Obama Orders Limits on Miranda Rights For Domestic Suspects

[al981]

perfect. obama knows if he steps out of line from the plan, he gon' be jfk'ed / rfk'ed /mlk'ed. see sig.

 

[irishScott]

Er, you folks get that detaining someone slightly longer than otherwise after pre-approval from the higher ups at the FBI and then reading them their rights is a different level of offense ot what some might consider unconstitutional than say picking a US citizen up off the streets, flying them overseas and torturing them right?

I have a feeling you'll hear the "left's" response shortly, this article is from today.

I hope so, but given the left's response (or lack thereof) to Guantanamo (which is a MUCH larger issue) I doubt it.

 

[ch33zw1z]

The beatings will continue until moral improves.

 

[thegimp03]

LOL, where is Harvey with his pages of emoticons? The "left" in this country is as inconsistent and morally bankrupt as they claim the "right" is.

It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.

Not to mention the calls for imprisoning the "traitor-in-chief". lol

 

[Kirby]

black boooooooooooosssssssshhhhhh!

http://www.snotr.com/video/93/Black_Bush

 

[jonks]

I hope so, but given the left's response (or lack thereof) to Guantanamo (which is a MUCH larger issue) I doubt it.

The left isn't happy with guantanamo, but people aren't being tortured there anymore. Shutting it down sure has proven more difficult than expected but even McCain said he would have shut it down if elected. It was only once that he lost the election that shutting it down seemed all of a sudden impossible to him.

As to these miranda adjustments for terrorists, the DOJ and WH mentioned over a year ago that they were looking into how if at all in the age of terrorism they might make miranda more applicable. Miranda is not sacrosant, it was established by SCOTUS and has been adjusted in the decades since numerous times. The knee jerk reaction to tinkering will probably come from some on the left. I want to see exactly what is being proposed first. Obama has kept more Bush policies than I care for.

Course it doesn't appear many in this thread bothered reading the article either to see what changes might be entailed. TLDR

 

[CallMeJoe]

I hope so, but given the left's response (or lack thereof) to Guantanamo (which is a MUCH larger issue) I doubt it.

FWIW, President Obama tried to shut down the Guantanamo detention facility but was blocked by Congress. While the president might have been more persuasive to the Congress, you still should focus your wrath on the legislators who worked to keep that blemish on American honor open, not the executive.

A lot of people seem to have missed this part of the article:

The Miranda change leaves other key procedures in place, notably federal rules for speedy presentation of suspects before a magistrate, normally within 24 hours. Legal experts say those restrictions are bigger obstacles than Miranda to intelligence gathering. The FBI memo doesn't make clear whether investigators seeking exemptions would have to provide a Miranda warning at the time of such a hearing.
Also unchanged is the fact that any statements suspects give during such pre-Miranda questioning wouldn't be admissible in court, the memo says.

I find this far less intrusive on our freedoms than "rendition" or the non-legislative suspension of habeas corpus.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

LOL, where is Harvey with his pages of emoticons? The "left" in this country is as inconsistent and morally bankrupt as they claim the "right" is.

It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.

Yeah, macro-mary should be in shortly with his "traitor in cheif" ramblings...

 

[Fern]

The beatings will continue until moral improves.

lol

Fern

 

[BoberFett]

http://www.snotr.com/video/93/Black_Bush

:thumbsup:

 

[DucatiMonster696]

wrong thread

 

[Double Trouble]

I hope so, but given the left's response (or lack thereof) to Guantanamo (which is a MUCH larger issue) I doubt it.

Gitmo was a problem created by the previous administration, dealing with the mess is a little trickier, so I give the current admin a little more leeway on that one. This particular rolling back of rights of suspects not convicted of anything yet is squarely on this administration -- very hypocritical considering this president ran on a platform of change and openness.

 

[Jhhnn]

Gitmo was a problem created by the previous administration, dealing with the mess is a little trickier, so I give the current admin a little more leeway on that one. This particular rolling back of rights of suspects not convicted of anything yet is squarely on this administration -- very hypocritical considering this president ran on a platform of change and openness.

Not that I favor this initiative form the Obama Admin, but it's more than slightly hypocritical for Bush fanbois to denounce it, or for anybody to claim it's "new". Do you think they read Jose Padilla his rights immediately, or at all wrt Maher Arar and others?

If so, you might want to check your delusion-o-meter...

 

[Double Trouble]

Not that I favor this initiative form the Obama Admin, but it's more than slightly hypocritical for Bush fanbois to denounce it, or for anybody to claim it's "new". Do you think they read Jose Padilla his rights immediately, or at all wrt Maher Arar and others?

If so, you might want to check your delusion-o-meter...

I've never been a Bush "fanboi" in any sense of the word, I was (and am) appalled by some of the things that took place during his presidency. What I find ironic (and hypocritical) is that the folks who so loudly complained about all those abuses and curtailing of rights are now the same ones doing not only the same thing, but are actually curtailing rights further.

 

[Jhhnn]

I've never been a Bush "fanboi" in any sense of the word, I was (and am) appalled by some of the things that took place during his presidency. What I find ironic (and hypocritical) is that the folks who so loudly complained about all those abuses and curtailing of rights are now the same ones doing not only the same thing, but are actually curtailing rights further.

Heh. Might want to check the meter I mentioned, because what the Obama Admin has done is to refrain from the worst abuses of the Bush Regime while being open about accepting some of the lesser ones. Doesn't mean I like it or endorse it, but I recognize it for what it is. The memo basically refers to Jack Bauer type scenarios, anyway, and in no way limits the rights of anybody not in that scenario. It'll probably never happen, so the usual ravers need to get over themselves.

It wouldn't have changed anything wrt the underwear bomber, for example, because the threat he posed was over, or the shoe bomber, either.

 

[Doppel]

Our legal system generally gives far too many rights to accused and convicted criminals and tramples over victims and their loved ones. I'm glad to see that some small steps are being the the correct direction.

Rubbish. The per capita number of people in prison in the US is leads the civilized world. Ignore the noise on the ends of the spectrum, the US is extremely hard on criminals.

The "left" in this country is as inconsistent and morally bankrupt as they claim the "right" is.

How the hell don't people see this? Frustrating.

 

[Double Trouble]

Heh. Might want to check the meter I mentioned, because what the Obama Admin has done is to refrain from the worst abuses of the Bush Regime while being open about accepting some of the lesser ones. Doesn't mean I like it or endorse it, but I recognize it for what it is. The memo basically refers to Jack Bauer type scenarios, anyway, and in no way limits the rights of anybody not in that scenario. It'll probably never happen, so the usual ravers need to get over themselves.

It wouldn't have changed anything wrt the underwear bomber, for example, because the threat he posed was over, or the shoe bomber, either.

Uh, I suggest you re-read the memo. In fact, it SPECIFICALLY indicates that it is NOT limited to "jack bauer" type scenarios where danger is imminent.

Further, Obama and his administration have done no "refraining" from anything. In fact, they've taken every single controversial / abusive position held by the previous administration and either defended it or expanded on it.

 

[Jhhnn]

Uh, I suggest you re-read the memo. In fact, it SPECIFICALLY indicates that it is NOT limited to "jack bauer" type scenarios where danger is imminent.

Further, Obama and his administration have done no "refraining" from anything. In fact, they've taken every single controversial / abusive position held by the previous administration and either defended it or expanded on it.

Neither one of us can actually "read the memo", but rather read what the WSJ says it contains, compare that to what the DoJ spokesman claims, which is different, and along the lines of what I offered.

 

[Double Trouble]

Neither one of us can actually "read the memo", but rather read what the WSJ says it contains, compare that to what the DoJ spokesman claims, which is different, and along the lines of what I offered.

Fair enough, we don't have access to the document itself, point taken.

From the article:

A Federal Bureau of Investigation memorandum reviewed by The Wall Street Journal says the policy applies to "exceptional cases" where investigators "conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat."

I bolded the section that looks like a significant expansion of the use of "non miranda" interrogation. Since it's in quotes it appears to be a direct quotation of the document, but we don't know that for sure......

Of all the things that have been done in the name of "fighting terrorism", this is certainly a very minor one, but it's notable that instead of rolling back those actions that it complained about prior to getting in office, this administration has embraced them or even expanded them.

 

[Macamus Prime]

Wait, I thought the conservatives WANTED a tougher President?? OK'ed loaded weapons on federal property; check. Bombing Lybia; check. Choking freedom and someone's rights; check.

So, what's the probl,... oh, that's right - he isn't WHITE. Ok, now it's more clear than ever.

 

[Double Trouble]

Wait, I thought the conservatives WANTED a tougher President?? OK'ed loaded weapons on federal property; check. Bombing Lybia; check. Choking freedom and someone's rights; check.

So, what's the probl,... oh, that's right - he isn't WHITE. Ok, now it's more clear than ever.

I wish we had a retard-filter on these forums to keep people like you out. Then we might have more actual interesting discussions again, rather than "liberals dur dur dur ... conservatives dur dur dur".

 

[Scotteq]

I wish we had a retard-filter on these forums to keep people like you out. Then we might have more actual interesting discussions again, rather than "liberals dur dur dur ... conservatives dur dur dur".

We do: There is an ignore list, which you may access and populate via the User CP.

 

[Macamus Prime]

I wish we had a retard-filter on these forums to keep people like you out. Then we might have more actual interesting discussions again, rather than "liberals dur dur dur ... conservatives dur dur dur".

No one is forcing you to read my posts.

 

[thraashman]

So it appears that technically not much changed here. The person still technically has all those Miranda rights but law enforcement is not required to inform them as soon. Also anything the person says prior to being warned is no admissable. In addition neither is extraordinary rendition being used nor are US citizens being declared enemy combatants like they were under the previous administration.

I WISH this were the worst thing done by a President in this country in the last 10 years. Hell I'll take stuff like this from Obama daily if he stops continuing so many of the horrible Bush policies he's been keeping around.

 

[actuarial]

LOL, where is Harvey with his pages of emoticons? The "left" in this country is as inconsistent and morally bankrupt as they claim the "right" is.

It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.

This rambling doesn't follow for me. If you agree with what is being done, you should be happy about it, regardless of the affiliation. Otherwise, you are the one that is inconsistent.

It you do not agree with what is being done, but imply in your post it is similar to what was done by a right administration (otherwise where is the inconsistency?), then you would be denouncing both the left AND the right.

From an outsiders perspective, American politicians on both the left and the right are morally bankrupt.