Monday, May 10, 2010

Experts: Obama Admin Pioneering Robust Use Of Miranda Exception In Terrorism Cases

The problem here, an absurdly obvious one that a 5 year old can see but yet 'patriotic' neocons can't, is that in order to deny a person his miranda rights, and all other due process rights, under the Constitution, Geneva, or any international law, you must first designate him a terrorist. But under what process is this determination made? It must be an immediate determination the instant the alleged terrorist is apprehended. *POOF* you're a terrorist. Why? How? Because we say so. Now you have less rights than a stray dog.

And yet how many of the hundreds or thousands of 'terrorists' we've apprehended have actually been tried? And how long do you detain them before whatever supposed intelligence they can offer you becomes useless? Certainly a far shorter period of time than most Gitmo detainees have been there. And yet it is actually acceptable to many 'patriotic', 'freedom loving' Amurr'cans that their government actually tells them they don't have the evidence to try them in court or tribunal, but they're too dangerous to be let go.

And pay no attention to the hundreds of people, some children, who've been detained for years, and tortured, yet were let go free and clear, never having even been indicted of a "crime", much less seen a day in court. Whoops! Our bad. See ya. Sorry for stealing several years of your life and torturing you. Go home and tell your friends how much Amurr'ca loves freedom!

    TalkingPointsMemo -

    The Obama Administration is applying an old exception to the Miranda rule in a new way in order to interrogate terrorism suspects before reading them their rights, several experts tell TPMmuckraker, finding what one law professor calls a "middle ground" between those who want suspects put through the criminal justice system and those who believe they should be classified as "enemy combatants."

    Federal agents questioned both Faisal Shahzad, the man accused of planting a makeshift bomb in Times Square, and Umar Abdulmutallab, the failed Christmas Day bomber, under the so-called public safety exception to the Miranda rule for substantial periods before informing the men of their right to remain silent, and to an attorney.

    Information gleaned during questioning under the public safety exception -- in which police "ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety," according to the 1984 Supreme Court case that recognized the exception -- is admissible at trial.

    "It looks like to me they're trying to find this middle ground between saying the Constitution applies with full force and the Constitution doesn't apply," says Sam Kamin, a professor of criminal law and procedure at Sturm College of Law in Denver who has written about terrorism interrogations. "It seems to be a deliberate strategy."

Read all of it.