EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Miranda is Obama's Latest Victim
One of the central pledges of Barack Obama's campaign was that -- as he put it early in his presidency -- the Bush administration had gone wildly wrong because it "established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable -- a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions; that failed to use our values as a compass." Instead, he implored, we must fight Terrorism only "with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process, in checks and balances and accountability." Thus, he thunderously vowed, "We must never -- ever -- turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake."
The number of instances in which Obama has violently breached his own alleged principles when it comes to the War on Terror and the rule of law are too numerous to chronicle in one place. Suffice to say, it is no longer provocative or controversial when someone like Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin writes, as he did the other day, that Obama "has more or less systematically adopted policies consistent with the second term of the George W. Bush Administration." No rational person can argue that or even tries to any longer. It's just a banal expression of indisputable fact.
Today, the Obama DOJ unveiled the latest -- and one of the most significant -- examples of its eagerness to assault the very legal values Obama vowed to protect. The Wall Street Journal reports that "new rules allow investigators to hold domestic-terror suspects longer than others without giving them a Miranda warning, significantly expanding exceptions to the instructions that have governed the handling of criminal suspects for more than four decades." The only previous exception to the 45-year-old Miranda requirement that someone in custody be apprised of their rights occurred in 1984, when the Rehnquist-led right-wing faction of the Supreme Court allowed delay "only in cases of an imminent safety threat," but these new rules promulgated by the Obama DOJ "give interrogators more latitude and flexibility to define what counts as an appropriate circumstance to waive Miranda rights."
For that reason, the WSJ is surely correct when it calls these new guidelines "one of the Obama administration's most significant revisions to rules governing the investigation of terror suspects in the U.S." Note that, in 7 years of prosecuting the War on Terror after 9/11, the Bush administration never tried to dilute Miranda guidelines (though doing so for them was irrelevant because they simply imprisoned even American citizens (such as Jose Padilla) without any charges or due process of any kind).
Ironically, it was the administration -- and its followers -- that defended the sanctity of Miranda back in late 2009, when the Cheney/Kristol/Limbaugh/Palin Right attacked Obama for Mirandizing the "underwear bomber" as soon as he was taken into custody. Back then, the White House and its loyalists stridently argued that Miranda does not interfere with effective interrogations and that, in any event, it is a pillar of our justice system that should not be eroded. We'll undoubtedly be hearing from the same precincts now -- from the very same people -- that diluting Miranda is necessary to Keep Us Safe; that it's fully within a President's right to change Miranda guidelines without Congress (just like he can start wars on his own); and that it's merely a tiny little change that pales in comparison to the Important Issues of the Day. For anyone who defends Obama's new decision here, shouldn't you also admit that Rush Limbaugh and Bill Kristol were right in criticizing Obama back then and demanding dilution of Miranda for Terrorism suspects?
Read the full article at Salon.com
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
23 Comments so far
Show AllMany if not most law enforcement people hated the Miranda warning since it was first made "law of the land." They griped about criminals being "cut loose" because they hadn't been told they could have a lawyer and didn't have to talk until they had consulted with that lawyer. They wanted freedom to interrogate right off the bat, using "the rubber hose room" if needed and believed that without being able to do that, "scumbags" would walk. Now anything we say or they say we say can be used against us.
Diluting Miranda using the excuse of saving us from terrorism only adds to the number of protections that Americans have surrendered.
Anyone who believe we have the "abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process, in checks and balances and accountability" the president promised during the campaign does not recognize the danger people face from authority unbound.
That's right, from the beginning many in Law enforcement hated the Miranda Rights. I remember too, the stories of how people being told of their rights was life changing.
Anyone who has ever been without any power while being held while either guilty or not guilty - understand, "the danger people face from authority unbound"
Our President has the mandate to protect all people in his care.
Law enforcement officers (and I know because I was raised by one) often (not always) have a "guilty till proven innocent" mentality and, unless you clear yourself in their minds with an absolute air-tight alibi or something similar, the will keep at you. People have been browbeaten into confessing crimes they did not commit and have been convicted, confessions being considered good evidence in court along with eyewitness testimony, neither of which is truly reliable.
Not everyone in jail is as innocent as they profess being, but it does indeed happen and, much as I dislike lawyers (I've had to work for them and they are the worst bosses imaginable), they are vital in this situation.
Glen's article is not complete without mentioning that after 4 years of Democrats controlling both houses of Congress (2007-2011) due process for all was not restored to law. It doesn't matter if Miranda is intact if due process is not restored.
This is the slippery slope in practice.
OilyBomber showed his true colors when he voted for Telecom immunity.
It's been all down hill since then, he blocks every attempt to hold USA war criminals accountable both domestically and internationally.
Oilybomber is a card carrying Fascist through and through, but by all means re-elect him and continue going to hell in an Oligarchical handbasket.
He showed his true colors way before that, when he said "look forward not backward." Ir you missed that one, you weren't paying attention. It's been downhill ever since.
re: it's been downhill ever since
Funny, I was looking at a graph of the US consumption of oil yesterday, and it perfectly correlates to our recent downward slide. Yes there were a few bumps in the road, but things were moving along pretty "groovy" until the 70s (when Amerikkka reached domestic peak-oil production). Since then we've seen an uptick in globalization, privatization, and overt militarism (all in the service to financial Imperialism), and a corresponding downtick in environmental protectionism, income and employment (other than the service and FIRE industries), civil liberties, education, and workers' rights.
It seems the real problem facing "us" --- the 7 billion people on this planet --- may be energy: how it is derived, how it is distributed, and how it is consumed.
As far as resources are concerned, Old Peculiar, I would say "...that the real problem facing us ---the 7 billion people on this planet---" isn't energy but water. You can't make it and when the demand for it exceeds the supply we, that's all 7 billion of us, will have a real problem.
yep, but he fought the good fight. he stood up for constitutional principles, but ya know, the regressives just backed him into a corner and overwhelmed him. he had to compromise his principles in order to achieve the bipartisan support to.... looks like bushes third term on steroids. was he a legacy appointee to law school?
Your post made me laugh! Thanks!
The number of Obama-bots jumping onto CD to defend the Constitution- and law-shredding their golden boy does on a daily basis seems to have fallen off quite a bit over the last few months. I wonder if perhaps more and more of them are starting to :gasp: actually see that Obama is in fact a complete and utter fascist, and quite literally far worse than W. ever was when it comes to disregarding the law, gathering more and more dictatorial powers unto himself (i.e., stating he has the authority to order the assassination of any human being on the planet anytime, American citizen or otherwise), and being such a complete corporate whore that it blows the mind.
Of course, most of them will still vote for his fascist ass in 2012 anyway. "Better than a Republican," they will say. How, exactly??
Or maybe they've just all fled to FluffPo and DailyKogs.
Or maybe they flew around to Alternet, Mother Jones, Raw Story, etc... and turned those sites into a "Republicans are bad" madness mania. I hear those sites are getting more pro-Obama cultist with "moderators" removing/editing comments or banning users altogether. I hope CD doesn't join them though it has been reported of CD once doing it in 2008.
FWIW, Demonstorm, I had pretty much the same thought.
"How, exactly?" My guess is that they'll do what the dwindling few have been doing all along: carefully pick a small handful of the least rotten, moldy cherries-- there's not much of a crop to pick from in the first place-- shine them up as best they can, then hold them up triumphantly in a dim light with the blemishes and deformities hidden from view as far as possible.
Oh, and then they'll pipe up with the "clincher" already making the rounds in previous weeks: the assertion that Noam Chomsky recommends that we hold our nose and vote for Obama in 2012.
Sometimes they tack on the pious dogma that refusing to do so is the worst kind of elitist self-indulgence, since it betrays an abominable lack of solidarity with those few oppressed and economically disadvantaged people for whom the above-mentioned rotten cherries are the difference between life and death.
They believe it, too. And typically are very offended and prone to righteous indignation when it's received skeptically or derisively. After all, they're not trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear-- just making a respectable, serviceable sow's-ear purse!
If you visited here in 2008, you ought to be familiar with the incredulous lesser-evil advocates acerbically asking skeptics, "Do you think you're smarter/better than CHOMSKY?"
And at least they're being constructive and positive, and so on. What's YOUR "solution", damn it? BTW, they don't credit "not buying into bogus, supercilious pseudo-solutions, for starters". They need to emerge one-up, in order to persevere.
That's how.
Yes, we have arrived at a dubious place.
With the economy yet to hit bottom, prices for food and gas rising everyday, housing still in free-fall, and the police state growing stronger, I'd advise the average politically minded citizen to abandon the political process and any organized related activities for now. But, stock your pantry...etc.
Our problem cannot be fixed by any election at this point.
Utterly sad, and utterly true.
Our supreme Constitutional Law Professor is doing a heckuva job. Cheney must be so proud of him.
Having abrogated and abandonned even such ancient and fundamental Magna Carta Libertatum rights as habeas corpus, you're pretty much screwed. Miranda warnings about your totally f*cked situation are the least of your worries.
Impeachment, now!
Obama doesn't care about people.
far from the maddening crowd:
From the start he was no hope for change.
Community service was only for connections and name recognition.
How did he vote as State Senator in IL?
Remember 3 days before the Democratic Convention he voted for telecom immunity. Then AT&T appeared on all convention tidbits.
Remember who gave him most of the money.
We can not win when the two parties control everything, from the debates to
the machines.
He is a fantastic snake oil salesman, I'll give him that.
But what do I know.
Obama has proven himself to be every bit as much of an accomplished liar as Bush. Bush's odd body language, malaprops and facial tells at least belied an uneasy conscience. Not so Obama. His composure and slick eloquence make him ever so much more dangerous.