In a recent post on Politico it states that Attorney General Eric Holder made the decision to read the underwear bomber suspect his Miranda rights — and he’s hammering Republicans for politicizing a practice he says they backed when George W. Bush was in office. “I made the decision to charge Mr. Abdulmutallab with federal crimes, and to seek his detention in connection with those charges, with the knowledge of, and with no objection from, all other relevant departments of the government,” Holder wrote in a letter to senators Monday. He called the decision “fully consistent” with precedents set by “administrations of both parties.” “Those policies and practices, which were not criticized when employed by previous administrations, have been and remain extremely effective in protecting national security,” he said. Source. Politico
If that decision is supported by the White House, what rights, if any, will they give to Osama bin Laden when he is eventually captured?
Will Osama fall under a different category?
President Obama. Your defenders explain the huge deficit by reminding us that you inherited not one but two wars. War criminals are not entitled to any rights.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32486.html#ixzz0f4n6h7CL
For those unfamiliar with “Miranda Rights” we provide the following:
A Miranda warning is a warning given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody, or in a custodial situation, before they are interrogated. A custodial situation is one in which the suspect’s freedom of movement is restrained (judged by the “free to leave” test), even if he is not under arrest. An elicited incriminating statement by a suspect will not constitute admissible evidence unless the suspect was informed of his/her “Miranda rights” and made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of those rights. However, a 2004 Supreme Court ruling upheld state “stop-and-identify” laws, allowing police in those jurisdictions to require biographical information such as name, date of birth, and address, without arresting suspects or providing them Miranda warnings.
The Miranda warnings were mandated by the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda v. Arizona as a means of protecting a criminal suspect’s Fifth Amendment right to avoid coercive self-incrimination (see right to silence). The reading of the Miranda warning might be omitted during arrest, such as if the evidence is already sufficient to indict, or if the suspect is talkative and volunteers information (without being asked). The admissibility of conversations, as evidence, is judged on a case-by-case basis, subject to appeal.
Larry,
So for debate’s sake, can you explain to us why, if OBL was read Miranda rights, that would prevent us from trying and executing this man for the murders that occurred on 9/11?
It wouldn’t, and you know it.
And if you think OBL is going to hand over valuable intelligence by torturing him, you’re just as crazy as he is.
When in doubt, spread the fear.
Unless congress actually declares war, which they have not done, then our Constitution requires that he be given the same rights as any other defendant.
That being said, in his case I still favor the shoot on sight option.
Jim. When is the last time Congress has declared war?
Got to go. Update to be posted on another story
Jim. Part II.
Since declaring war in 1941, in accordance with Article 1, Section 8, of the US Constitution, did Congress declare war in:
Korea,
Vietnam
Persian Gulf 1991
Grenada
Iraq,
Somalia,
Bosnnia-Hercegovina or
Afghanistan???
“When is the last time Congress has declared war?”
Ya gotta just love conservatives who profess such righteous respect for the sanctity of the Constitution…oh, except when that pesky thing just gets in the way of their agenda.
Hey Larry, I’ll answer that question…they didn’t, and it’s wrong.
anon.
Thank you for acknowledging that BOTH major parties were in power since 1941 when we actually followed the US Constitution.
I agree Larry, both parties have failed to follow the constitution on this.
“Thank you for acknowledging that BOTH major parties were in power since 1941 when we actually followed the US Constitution.”
That’s right brother, doesn’t matter who did it. Now perhaps you can write a sentence like this…
“We are not at war, because Congress has not declared war.”
Or would you rather just pretend that we’re at war so we don’t Mirandize jihadists?
i love these libs and there pre 9 /11 thinking .
Not-So-Great-One,
Did the Constitution change after 9/11?
This is so classic…does anyone recall GOP outrage over Reid being Mirandized?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32399.html
POST 11 KEEP THINKING LIKE THAT .