Obama Said to Be Open to New Miranda Look

[Kevin and 10]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/11/us/politics/11miranda.html

Obama Said to Be Open to New Miranda Look

By CHARLIE SAVAGE

Published: May 10, 2010

WASHINGTON — David Axelrod, the top White House political adviser, said Monday that President Obama was amenable to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.’s call for a new law allowing interrogators to question terrorism suspects for lengthy periods without informing them of their rights.

In an interview on CNN, Mr. Axelrod said Mr. Obama was “open to looking at” changing the Miranda rule, which generally bans prosecutors from using as evidence statements made by suspects in custody before they have been warned that they have a right to remain silent and to consult a lawyer. “There may be some things that have to be done,” Mr. Axelrod said. “Certainly we’re willing to talk to Congress about that. But they would be in the area of adjustments, not a wholesale revision.”

Mr. Axlerod’s comments came a day after Mr. Holder called for Congress to enact legislation that would carve out a new exception to the Miranda rule. It comes from a landmark 1966 Supreme Court decision that is intended to ensure that confessions are not coerced, consistent with the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

While it is virtually certain that the White House knew about and approved of Mr. Holder’s policy proposal before he made it on Sunday, the remarks by Mr. Axelrod provided a stronger public link between the idea, which has drawn fire from civil libertarian groups, and Mr. Obama himself.

Over the past year, Republicans have sharply criticized the Obama administration for treating some terrorism suspects — including United States citizens arrested on United States soil, like Faisal Shahzad, the man accused of attempting to detonate a car bomb in Times Square this month — as criminal defendants rather than as military detainees under wartime rules.

Conservatives have long disliked the Miranda ruling, and its use in terrorism cases has been especially controversial because of worries that the warning might interrupt the flow of an interrogation, prompting a suspect to stop providing information that could disrupt a future attack.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

the idea of treating a terrorist like an average criminal is ridiculous to begin with and the idiot who came up with it (probably the ACLU) should be smacked around a bit to knock some sense into them.

[Kevin and 10]

the idea of treating a terrorist like an average criminal is ridiculous to begin with and the idiot who came up with it (probably the ACLU) should be smacked around a bit to knock some sense into them.

What happens if the suspect it a US citizen in the US?

[The_Dude 1,142]

What happens if the suspect it a US citizen in the US?

What happens when it's some disaffected teabagger who flies his plane into a federal building? Is that terrorism? It is a politically motivated attack on a government building.

This is just scaling back Liebermann's fail bill. I'm not really comfortable with scaling back our rights as citizens.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

What happens when it's some disaffected teabagger who flies his plane into a federal building? Is that terrorism? It is a politically motivated attack on a government building.

This is just scaling back Liebermann's fail bill. I'm not really comfortable with scaling back our rights as citizens.

Miranda is nothing but judicial activism at its best to begin with.

It's a 'right' for the stupid who don't understand/know their rights already granted to them by the constitution.

Miranda is truly not necessary if people were a little more educated to begin with....

[The_Dude 1,142]

Miranda is nothing but judicial activism at its best to begin with.

It's a 'right' for the stupid who don't understand/know their rights already granted to them by the constitution.

Miranda is truly not necessary if people were a little more educated to begin with....

That's the biggest load of ####### i've heard in a while. Miranda rights don't just pertain to citizens actually, they apply to anyone who is arrested in this country under suspicion of a criminal offense. So, you would expect, everyone, even foreign nationals on vacation, and people who would fall under the category of "diminished capacity" to understand each and every right?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

That's the biggest load of ####### i've heard in a while. Miranda rights don't just pertain to citizens actually, they apply to anyone who is arrested in this country under suspicion of a criminal offense. So, you would expect, everyone, even foreign nationals on vacation, and people who would fall under the category of "diminished capacity" to understand each and every right?

Yes actually.

Just as you as a citizen are required to know/understand the laws of a different state you might be traveling to, so should the same be held to a foreigner who travels into this country.

The same goes if you're traveling abroad. You should make the effort to know/understand you basic rights/laws in the country in which you are visiting.

*GASP* Self Responsibility

Edited May 12, 2010 by Paul and Vanessa

[The_Dude 1,142]

Yes actually.

Just as you as a citizen are required to know/understand the laws of a different state you might be traveling to, so should the same be held to a foreigner who travels into this country.

The same goes if you're traveling abroad. You should make the effort to know/understand you basic rights/laws in the country in which you are visiting.

*GASP* Self Responsibility

There is no expectation that you should know and understand the laws of a different state. That is pure bullsh!t. There are certain laws that are universal, but you are inane if you think that everyone should know the laws regarding public spitting in Anderson County, S.C.

Miranda wasn't created to protect the rights of those who should know. It was written to protect those who don't know all their rights. Saying someone should have a full comprehension of each and every right they have as a citizen, or as a tourist from another country is insane. You sould like a university of phoenix law school dropout when you suggest that everyone should be as educated as to the law as you are.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

You sould like a university of phoenix law school dropout when you suggest that everyone should be as educated as to the law as you are.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

There is no expectation that you should know and understand the laws of a different state. That is pure bullsh!t. There are certain laws that are universal, but you are inane if you think that everyone should know the laws regarding public spitting in Anderson County, S.C.

Actually, there is. - Do you really think, "oh i'm not from here, so i didn't know" is a viable excuse? You'd more than likely just get laughed at and then slapped with your fine and/or jail time still.

Miranda wasn't created to protect the rights of those who should know. It was written to protect those who don't know all their rights. Saying someone should have a full comprehension of each and every right they have as a citizen, or as a tourist from another country is insane. You sould like a university of phoenix law school dropout when you suggest that everyone should be as educated as to the law as you are.

I know why it was written. As I said though, *GASP* Personal Responsibility in knowing the rules and laws of where you are traveling. - There's a reasonable expectation to have knowledge of the laws and to uphold those laws when you are traveling as well as knowing your rights. It's common sense. If you're going some place you don't know anything about, educating yourself is the smart thing to do.

Of course I suppose this nanny-state bullshit that takes place makes you happy where the 'stupid' can be helped in every day life. I personally say ** 'em.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Actually, there is. - Do you really think, "oh i'm not from here, so i didn't know" is a viable excuse? You'd more than likely just get laughed at and then slapped with your fine and/or jail time still.

I know why it was written. As I said though, *GASP* Personal Responsibility in knowing the rules and laws of where you are traveling. - There's a reasonable expectation to have knowledge of the laws and to uphold those laws when you are traveling as well as knowing your rights. It's common sense. If you're going some place you don't know anything about, educating yourself is the smart thing to do.

Of course I suppose this nanny-state bullshit that takes place makes you happy where the 'stupid' can be helped in every day life. I personally say ** 'em.

If you actually do know why it is written, and persist to think that it is not necessary, then you are ignorant of the law yourself. Yes, there is a need for more personal responsibility, but to expect everybody to sit at home, or bored at their mindless job reading endless state statues and law texts is as foolish as it is unrealistic. That's not nanny-stat BS as you like to put it, It's common sense. Were you aware that it is illegal to release 10 or more helium ballons in a 24 hour period in Toronto?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

If you actually do know why it is written, and persist to think that it is not necessary, then you are ignorant of the law yourself. Yes, there is a need for more personal responsibility, but to expect everybody to sit at home, or bored at their mindless job reading endless state statues and law texts is as foolish as it is unrealistic. That's not nanny-stat BS as you like to put it, It's common sense. Were you aware that it is illegal to release 10 or more helium ballons in a 24 hour period in Toronto?

Now you're just being silly. - I doubt most in Toronto even know that, even the police (if it's indeed still a law on the books). Either way, you'd still be responsible for your actions. "I didn't know" is not an excuse.

We're talking about fundamental rights though. We're talking 4th and 5th amendment here. Hell, these are things you should have been taught in school growing up. Things that you should already know as a USC. If you need to be reminded of your constitutional rights, then you've got much bigger issues going on.

As far as tourists go, it's not unreasonable at all to expect them to know their rights in the country which they are traveling. If you were traveling to a foreign country, wouldn't you want to research your 'rights' just in case you got into some sort of trouble. No one expects to get into trouble, but it's good to be prepared.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Now you're just being silly. - I doubt most in Toronto even know that, even the police (if it's indeed still a law on the books). Either way, you'd still be responsible for your actions. "I didn't know" is not an excuse.

We're talking about fundamental rights though. We're talking 4th and 5th amendment here. Hell, these are things you should have been taught in school growing up. Things that you should already know as a USC. If you need to be reminded of your constitutional rights, then you've got much bigger issues going on.

As far as tourists go, it's not unreasonable at all to expect them to know their rights in the country which they are traveling. If you were traveling to a foreign country, wouldn't you want to research your 'rights' just in case you got into some sort of trouble. No one expects to get into trouble, but it's good to be prepared.

With each passing day, you become more and more absurd. Are you aware of all your rights when you travel to Canada? I didn't think so.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

With each passing day, you become more and more absurd. Are you aware of all your rights when you travel to Canada? I didn't think so.

Actually, I made myself aware before I ever took my first trip. Thanks though.

So in expecting people to be responsible I'm absurd?

[The_Dude 1,142]

Actually, I made myself aware before I ever took my first trip. Thanks though.

So in expecting people to be responsible I'm absurd?

Bullshit Paul, nice try though. You really are delusional if you think anyone here believes that you fully studied up on the Canadian charter of rights, and I mean beyond reading the wikipedia entry.