . Who the hell made them the final arbiters ? You speak about preserving the Constitution ? Dude! Show me where the Constitution mandated that ? Judicial oversight is a usurpation of the balance of power doctrine .

[cdad]

I thought I would post this here for everyone to enjoy since exy has a cameo in it.

National Juggernaut: This Cartoon Seemed Far-Fetched In 1948

[excon]

This Cartoon Seemed Far-Fetched In 1948

Hello again, dad:

I don't know what to take from your posting the cartoon. Apparently, you think socialism is the problem. I think fascism is.

Maybe you missed the first part of the cartoon, where the guy told the flatfoot to GET A WARRANT! The fact that they don't NEED a warrant to spy on you anymore, doesn't bother you, huh? Well, it BOTHERS me. That would have been far fetched back in '48 too.

I wonder what they'da thought about torture. Do you think they could possibly conceive, having just emerged from WW II, that WE'D ever become torturers?? Never in a jillion years.

excon

[cdad]

Hello again, dad:

I dunno what to take from your posting the cartoon. Apparently, you think socialism is the problem. I think fascism is.

Maybe you missed the first part of the cartoon, where the guy told the flatfoot to GET A WARRANT! The fact that they don't NEED a warrant to spy on you anymore, doesn't bother you, huh? Well, it BOTHERS me. That woulda been far fetched back in '48 too.

I wonder what they'da thought about torture. Do you think they could possibly conceive, having just emerged from WW II, that WE'D ever become torturers??? Never in a jillion years.

excon

Seems the point of the cartoon was that izm isn't the answer to our problems and it leads to a slippery slope. Call it what you will socialIZM, terrorIZM or fascIZM. All of them try to extend their power to take away rights. Im not a fan of the warrentless wiretapping either. And I have seen many rights get erroded for the sake of the "children". I also understand the scope of what's going on. And at least some things are still sacred for now. Where my understanding falls apart is in the split. We are moving more and more apart as Americans every day. Truth be told that's the part that bothers me. Many people aren't willing nor able to see both sides of an issue and make a good argument for the opposite side. That is where things are getting lost.

[Catsmine]

I wonder what they'da thought about torture. Do you think they could possibly conceive, having just emerged from WW II, that WE'D ever become torturers??? Never in a jillion years.

Amusing that you post this on the opening day of the Japanese internment camps crafts at the Smithsonian.

The Creative Art Of Coping In Japanese Internment : NPR

[excon]

Truth be told thats the part that bothers me. Many people arent willing nor able to see both sides of an issue and make a good argument for the opposite side. That is where things are getting lost.

Hello again, dad:

Scares me too. For the most part, what you say is true. However, we're able to do it. Yes, it gets contentious, and yes some people leave... But, there are a few of us who who slog onward. So, if WE can do it, so can others.

excon

[Catsmine]

Hello again, dad:

Scares me too. For the most part, what you say is true. However, we're able to do it. Yes, it gets contentious, and yes some people leave... But, there are a few of us who who slog onward. So, if WE can do it, so can others.

excon

This is true. You want to swap sides for a couple posts, Ex? I can rail against our spies for spying and you can bash the Pres.

[excon]

You wanna swap sides for a couple posts, Ex? I can rail against our spies for spying and you can bash the Pres.

Hello Cats:

Ok, but I'm STILL going to bash the president... Because the truth is, even Cheney never proposed stripping American citizens of their rights based upon mere suspicion... Once the idea a NO RIGHTS for some sinks in, I guess you don't mind laying down for NO RIGHTS for the rest of us...

A primary reason Bush and Cheney succeeded in their radical erosion of core liberties is because they focused their assault on non citizens with foreign sounding names, casting the appearance that NONE of what they were doing would EVER affect the average American. Just listen to tom if you don't believe that. HE thinks he's safe from all this stuff.

But he's not, and neither are you. If you don't stand up for SOMEBODY else's rights, your rights are sure to be the next to go... Yet, that is exactly what's happening right here in front of you. You yawn...

Since the beginning, I wondered why Bush turned Americas security apparatus inward against US, instead of outward against the terrorists, but he did. You yawned... Now Obama is doing it again, and you're yawning...

Does this mean that every time we're attacked, WE lose a right?? I think so. You DO realize, do you not, that the question will again be asked, about WHICH Constitutional right should be taken away the NEXT time we're attacked, as we surely will be?? We don't have that many left. Hell, 4 or 5 more attacks and the terrorists have won.

And, you yawn... Or is it fiddling while your country burns??

Take it, Cats.

excon