That seems very odd, since there is already an exception for that purpose in caselaw.
So what is it that Holder is asking for, then?
At least this instance seems to fit that statement. When Bush proposed analogous changes, there were pages and pages here criticizing him. Now we have… one person, whose “outrage” is tepid at best.
Cite? (No, really – all I could find googling were lots of stories about how the Bush administration also Mirandized suspects.)
Cite? (No, really – I don’t remember the purported “proposed analogous changes”, much less any reaction to them. At all.)
On a substantive note, I have to say that it’s not clear to me that “outrage” is appropriate. Honestly, speaking only for myself, I actually was confused about “Miranda rights” – until this thread brought it to my attention, I hadn’t really thought about the fact that “Miranda rights” is a misnomer, just a short-hand way of indicating proper legal procedure concerning admissible evidence, not a “right” in and of itself. Given that understanding, I now feel that it’s a minor issue, generally raised just to score political points. More non-substantive noise from the peanut gallery.
Would I prefer not expanding Miranda exceptions? Yes. Outrage? Doesn’t even move my needle, especially given (some of) the items on Sam Stone’s tidy little list.
More flexibility in the exception. From here:
The case law for the public safety exception is unclear about its application when you have a suspected terrorist. It has usually been applied when the police know that the suspect lost a weapon somewhere and they need to secure it. So Holder wants a law clarifying the exception. I’m not sure he needs one, but from his statements that looks like what he is asking for.
It’s not clear to me what that means in terms of specifics. I get it: he wants “modernizing, clarifying, making more flexible.”
Again, I feel as though Ashcroft asking to expand the exception by modernizing, clarifying, and making it more flexible would have gotten a great deal of negative feedback here, just on those words alone. So it feels to me as though Holder can ask for modernizing, clarifying, and making more flexible without drawing the fire that Ashcroft would have.
So, wait – is “Bush/Ashcroft proposed changes to Miranda” just a hypothetical? If so, I’ll stop my (admittedly feeble) attempts to find any information about it, and simply concede that “[Democrats | liberals | Bush-bashers | etc] are also poopyheads”.
Really, I’d like to know – in the interest of fairness and informing myself I’ve done both some googling and on-board searching. I’ve found nothing, perhaps due to poorly chosen keywords.
From what I’ve read Holder hasn’t mentioned any specifics to the public. My guess would be that he wants to ask about terrorists plots without reading terror suspects their rights, but I really have no clue how far he wants to take this. He could want to question all terror suspects without reading them their rights, but it’s hard to see how he could get away with that.
I disagree with Holder on this because I don’t think Miranda is a big hurdle for the police. At worst Miranda will make some evidence given by a terror suspect useless in court, but it wouldn’t prevent police from getting that information in the first place.
And from a political stand point, if you are going to make the public upset that you’re stripping away rights, at least go after something that is useful. You’re not going to gain much from this new Miranda exception except the perception that America is become more oppressive. The very perception that’s been very useful to terrorists abroad in recruiting more terrorists.
Well, the specific instance I was thinking of was surrounding a case called US v. Dickerson, which sought to relegate Miranda warnings to the status of a rule of evidence, not a Constitutional requirement.
Thank you. Relevant wikipedia cite and repeat of Doctor Who’s Findlaw cite. (I didn’t realize that the case was already referenced. Sorry for my inattention.)
I suppose it’s worth noting that it was argued and decided in 2000 – that is, before Bush was elected and Ashcroft became AG. Which kinda puts the lie to Sam Stone’s bitching about selectively applied “outrage”.
Or was there another pertinent instance one of you had in mind?
Y’know, I was thinking about this earlier – I thought it was clear to me when I made that last post, but now I’m not so sure.
If you wouldn’t mind explaining, what’s the distinction you’re making? Is it simply that as a “rule of evidence”, voluntarily given information (but with no Miranda warning) is admissible? While as a “Constitutional requirement”, such information is not admissible?
Rather than retype this, here’s an explanation I did when the case was working its way through the courts, also linked-to above.
Here is a really good NYT editorial about Holder’s suggestion to change the existing Miranda law.
Their point is similar to what I said earlier - that changing the law isn’t necessary to fight terrorism.
It also says that Holder should be more clear about what changes he wants, and why he needs a law to do it. The NYT is just as confused about a request for a new law as most posters in this thread.
Got it. Thank you.
You can’t discount the possibility that Holder is simply an incompetent buffoon who doesn’t think before he shoots his mouth off. After all the wailing he did about the Arizona immigration law, someone pointed out to him that it didn’t even go as far as the Supreme Court said immigration law could go, at which point he admitted he hadn’t even read the law passed in Arizona.
That beggars belief. The Attorney General of the United States can’t be bothered to read the text of one of the more historic laws passed in the last year? But he still feels competent to issue his opinion on it?
This isn’t the first time Holder has been caught out like this when questioned. The guy’s a hack.
My prediction is that he doesn’t survive in the Obama administration much longer. He’s starting to be a real liability.