Author Topic: Holder Seeks to Kill Miranda Rights and Give Police More Interogation Powers  (Read 15094 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,802
    • GlobalGulag.com
    * MAY 9, 2010, 11:15 A.M. ET

US Attorney General: Regulators To Seek Miranda Law Change
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100509-702362.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines

 
   By Fawn Johnson
 

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--Regulators are preparing to ask Congress to modify the Miranda law that requires law enforcement officials to inform criminal suspects of their rights.

"We need to give serious consideration to at least modifying the public safety exception" to the Miranda law to give enforcement officials "the necessary flexibility" to question suspects, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said on ABC News's "This Week" on Sunday.

The administration has been criticized for reading Miranda rights to the suspect in the Times Square car-bombing attempt and to the suspect in the Christmas Day attempt to blow up an airliner overDetroit.

Holder said there were a number of possibilities for modifying the law, and that regulators would be discussing those with Congress. He did not provide further details.  
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

>>> Global Gulag Media & Forum <<<

Offline Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,802
    • GlobalGulag.com
Administration wants weaker Miranda rules
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/09/administration-wants-weaker-miranda-rules/

By David Eldridge

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said Sunday the administration wants a "public safety exception" to allow investigators to question terror suspects before they are read their Miranda rights or allowed to consult with a lawyer.

Mr. Holder, appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, said the law enforcement community needs more flexibility to question suspects -- within constitutional bounds.

The attorney general defended the Obama administration, which has been criticized for reading Miranda rights to the suspects in the Times Square bombing attempt and the Christmas Day attempt to blow up an airliner over Detroit.

Mr. Holder said Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square suspect, continued to answer questions after getting the Miranda warnings, but that the administration had changed its position on the Miranda rights because of the "threats that we now face."

On ABC's "This Week," Mr. Holder said: "The [Miranda] system we have in place has proven to be effective. I think we also want to look and determine whether we have the necessary flexibility -- whether we have a system that deals with situations that agents now confront. . . . We're now dealing with international terrorism. . . . I think we have to give serious consideration to at least modifying that public-safety exception."
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

>>> Global Gulag Media & Forum <<<

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341

  This is really disturbing.  I saw Holder on Meet the Press.  Gregory asked him very hard questions---he, like Soetoro, evaded them.  HE DOES WANT TO REVISE THE MIRANDA RIGHTS.
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline donnay

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,691
  • Live Free Or Die Trying!
Holder is definitely a creep and a traitor to this country!

That's so if you are silent, they can torture you!!
Please visit my website: https://www.theherbsofthefield.com/

ImmortalTRUTH

  • Guest
Holder: Miranda May Need Changes for Terrorists

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/05/09/us/politics/AP-US-Times-Square-Miranda.html?_r=1&ref=aponline

WASHINGTON (AP) -- In the wake of the Times Square bombing plot, the Obama administration said on Sunday it wants to work with Congress on possible limitations of the constitutional rights afforded terrorism suspects -- even for American citizens.

Attorney General Eric Holder said changes may be needed to allow law enforcement more time to question suspected terrorists before they are told about their Miranda rights to a lawyer and to remain silent under interrogation.

As the nation debates how to proceed against terrorist attacks, particularly as they have become the work of individuals who are difficult to detect in advance, the administration has been heavily criticized for reading Miranda rights to suspects in the Christmas Day attempt to blow up a plane heading for Detroit and the May 1 Times Square plot.

Terrorism has presented all sides in the debate with a delicate balancing act, protecting the rights of the individuals accused of terrorism while also attending to public safety.

Holder said the White House wanted to work with Congress to examine the 1966 Supreme Court Miranda ruling to ensure that law enforcement agents have ''necessary flexibility'' to gather information from suspects in terror cases.

The Miranda warning -- a bedrock guarantee of a suspect's constitutional rights -- has come under more intense study because accused Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad is a U.S. citizen of Pakistani origin. The administration declared on Sunday that he was working under the direction of the Pakistani Taliban.

There also was a foreign link in the case with Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, who is accused in the shooting deaths of 13 people last year at Fort Hood, Texas. Authorities claim he has ties to radical Muslim cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents.

Al-Awlaki, who lives in Yemen, also has been alleged to have ties to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian charged with trying to explode a bomb concealed in his underwear as his plane approached Detroit.

While asking for an examination of Miranda rights in terrorism cases, the administration contends that Abdulmutallab and Shahzad continued talking to investigators and providing evidence after the Miranda admonition.

At issue specifically is a 1984 modification to the law under which police were given leeway for more extensive pre-Miranda questioning under the ''public safety exemption.'' But it remains unclear if evidence gathered from terrorism suspects under that exemption and before Miranda rights are outlined to the suspect can be used in court.

''And that's one of the things that I think we're going to be reaching out to Congress to do,'' Holder said, ''to come up with a proposal that is both constitutional, but that is also relevant to our time and the threat that we now face.''

John Brennan, President Barack Obama's top counterterrorism adviser, said that Shahzad was questioned for about four hours before he was read his rights. Shahzad waived his right to having a lawyer present in subsequent interrogation.

Even while suggesting the possible need to limit the rights of terrorism suspects, Holder raised questions about bipartisan legislation introduced in both houses of Congress last week that would strip terrorism suspects of U.S. citizenship.

''There are potential constitutional issues with it,'' Holder said, acknowledging he had not reviewed ''it in any great detail.''

He added, however, ''I think what people have to understand is that the system we presently have in place takes terrorists and can put them in jail for extended periods of time.''

Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., defended the citizenship legislation, saying terrorist organizations were showing a pattern of using American citizens.

''Al-Qaida and the other terrorist groups are changing their mode of operating,'' Lieberman said. ''And increasingly, they're looking for American citizens to carry out these plots, and one of the reasons is the passport that lets them -- like Shahzad -- come in and out of the country.''

In appearances on ABC's ''This Week'' and NBC's ''Meet the Press,'' Holder also said the Obama White House remained determined to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba while it struggled to decide how and where to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the planner of the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.

The administration originally vowed to close the prison by the end of last year.

Holder said the White House had asked Congress for funding in the next fiscal year to transfer the Guantanamo terrorism prisoners to a little used federal lockup in Illinois.

As to Mohammed, Holder said the administration had not settled on a place for the trial after New York City officials rejected holding it there. He also said it remained possible that Mohammed would be tried before a military tribunal. Holder had wanted a civilian trial in federal court.

Offline agentbluescreen

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,435
These lying predatory mass murdering and drug dealing bastards are the true criminals. Nobody is afraid of their big bad wolves.

In adopting the machinations of tyranny to supposedly fight it, one loses the war.




Offline Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,802
    • GlobalGulag.com
 This is really disturbing.  I saw Holder on Meet the Press.  Gregory asked him very hard questions---he, like Soetoro, evaded them.  HE DOES WANT TO REVISE THE MIRANDA RIGHTS.

And if the new Supreme Court Justice Nominee, Elena Kagan gets in, Holder will have an allie in killing Miranda.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

>>> Global Gulag Media & Forum <<<

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
And if the new Supreme Court Justice Nominee, Elena Kagan gets in, Holder will have an allie in killing Miranda.

what a coincidence, huh?

Setting up the police state, one blackmailable puppet at a times.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline bigron

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
Anti-war 9/11 families oppose Holder proposal to modify Miranda


By Raw Story
Monday, May 10th, 2010 -- 1:11 pm

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0510/antiwwar-911-families-oppose-holder-proposal-modify-miranda/

During an interview Sunday on ABC television's current affairs talk show This Week, Attorney General Eric Holder suggested creating an exception to so-called Miranda rights established in a 1966 Supreme Court ruling that forbids prosecutors from using statements made by suspects before they have been warned that they have a right to remain silent.

"We're now dealing with international terrorists," the attorney general told NBC television. "And I think that we have to think about perhaps modifying the rules that interrogators have and somehow coming up with something that is flexible and is more consistent with the threat that we now face."

Monday morning, an anti-war organization for survivors of the September 11, 2001 attacks along with friends and family members of the victims, blasted the proposal.

Donna Marsh O’Connor, spokesperson for September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, issued the following statement:

Last week law enforcement agencies including the FBI and the NYPD successfully aborted an attempt to kill Americans by following the rule of law. According to Attorney General Holder the suspect Faisal Shazad was apprehended, read his Miranda rights, and began to proffer information vital to US interests, continuing to speak to this day. There is already room in Miranda for postponing the reading of rights in the interests of public safety and this was, indeed, invoked. Surprisingly, in the face of this success, Holder now maintains that we should "revisit" Miranda laws for those apprehended for alleged terrorist activities. We urge caution and we invoke reason: we have laws that work to protect our citizens and our security. We should not proceed down a road that may become a slippery slope towards the curtailment of fundamental due process rights that have served this nation well.


The group's website states its goals: "By developing and advocating nonviolent options and actions in the pursuit of justice, we hope to break the cycles of violence engendered by war and terrorism. Acknowledging our common experience with all people affected by violence throughout the world, we work to create a safer and more peaceful world for everyone."

A core group of 200 family members directly affected by loss on September 11th have joined our group, and thousands of supporters have joined our mailing list. Our family members live in 31 states and seven foreign countries. In accordance with our bylaws, our co-directors and steering committee members are also 9/11 family members.
In 2006, the Washington Post's Michael Powell reported that, with regards to 9/11, "unreasonable questions resonate with the reasonable."

Colleen Kelly's brother, a salesman, had breakfast at the Windows on the World restaurant on Sept. 11. After he died she founded September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows to oppose the Iraq war. She lives in the Bronx and gives a gingerly embrace to the conspiracy crowd.

"Sometimes I listen to them and I think that's sooooo outlandish and bizarre," she says. "But that day had such disastrous geopolitical consequences. If David Ray Griffin asks uncomfortable questions and points out painful discrepancies? Good for him."

Offline Overcast

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,133
So how long before this 'unchecked' police thuggery gets back to one of these politicians families?
Not long, it's already happened in Cincinnati - or at least very close.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090824/NEWS0107/308250003/Suspended-officer-has-history-of-incidents

Tasered her and everything. Of course, in this case the cop gets the smack down; unlike the situation would be if it was a 'non-connected' person.

It's bound to happen again, and again, and again.

Be careful of what beasts you create Mr. Elites - many animals will turn on their owners, and that becomes more likely as the level of brutality rises.

It's called a 'Military Coup' - maybe they should research that considering they probably got degrees by paying people and whacking off in coffins at Harvard.
And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM!

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Eric Holder...What the F?
« Reply #10 on: May 10, 2010, 04:04:12 pm »
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/magnacarta.html

Signed in year 1215 AD

(38 ) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.

+ (39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

+ (40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Eric Holder...Go F Yourself!
« Reply #11 on: May 10, 2010, 04:33:33 pm »
   * MAY 9, 2010, 11:15 A.M. ET

US Attorney General: Regulators To Seek Miranda Law Change
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100509-702362.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines

 
   By Fawn Johnson
 

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--Regulators are preparing to ask Congress to modify the Miranda law that requires law enforcement officials to inform criminal suspects of their rights.

"We need to give serious consideration to at least modifying the public safety exception" to the Miranda law to give enforcement officials "the necessary flexibility" to question suspects, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said on ABC News's "This Week" on Sunday.

The administration has been criticized for reading Miranda rights to the suspect in the Times Square car-bombing attempt and to the suspect in the Christmas Day attempt to blow up an airliner overDetroit.

Holder said there were a number of possibilities for modifying the law, and that regulators would be discussing those with Congress. He did not provide further details.  
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Re: Eric Holder...Go F Yourself!
« Reply #12 on: May 10, 2010, 04:54:23 pm »


  Holder just wants to take us back 800 years to the PRE-MAGNA CARTA DAYS.  Back when the king was king and there was no separation of powers.  MOVE ALONG. THERE'S NOTHING TO SEE HERE.  MOVE ALONG.
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline Freeski

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,706
Re: Eric Holder...Go F Yourself!
« Reply #13 on: May 10, 2010, 08:12:18 pm »
Why is it that so many people in positions of power either don't know, or don't give a crap, about anything Constitutional? How and why did they get there? And there's so many! Most of them! How can that be?
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.

Offline usefulidiot,uselesseater

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,016
  • Useful Idiot/Useless Eater
Re: Eric Holder...Go F Yourself!
« Reply #14 on: May 10, 2010, 10:08:54 pm »
Why is it that so many people in positions of power either don't know, or don't give a crap, about anything Constitutional? How and why did they get there? And there's so many! Most of them! How can that be?

They Live. We Sleep.  :o
Most people don't care and will probably wait until they have no rights left before they get angry and react. But by that time it might be too late.  :-[
"The central challenge of our time is posed not by global terrorism, but rather by the intensifying turbulence caused by the phenomenon of global political awakening. That awakening is socially massive and politically radicalizing."-Zbigniew Brzezinski

Offline MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors
Re: Eric Holder...Go F Yourself!
« Reply #15 on: May 10, 2010, 10:26:07 pm »
Why is it that so many people in positions of power either don't know, or don't give a crap, about anything Constitutional? How and why did they get there? And there's so many! Most of them! How can that be?

"I sweat to uphold and defend the... what's it called?  Oh, yeah.. the Const-i-tut... who writes this crap?!  I've never even heard of this thing!!  Wait, is this thing on *tap tap*... *ahem* of the United States of something or other... so help me Moloch... err, God."

Income Tax: Shattering The Myths
w w w . original intent . o r g

The 1911 in .45 ACP... don't leave home without it!  Safety first!!

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Eric Holder...Go F Yourself!
« Reply #16 on: May 10, 2010, 10:56:25 pm »
28 USC § 501: "The Department of Justice is an executive department of the United States at the seat of Government."

28 USC § 503: "The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, an Attorney General of the United States. The Attorney General is the head of the Department of Justice."

28 USC § 509: "All functions of other officers of the Department of Justice and all functions of agencies and employees of the Department of Justice are vested in the Attorney General except the functions-- (1) vested by subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5 in administrative law judges employed by the Department of Justice; (2) of the Federal Prison Industries, Inc.; and (3) of the Board of Directors and officers of the Federal Prison Industries, Inc."

28 USC §§ 510-530: Many functions of the attorney general listed out, requirements for him and the department of justice, etc.

28 USC § 515(b): "Each attorney specially retained under authority of the Department of Justice shall be commissioned as special assistant to the Attorney General or special attorney, and shall take the oath required by law. Foreign counsel employed in special cases are not required to take the oath. The Attorney General shall fix the annual salary of a special assistant or special attorney."



US Code> TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart B > CHAPTER 33 > SUBCHAPTER II >

§ 3331. Oath of office

An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths required by law.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Eric Holder...Go F Yourself!
« Reply #17 on: May 10, 2010, 11:19:27 pm »

"...When I took the oath of office as Attorney General, I swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Supporting and defending the Constitution includes, in my view, a responsibility to serve as guardians of the rights of all Americans..."

Attorney General of the United States of America, Eric Holder, on July 17, 2009
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/holder_indigent_defense/
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Re: Eric Holder...Go F Yourself!
« Reply #18 on: May 10, 2010, 11:34:46 pm »

"...When I took the oath of office as Attorney General, I swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Supporting and defending the Constitution includes, in my view, a responsibility to serve as guardians of the rights of all Americans..."

Attorney General of the United States of America, Eric Holder, on July 17, 2009
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/holder_indigent_defense/
Oh yea, one of our rights is the Miranda Rights.

http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/meet-press-ag-eric-holder-says-he-wan


TOPICS NBC
Diggs

Meet The Press: AG Eric Holder Says He Wants Congress To "Modify" Miranda
By Nicole Belle Sunday May 09, 2010 10:00am

After almost five years of blogging, I admit to a certain cynical level of outrage fatigue. I expect politicians to be pandering asses and I expect journalists to be stenographers at best. But this moment on Meet The Press kicked my butt out of my complacency and squarely right back to outrage.

One of the newer memes that Republicans have been floating to paint the Democrats (and in particular, this administration) as weak on terror and defense is to suggest that by giving a suspect his Miranda rights is to somehow weaken our ability to catch terrorists.

Excuse me, but WTF???? So following the "rule of law" (something that the Republicans claim they are for) is now making us weak? By what measure? The insinuation is that these suspects clam up when they know they have a right to remain silent. Well, do we think they don't know that already? Gregory apes the RWNJ of saying that once a suspect is "lawyered up", our ability to get information stops. Even with Holder confirming that Shahzad continues to talk to authorities after acknowledging his Miranda rights, somehow this is still a concern?

Let's be clear. Shahzad, despite his alleged attempted acts, is an American citizen. That he has a Middle-Eastern surname does not mean that his rights as an American should be forfeited. Was there discussion of not giving Roeder his Miranda rights when he killed Dr. Tiller? Or Tim McVeigh when he successfully bombed the Murrah Building? Why not? The "changing nature" of the threats we face is not limited to the color of someone's skin. And even more importantly, not every person arrested is guilty of the crime of which they are accused. Can we really say that modifying Miranda rights on a case by case basis will result in better justice?

Proving once again that the White House responds to those who are the loudest and most fear-mongering over what's right and most grounded in our justice system, this law is an affront to all Americans. If any citizen's rights can be adjusted like this, we are all threatened by it.

Transcripts below the fold:

DAVID GREGORY: You issued a Miranda warning to Shahzad . The right to remain silent. At which point a lot of defendants-- suspects could get a lawyer. You did that after eight hours. And after you had already gotten him talking. There's criticism about injecting the possibility that a suspect will not provide intelligence if you give them that Miranda warning. Take me through that process of what the balancing test is before Miranda is actually issued.

ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: Well, I wouldn't say that we talked to him for eight hours without giving his Miranda warning. But-- aside from that-- what you do is you use the public safety exception that the Supreme Court has defined. To make sure that there are no immediate threats.

GREGORY: A quote unquote "ticking time bomb" scenario.

HOLDER: Ticking time bomb. And then you make the determination-- whether or not it is appropriate. Whether you think that giving Miranda warnings to that person is gonna stop the flow of information or whether the flow of information will continue. And you make the determination, in this particular case, is it more important for us to get intelligence from this person. Or is it more important for us to-- build the case? One of the things that we have certainly seen is that the giving of Miranda warnings has not stopped these terrorist suspects from talking to us. They have continued to talk even though we have given them-- Miranda warnings.

GREGORY: Is that still the case here, with Shahzad ?

HOLDER: That's clearly the case. He-- was given his Miranda warnings-- after the public safety exception questioning-- was finished. And he has talked to us. And he continues to talk to us.

GREGORY: But would you like interrogators to have more flexibility?

HOLDER: exception was really based on a robbery that occurred-- back in the '80s and-- something to do with a supermarket. We're now dealing with international terrorism. And I think that we have to think about-- perhaps modifying-- the rules that-- interrogators have. And somehow coming up with something that is flexible and is more consistent with the threat that we now face.

GREGORY: So, let me-- let me unpack that a little bit. What you'd like to see happen is that Congress would pass a law that would say to judges, "Hey, look, in this environment, if we extract information that could be valuable intelligence about another terror plot, about who they're involved in. Whether they're connected to the Pakistani Taliban. We want to get all that without them lawyering up and still be able to use that against them in a court of law." And you need more flexibility to do that, you think?

HOLDER: Yeah, we certainly need more flexibility. And we want the public safety exception to be consistent with-- the public safety concerns that we now have in the 21st Century, as opposed to the public safety concerns that we had back in the 1980s.

GREGORY: So, that's news. I mean, that's an important development. Would you work with Congress to try to get that new law passed?

HOLDER: Yeah, we want to work with Congress to come up with a way in which we make our public safety exception more flexible. And again, more consistent with the threat-- that we face. And yes, this is in fact the big news. This is a proposal that-- we're gonna be making and that we want to work-- with Congress about.

GREGORY: So, a new priority for the administration.

HOLDER: It is a new priority.
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Re: Eric Holder...Go F Yourself!
« Reply #19 on: May 10, 2010, 11:45:12 pm »
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/10/obama-administration-to-consider-miranda-reform/

Obama administration to consider Miranda reform
Share
27
POSTED AT 2:55 PM ON MAY 10, 2010 BY ED MORRISSEY   
PRINTER-FRIENDLY

The Obama administration insists that it can provide for national security by running suspected terrorists through the criminal court system, rather than the military commissions Congress has three times authorized for the purpose of handling foreign terrorists captured abroad.  Part of the problem with that approach, although by no means the only problem with it, is the requirement to Mirandize “suspects” in order to use their statements as evidence in court, as well as any evidence those statements produce.  While the Miranda requirement has a public-safety exception, its very narrow application doesn’t work for most terrorism investigations, especially when the point of the interrogation is to determine whether an attack is imminent.

Yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder said that the Obama administration will consider reforming the Miranda requirement through legislative action to broaden the public-safety exception:

Attorney General Eric Holder, in his first appearances on Sunday morning news shows as a cabinet secretary, said the Justice Department is examining “whether or not we have the necessary flexibility” to deal with terrorist suspects such as the Pakistani-born U.S. citizen who tried to detonate a car bomb in Times Square last weekend.

“We’re now dealing with international terrorism,” Holder said on ABC’s “This Week.” “And if we are going to have a system that is capable of dealing in a public safety context with this new threat, I think we have to give serious consideration to at least modifying that public safety exception.”

The announcement marked a potentially significant change by the administration as it tries to manage the politics of national security after repeatedly coming under fire, mainly from conservatives, for being too willing to read Miranda rights to terrorism suspects. The administration is trying to thread a difficult needle: of taking a harder line on terrorism while staying within the confines of the criminal justice system.

Holder and other administration officials said they would be engaging Congress on putting together a proposal for changes to the law, which requires suspects to be told that they have the right to remain silent and that their statements may be used against them in court. They did not provide specifics of possible changes.

Under the current public safety exception, statements obtained before issuing the Miranda warning may be used in court — including to charge suspects — if it is determined that police needed to obtain information quickly to prevent further crimes. Once an immediate threat is ruled out, the Miranda warning must be read, under current law.

The goal of revisions would be to give law enforcement officials greater latitude to hold suspects within the criminal justice system and interrogate them for long periods of time — without having to transfer them to a military system or designate them as enemy combatants, officials said.

The entire point of Miranda is to keep law enforcement from wringing confessions out of suspects without first advising them of their rights.  If they have probable cause to suspect that a specific, explicit threat to public safety exists, then the Quarles exception applies.  Without that, though, courts will throw out any admissions and any evidence resulting from those admissions under the “fruits of the poisoned tree” principle.  That exists to keep American citizens and legal residents from the abuses of government.

The problem here isn’t that the Quarles exception is too narrow.  It’s that Miranda doesn’t apply to counterterrorism and warfare in the first place.  When the US detained Umar Abdulmutallab, he was an agent of a foreign organization making war against the United States.  The military and intelligence agencies should have had custody of the EunuchBomber from the very beginning instead of law-enforcement agencies, whose High-Value Interrogation Group hadn’t even yet been formed a year after Barack Obama dismantled its predecessor. The same is true of terrorists captured abroad, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his cohorts.

However, that’s not true of Faisal Shahzad, an American citizen caught after the botched attempt to blow up Times Square.  He acted as an agent of the Taliban, but his citizenship requires the government to handle him with full constitutional protections, especially since he was captured in the US, albeit barely.  But that means that the proper charge against such a terrorist is treason, not terrorism, for abetting the nation’s enemies in conducting war on us.

This is why attempting to shoehorn a war into the criminal courts system is so dangerous to American citizens.  In order to make it work, the federal government will have to make broad changes to criminal procedure and constitutional protections not just for a few jihadis but for everyone who appears in the federal court system for justice.   Shahzad belongs in that system, but KSM, Abdulmutallab, and the Gitmo detainees do not.  The creation of military commissions protects our rights as well as American national security.

Don’t reform Miranda.  Stop trying to turn the federal courts into theaters of war.

I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Eric Holder...What the F?
« Reply #20 on: May 10, 2010, 11:49:48 pm »
So I am reviewing Eric Holder's record from brokering deals with Merck and the pardoning of Marc Rich and see him as anything but a genocidal maniac hell bent on destroying this country.

I guess Eric, rather than F You, I will respectfully say concerning your most recent decision to politicize constitutional issues...

"Eric Holder...What the F?"

Mitch McConnell is giving you shit about the Christmas day underwear CIA drill?

Why aren't you investigating Assistant Secretary of State Kennedy's statement that an unknown US intelligence agency helped him get on a plane.

And with the new Times Square fizzle bomb patsy, why not investigate NLE10 and the NYPD's bomb drill happening at exactly the same time, or Kissinger's jcontrol of NSA Jones and his control over DHS no fly lists? You served under Reno, you saw what these people do, you saw what happened in Waco. They mean to make Waco the standard going forward, a Goldman Sachs Director (Elena Kagan - who was never a judge) is about to help set constitutional interpretations.

So come on man, What the F?
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Eric Holder...What the F?
« Reply #21 on: May 10, 2010, 11:53:48 pm »
Who knows wtf he is talking about when he says he wants congress to adjust Miranda...

CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO DEAL WITH MIRANDA.

Maybe he has just successfully thrown it out of his perview.

But really, the police state nuts in congress will see it as an open invitation to enact more unconstitutional legislation and then have the Goldman Sachs puppet president sign the dang thing.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Re: Eric Holder...What the F?
« Reply #22 on: May 11, 2010, 12:01:49 am »
Miranda Rights from Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning

The Miranda warning is a warning usually given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial situation) before they are interrogated.[Note 1] An elicited incriminating statement by a suspect will not constitute admissible evidence unless the suspect was informed of their right to decline to make self-incriminatory statements and their right to legal counsel (the so-called "Miranda rights"), and made a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of those rights.[Note 2] The Miranda warning is not a condition of detention, but rather a safeguard against self-incrimination; as a result, if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may still interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate them in a criminal trial.


The concept of "Miranda rights" was enshrined in U.S. law following the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court decision, which found that the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights of Ernesto Arturo Miranda had been violated during his arrest and trial for rape and kidnapping. (Miranda was subsequently retried, found guilty and sentenced to 20–30 years.)
The Supreme Court did not specify the exact wording to use when informing a suspect of their rights. However, the Court did create a set of guidelines that must be followed. The ruling states:
“   ...The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says will be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent her or him.   ”
As a result, American English developed the verb Mirandize, meaning "to read the Miranda warning" to a suspect (when the suspect is arrested).[1]
Notably, the Miranda rights do not have to be read in any particular order, and they do not have to precisely match the language of the Miranda decision, as long as they are adequately and fully conveyed. California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (1981).[2]
[edit]Typical usage

Every U.S. jurisdiction has its own regulations regarding what, precisely, must be said to a person arrested or placed in a custodial situation. The typical warning states:
“   You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?   ”
The courts have since ruled that the warning must be "meaningful", so it is usually required that the suspect be asked if he understands his rights. Sometimes, firm answers of "yes" are required. Some departments and jurisdictions require that an officer ask "do you understand?" after every sentence in the warning. An arrestee's silence is not a waiver. Evidence has in some cases been ruled inadmissible because of an arrestee's poor knowledge of English and the failure of arresting officers to provide the warning in the arrestee's language.
[citation needed]
Also because of various education levels, officers must make sure the suspect understands what the officer is saying. It may be necessary to "translate" to the suspect's level of understanding. Courts have ruled this admissible as long as the original waiver is said and the "translation" is recorded either on paper or on tape.
Some jurisdictions provide the right of a juvenile to remain silent if their parent or guardian is not present.
Some departments in New Jersey, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Alaska modify the "providing an attorney" clause as follows:
“   We have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to court.   ”
Even though this sentence may be somewhat ambiguous to some laypersons, the U.S. Supreme Court has approved of it as an accurate description of the procedure in those states. Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (1989) (upholding use of sentence by Hammond, Indiana police).
In states bordering Mexico, including Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, suspects who are not United States citizens are given an additional warning:[citation needed]
“   If you are not a United States citizen, you may contact your country's consulate prior to any questioning.   ”
Some states including Virginia require the following sentence, ensuring that the suspect knows that waiving Miranda rights is not a one-time absolute occurrence:[citation needed]
“   You can decide at any time from this moment on to terminate the interview and exercise these rights.   ”
California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington and Pennsylvania also add the following questions to comply with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations:[citation needed]
“   Do you understand each of these rights I have explained to you? Having these rights in mind, do you wish to talk to us now?   ”
An affirmative answer to both of the above questions waives the rights. If the suspect responds "no" to the first question, the officer is required to re-read the Miranda warning, while saying "no" to the second question invokes the right at that moment; in either case the interviewing officer or officers cannot question the suspect until the rights are waived.
Generally, when defendants invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refuse to testify or submit to cross-examination at trial, the prosecutor cannot punish them by commenting on their silence and insinuating that it is an implicit admission of guilt. Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965). Since Miranda rights are simply an extension of the Fifth Amendment which protects against coercive interrogations, the same rule also prevents prosecutors from commenting about the postarrest silence of suspects who invoke their Miranda rights immediately after arrest. Wainwright v. Greenfield, 474 U.S. 284 (1986). However, neither the Fifth Amendment nor Miranda extend to prearrest silence, so if a defendant takes the stand at trial (thereby waiving his Fifth Amendment rights), the prosecutor can attack his credibility with his prearrest silence (where he failed to turn himself in and confess immediately). Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231 (1980).
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 31[3] provides for the right against self-incrimination. Interrogation subjects under Army jurisdiction must first be given Department of the Army Form 3881(PDF), which informs them of the charges and their rights, and sign it. The United States Navy and United States Marine Corps require that all arrested personnel be read the "rights of the accused" and must sign a form waiving those rights if they so desire; a verbal waiver is not sufficient.
It has been discussed whether a Miranda warning — if spoken or in writing — could be appropriately given to disabled persons. For example, "the right to remain silent" means little to a deaf individual and the word "constitutional" may not be understood by people with only an elementary education. The content of a Miranda warning can be understood by a 6th- to 8th-grade pupil while only 10 to 15 percent of prelingually deaf people have been found to be that competent, due to the linguistic and cultural differences between the Deaf and Hearing communities.[citation needed] In one case, a deaf murder suspect was kept at a therapy station until he was able to understand the meaning of the Miranda warning and other judicial proceedings.[4]
[edit]
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Eric Holder...What the F?
« Reply #23 on: May 11, 2010, 12:36:14 am »
Miranda Rights from Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning

The Miranda warning is a warning usually given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial situation) before they are interrogated.[Note 1] An elicited incriminating statement by a suspect will not constitute admissible evidence unless the suspect was informed of their right to decline to make self-incriminatory statements and their right to legal counsel (the so-called "Miranda rights"), and made a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of those rights.[Note 2] The Miranda warning is not a condition of detention, but rather a safeguard against self-incrimination; as a result, if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may still interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate them in a criminal trial.


The concept of "Miranda rights" was enshrined in U.S. law following the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court decision, which found that the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights of Ernesto Arturo Miranda had been violated during his arrest and trial for rape and kidnapping. (Miranda was subsequently retried, found guilty and sentenced to 20–30 years.)
The Supreme Court did not specify the exact wording to use when informing a suspect of their rights. However, the Court did create a set of guidelines that must be followed. The ruling states:
“   ...The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says will be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent her or him.   ”
As a result, American English developed the verb Mirandize, meaning "to read the Miranda warning" to a suspect (when the suspect is arrested).[1]
Notably, the Miranda rights do not have to be read in any particular order, and they do not have to precisely match the language of the Miranda decision, as long as they are adequately and fully conveyed. California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (1981).[2]
[edit]Typical usage

Every U.S. jurisdiction has its own regulations regarding what, precisely, must be said to a person arrested or placed in a custodial situation. The typical warning states:
“   You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?   ”
The courts have since ruled that the warning must be "meaningful", so it is usually required that the suspect be asked if he understands his rights. Sometimes, firm answers of "yes" are required. Some departments and jurisdictions require that an officer ask "do you understand?" after every sentence in the warning. An arrestee's silence is not a waiver. Evidence has in some cases been ruled inadmissible because of an arrestee's poor knowledge of English and the failure of arresting officers to provide the warning in the arrestee's language.
[citation needed]
Also because of various education levels, officers must make sure the suspect understands what the officer is saying. It may be necessary to "translate" to the suspect's level of understanding. Courts have ruled this admissible as long as the original waiver is said and the "translation" is recorded either on paper or on tape.
Some jurisdictions provide the right of a juvenile to remain silent if their parent or guardian is not present.
Some departments in New Jersey, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Alaska modify the "providing an attorney" clause as follows:
“   We have no way of giving you a lawyer, but one will be appointed for you, if you wish, if and when you go to court.   ”
Even though this sentence may be somewhat ambiguous to some laypersons, the U.S. Supreme Court has approved of it as an accurate description of the procedure in those states. Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (1989) (upholding use of sentence by Hammond, Indiana police).
In states bordering Mexico, including Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, suspects who are not United States citizens are given an additional warning:[citation needed]
“   If you are not a United States citizen, you may contact your country's consulate prior to any questioning.   ”
Some states including Virginia require the following sentence, ensuring that the suspect knows that waiving Miranda rights is not a one-time absolute occurrence:[citation needed]
“   You can decide at any time from this moment on to terminate the interview and exercise these rights.   ”
California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington and Pennsylvania also add the following questions to comply with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations:[citation needed]
“   Do you understand each of these rights I have explained to you? Having these rights in mind, do you wish to talk to us now?   ”
An affirmative answer to both of the above questions waives the rights. If the suspect responds "no" to the first question, the officer is required to re-read the Miranda warning, while saying "no" to the second question invokes the right at that moment; in either case the interviewing officer or officers cannot question the suspect until the rights are waived.
Generally, when defendants invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refuse to testify or submit to cross-examination at trial, the prosecutor cannot punish them by commenting on their silence and insinuating that it is an implicit admission of guilt. Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965). Since Miranda rights are simply an extension of the Fifth Amendment which protects against coercive interrogations, the same rule also prevents prosecutors from commenting about the postarrest silence of suspects who invoke their Miranda rights immediately after arrest. Wainwright v. Greenfield, 474 U.S. 284 (1986). However, neither the Fifth Amendment nor Miranda extend to prearrest silence, so if a defendant takes the stand at trial (thereby waiving his Fifth Amendment rights), the prosecutor can attack his credibility with his prearrest silence (where he failed to turn himself in and confess immediately). Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231 (1980).
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 31[3] provides for the right against self-incrimination. Interrogation subjects under Army jurisdiction must first be given Department of the Army Form 3881(PDF), which informs them of the charges and their rights, and sign it. The United States Navy and United States Marine Corps require that all arrested personnel be read the "rights of the accused" and must sign a form waiving those rights if they so desire; a verbal waiver is not sufficient.
It has been discussed whether a Miranda warning — if spoken or in writing — could be appropriately given to disabled persons. For example, "the right to remain silent" means little to a deaf individual and the word "constitutional" may not be understood by people with only an elementary education. The content of a Miranda warning can be understood by a 6th- to 8th-grade pupil while only 10 to 15 percent of prelingually deaf people have been found to be that competent, due to the linguistic and cultural differences between the Deaf and Hearing communities.[citation needed] In one case, a deaf murder suspect was kept at a therapy station until he was able to understand the meaning of the Miranda warning and other judicial proceedings.[4]
[edit]

Exceptions

Assuming that the six factors are present, the Miranda rule would apply unless the prosecution can establish that the statement falls within an exception to the Miranda rule.[49] The three exceptions are (1) the routine booking question exception[50] (2) the jail house informant exception and (3) the public safety exception.[51] Arguably only the last is a true exception–the first two can better be viewed as consistent with the Miranda factors. For example, questions that are routinely asked as part of the administrative process of arrest and custodial commitment are not considered "interrogation" under Miranda because they are not intended or likely to produce incriminating responses. Nonetheless, all three circumstances are treated as exceptions to the rule. The jail house informant exception applies to situations where the suspect does not know that he is speaking to a state-agent; either a police officer posing as a fellow inmate, a cellmate working as an agent for the state or a family member or friend who has agreed to cooperate with the state in obtaining incriminating information.[52] The window of opportunity for the exception is small. Once the suspect is formally charged, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel would attach and surreptitious interrogation would be prohibited.[53] The public safety exception applies where circumstances present a clear and present danger to the public's safety and the officers have reason to believe that the suspect has information that can end the emergency.[54]
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Eric Holder...What the F?
« Reply #24 on: May 11, 2010, 02:08:27 am »
[MCM] AG Holder is a multimillionaire (and ex-lobbyist for UBS, Merck, Hewlett-Packard)
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg01888.html
Mark Crispin Miller
Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:11:25 -0700

And that $3-million goodbye kiss from Covington & Burling surely left him with
a deeply lovin' feelin' for that Bushevik outfit.

A revelatory--and forever timely--piece from last December.

MCM

Holder will get $3M payoff to leave firm for AG job
By: Lisa Lerer

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16611.html

Eric Holder, President-elect Barack Obama's pick
for attorney general, has a net worth of $5.7
million and lobbied on behalf of three companies
in the past five years, according to a
questionnaire filed by Holder with the Senate
Judiciary Committee.

Last year, he made more than $2.1 million as a
partner at Covington & Burling, a prominent
Washington law firm. The money is unsurprising
given his high-profile client list, which
includes companies like UBS Financial Services,
Merck & Co., and Hewlett-Packard. He was also
paid to sit on the boards of MCI and Eastman
Kodak Company.

While Holder would certainly take a salary cut to
become attorney general, he'd rake in some major
profits from leaving the private sector.
Covington & Burling would pay Holder over $3.14
million from his partner capital account,
separation payments and deferred compensation.

The questionnaire was released shortly after
Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy
bowed to Republican requests to push Holder's
confirmation hearing back a week to Jan. 15.
Republicans are sure to make an issue of Holder's
involvement in President Bill Clinton's
controversial 2001 pardon of fugitive Marc Rich.
Holder's personal finances have not become an
issue in the confirmation.

But Holder has experience with tough
congressional hearings. According to his
questionnaire, he's testified before Congress ten
times over the past 13 years, including two 2001
hearings over his involvement in the Rich pardon.

At Covington, Holder was registered to lobby on
behalf of a group of medical schools,
biotechnology firm Large Scale Biology Corp., and
Global Crossing, a telecommunications company
that in 2002 filed one of the largest
bankruptcies in U.S. history.

When Holder registered to lobby for the company
after the bankruptcy, Global Crossing was hoping
to be bought by a joint venture of Hong
Kong-based Hutchinson Whampoa and Singapore
Technologies Telemedia. The company paid Holder
about $1 million to convince Congress, the White
House, and government agencies not to block the
purchase. Despite concerns that it could
compromise national security, the deal eventually
went through after Hutchinson backed out.

Holder wrote in his Judiciary disclosure form
that he has consulted with the Office of
Government Ethics and Department of Justice
ethics official to identify any conflicts of
interest from his work at the firm. "In the event
of a potential conflict of interest," he wrote,
"I would consult with the Department's ethics
official and take all necessary steps to ensure
that I comply with their guidance."

Other Holder trivia reported in the filing: his
middle name is "Himpton," he has three children,
is a member of historically black fraternity
Sigma Pi Phi, and his wife, Sharon Denise Malone,
is a doctor who, according to the Associated
Press, delivered incoming White House chief of
staff Rahm Emanuel's daughter.

© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Eric Holder...What the F?
« Reply #25 on: May 11, 2010, 02:10:03 am »
AG Eric Holder & Chiquita, Covington, Negroponte, Bolton, Colombian Death Squads
6th August 2009

http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/allposts/ag-eric-holder-chiquita-covington-negroponte-bolton-colombian-death-squads-2
(Reposted)

The Holder-Chiquita Connection

http://www.counterpunch.org/kozloff07172009.html

… Given Chiquita’s underhanded record in Central America and Colombia it’s not a surprise that the company later sought to ally itself with COHEP in Honduras. In addition to lobbying business associations in Honduras however Chiquita also cultivated relationships with high powered law firms in Washington. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Chiquita has paid out $70,000 in lobbying fees to Covington and Burling over the past three years.

Covington is a powerful law firm which advises multinational corporations. Eric Holder, the current Attorney General, a co-chair of the Obama campaign and former Deputy Attorney General under Bill Clinton, was up until recently a partner at the firm. At Covington, Holder defended Chiquita as lead counsel in its case with the Justice Department. From his perch at the elegant new Covington headquarters located near the New York Times building in Manhattan, Holder prepped Fernando Aguirre, Chiquita’s CEO, for an interview with 60 Minutes dealing with Colombian death squads.

Holder had the fruit company plead guilty to one count of “engaging in transactions with a specially designated global terrorist organization.” But the lawyer, who was taking in a hefty salary at Covington to the tune of more than $2 million, brokered a sweetheart deal in which Chiquita only paid a $25 million fine over five years. Outrageously however, not one of the six company officials who approved the payments received any jail time.

The Curious Case of Covington

Look a little deeper and you’ll find that not only does Covington represent Chiquita but also serves as a kind of nexus for the political right intent on pushing a hawkish foreign policy in Latin America. Covington has pursued an important strategic alliance with Kissinger (of Chile, 1973 fame) and McLarty Associates (yes, the same Mack McLarty from Clinton-time), a well known international consulting and strategic advisory firm.

From 1974 to 1981 John Bolton served as an associate at Covington. As U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations under George Bush, Bolton was a fierce critic of leftists in Latin America such as Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez. Furthermore, just recently John Negroponte became Covington’s Vice Chairman. Negroponte is a former Deputy Secretary of State, Director of National Intelligence and U.S. Representative to the United Nations.

As U.S. Ambassador to Honduras from 1981-1985, Negroponte played a significant role in assisting the U.S.-backed Contra rebels intent on overthrowing the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. Human rights groups have criticized Negroponte for ignoring human rights abuses committed by Honduran death squads which were funded and partially trained by the Central Intelligence Agency. Indeed, when Negroponte served as ambassador his building in Tegucigalpa became one of the largest nerve centers of the CIA in Latin America with a tenfold increase in personnel.

While there’s no evidence linking Chiquita to the recent coup in Honduras, there’s enough of a confluence of suspicious characters and political heavyweights here to warrant further investigation. From COHEP to Covington to Holder to Negroponte to McLarty, Chiquita has sought out friends in high places, friends who had no love for the progressive labor policies of the Zelaya regime in Tegucigalpa. …

http://www.counterpunch.org/kozloff07172009.html
****
“Eventually, though, with Holder’s assistance Chiquita and the Justice Department came to an agreement in which the fruit company would pay a $25 million fine – the price of the company’s sale of Banadex, its Colombian subsidiary – for having made payments to a foreign terrorist organization. The fine’s proceeds went to the U.S. Treasury. … “

http://www.cipcol.org/?p=703
Dec 02

Eric Holder and Chiquita

After President-Elect Obama revealed that Eric Holder would be his choice for attorney-general, several observers raised questions about the nominee’s role as a private lawyer defending Chiquita Brands, the U.S. fruit company. Holder helped Chiquita negotiate a plea agreement with the Justice Department for the years of payoffs that the company made to paramilitary groups in a part of Colombia where the right-wing militias massacred hundreds, perhaps thousands, of civilians.

Hofstra University’s Mario Murillo, writing for CounterPunch: “not one Chiquita official involved in the illegal transactions was forced to serve time for a crime that others have paid dearly for, mainly because they did not have the kind of legal backing that Holder’s team provided. … If the Obama Administration is seriously concerned about impunity and human rights in Colombia, Holder should probably step out of the way immediately.”

Dan Kovalik of the U.S. Steelworkers’ Union, writing in the Huffington Post: “Eric Holder would have a troubling conflict of interest in carrying out this work in light of his current work as defense lawyer for Chiquita Brands international. … Holder himself, using his influence as former deputy attorney general under the Clinton Administration, helped to negotiate Chiquita’s sweeheart deal with the Justice Department in the criminal case against Chiquita.”

Jason Glaser, writing in the Guardian: “Does Holder represent the change we need and the change we were promised? It is time that someone who chooses to represent and serve human beings over corporations holds the position of attorney general.”

The story here is that after the Clinton administration drew to a close Holder, a former Clinton assistant attorney-general, went into private practice at the Covington and Burling law firm, where his clients included Chiquita. In 2003, Holder led the legal team that advised the fruit company to admit to the U.S. Justice Department that it had been making payments to the murderous United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) since 1997 – a relationship that started out as “protection” money but went on way too long. The payments, which finally stopped in 2004, totaled about US$1.7 million to a group that, as of September 10, 2001, was on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations.

Oddly, as the Washington Post has reported, despite the terrorism link Holder and Chiquita at first had difficulty even getting a response out of Assistant Attorney-General Michael Chertoff, who would later go on to be the Bush administration’s Homeland Security secretary.

Eventually, though, with Holder’s assistance Chiquita and the Justice Department came to an agreement in which the fruit company would pay a $25 million fine – the price of the company’s sale of Banadex, its Colombian subsidiary – for having made payments to a foreign terrorist organization. The fine’s proceeds went to the U.S. Treasury.

There is a widespread perception that Chiquita’s punishment was quite lenient given the link with a terrorist group responsible for mass murder. Notably, the Justice Department indictment makes no mention of a potentially more serious charge, documented in a 2003 OAS investigation: that Chiquita’s Colombian subsidiary helped run weapons and ammunition from Nicaragua to the AUC.

How can we characterize the attorney-general-designate’s role? On one hand, Holder’s actions were commendable. Upon discovering that his client had broken the law, he advised it to go to the U.S. authorities. Notably, no other fruit company operating in northwestern Colombia’s conflictive Urabá region – and there are several – has come forward to admit to paying off armed groups. (It seems absurd that Chiquita would be the only one, and indeed demobilizing paramilitary leaders – including Salvatore Mancuso in a May 2008 60 Minutes interview – have alleged that they took payments from other companies in Urabá.)

Writing for Salon, Glenn Greenwald meanwhile makes the point that Holder should not be criticized for defending for a client, since all accused people have the right to defense counsel.

Attempts to criticize a lawyer for representing unsavory or even evil clients are inherently illegitimate and wrong — period. Anybody who believes in core liberties should want even the most culpable parties to have zealous representation before the Government can impose punishments or other sanctions. Lawyers who defend even the worst parties are performing a vital service for our justice system. Holder is no more tainted by his defense of Chiquita than lawyers who defend accused terrorists at Guantanamo are tainted by that.

This is true, and Holder’s defense of Chiquita should not disqualify him from serving as the Obama administration’s attorney-general.

Nonetheless, there are questions about Holder’s role that the Senate Judiciary Committee should explore before deciding on his nomination.

•Did Holder benefit from his contacts with former colleagues at the Justice Department in a way that allowed him to achieve a more lenient plea agreement than would have been possible for a less well-connected attorney?

•What role has Holder played in defending Chiquita from a class-action lawsuit filed in 2007 by 173 victims of paramilitary violence in the Urabá region? Has he advised his client to refuse any and all demands for restitution or reparations to victims? If so, how did he justify this position?

•In general, does Holder personally believe that U.S. corporations that do direct or indirect harm to citizens of a foreign country need not be held accountable to those citizens?

It will be difficult to get a definitive answer to any of these questions, and in fact the answer to all of them may be “no.”

Still, the U.S. Justice Department is likely to be dealing with Colombian paramilitary groups in several contexts, including possible future actions against U.S. corporations that may have aided them, and of course the criminal cases against fifteen extradited paramilitary leaders in U.S. custody since May of this year.

In private practice, Holder sought to downplay the severity of his client’s funding of Colombia’s paramilitaries and perhaps sought to prevent or minimize reparations to victims. As attorney-general, however, Holder can do great harm to U.S. credibility in Colombia and Latin America if he is perceived to be throwing obstacles in the way of the paramilitaries’ victims’ rights to truth and reparations. Because of his past work with Chiquita, his Justice Department’s actions with regard to future paramilitary cases will deserve extremely close scrutiny.

http://www.cipcol.org/?p=703
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Eric Holder...What the F?
« Reply #26 on: May 11, 2010, 02:13:16 am »
Why Eric Holder Represents What's Wrong with Washington
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2009/01/why-eric-holder-represents-whats-wrong-washington
— By David Corn| Wed Jan. 14, 2009 11:52 AM PST


Eric Holder Jr., by all accounts, is a decent, smart, caring, competent fellow. President-elect Barack Obama's pick to be attorney general had a brilliant career in public service: he graduated from Columbia University law school, worked at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, was a trial attorney at the Justice Department, a Superior Court judge in Washington, DC, a US attorney, and, then deputy attorney general. He has served on various nonprofit boards: George Washington University, the American Constitution Society, Morehouse School of Medicine, Save the Children Foundation, the District of Columbia's Police Foundation, and the Innocence Project. He's been a member of Concerned Black Men for over 25 years. He also, in a way, represents what's wrong with Washington.

That's not because of Holder's infamous role in the Marc Rich pardon. That episode--which Holder will certainly be asked about during confirmation hearings, which are scheduled to begin Thursday--was a case of Washington pay-to-play. There's little doubt that Rich, a fugitive financier indicted for tax evasion, racketeering, and trading with the enemy (Iran), was able to win that last-minute pardon from President Clinton (with Holder, as deputy attorney general, leaning slightly in its favor) because he had hired a former Clinton White House counsel to argue his case and because Rich's ex-wife had pledged money to Clinton causes.

Holder's role in the Rich pardon may not have been instrumental, but it was a mistake--a terrible way to cap off decades of public service. But he is a poster child for something perhaps more pernicious and extensive in the nation's capital: selling out. Months after the Clinton administration ended, Holder went to work for the influential law firm and lobbying shop of Covington and Burling. (He also joined the boards of Eastman Kodak and MCI.)

Holder was doing what so many routinely do in Washington: cashing in. He took years of experience he had gathered as a public servant and rented it to corporations accused of serious wrongdoing. He smoothly went from doing good to doing well. In 2008, according to his confirmation questionnaire, he made $2.1 million at Covington and Burling. And he expects in 2009 to bring in over $2.5 million, including his separation payment.

Holder's private legal work for the Chiquita banana company, which faced the possibility of federal charges for having paid protection money to Colombian terrorists, has earned media attention. Holder also helped Merck settle a massive Medicaid overbilling case that culminated in a $671 million civil settlement. The pharmaceutical company had been accused by the Justice Department of cheating the government regarding Vioxx, its arthritis drug, and Zocor, its cholesterol drug.

But it may be a lesser-known piece of lawyering that best symbolizes how Holder went from prosecuting bad guys to protecting them.

In 2001, Darrell McGraw Jr., the longtime Democratic attorney general of the state of West Virginia, filed a civil case against Purdue Pharma in 2001, the manufacturer of OxyContin, a highly addictive painkiller approved for serious pain treatment. He alleged that the company had engaged in "coercive and deceptive" marketing of OxyContin. McGraw charged that Purdue had disseminated misleading advertisements and had promoted the inappropriate use of OxyContin for minor pain. His lawsuit contended that Purdue had offered doctors free trips to "pain management" seminars where the firm pitched the drug as safe and effective for treating minor pain--without mentioning the drug was supposed to be used only for severe pain and easily abused. McGraw also alleged that Purdue had told "pharmacists that they can get in trouble if they do not fill prescriptions, even if they believe someone may be an abuser of the drug." He maintained that the firm's underhanded practices had caused users in West Virginia to become addicted to the drug. And he noted that while Purdue's annual sales revenue from OxyContin had surpassed $1 billion, the state of West Virginia was saddled with the cost of treating people who had become addicted due to misuse of the drug encouraged by Purdue.

This suit was a serious threat to the drugmaker, and it eventually called in Holder. And in November 2004, the morning that the case was about to go to trial, Holder helped negotiate a settlement. Working in the judge's chambers in West Virginia, he forged an agreement under which the firm would have to pay $10 million over four years into drug abuse and education programs in West Virginia. Purdue would not have to admit any wrongdoing. (Days earlier, the firm had offered the state about $2 million to settle; McGraw had turned down Purdue and had not bothered to produce a counter-offer.)

The settlement was a big win for the company. Ten million dollars was a piddling amount compared to what Purdue was reaping from OxyContin sales. More important, this settlement helped keep the lid on the firm's criminal activities. There would be no trial--and no public release of documents or testimony about the company's actions, which were already being investigated by federal prosecutors. In late 2002, the feds had begun an investigation of Purdue, with the first of what would be nearly 600 subpoenas for corporate records related to the manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of OxyContin.

In May 2007, the company and its three top executives pleaded guilty to federal charges of fraudulently marketing OxyContin by claiming it was less addictive, less subject to abuse, and less likely to cause withdrawal symptoms. Purdue and the three execs agreed to pay fines of $634.5 million*. At the time, US attorney John Brownlee summed up the case:

Even in the face of warnings from health care professionals, the media, and members of its own sales force that OxyContin was being widely abused and causing harm to our citizens, Purdue, under the leadership of its top executives, continued to push a fraudulent marketing campaign that promoted OxyContin as less addictive, less subject to abuse, and less likely to cause withdrawal. In the process, scores died as a result of OxyContin abuse and an even greater number of people became addicted to OxyContin; a drug that Purdue led many to believe was safer, less abusable, and less addictive than other pain medications on the market.

That is, Darrell McGraw, the West Virginia attorney general, had been correct.

Yet Holder had helped the company slip past McGraw's charges. And that permitted the drugmaker to continue its fraudulent ways until the Justice Department finally stopped them. "We didn't know why they settled with us," says Frances Hughes, McGraw's chief deputy attorney general. "Our suspicion is that they did not want anything to come out at the trial." Is it possible that because of Holder's efforts (whether he realized it or not), patients suffered--and perhaps died? But Holder did nothing wrong--in the legal or ethical sense. He was merely working for a client.

Corporate miscreants do have the right to legal representation. Yet Holder, who as a government official in earlier years had targeted wrongdoers, had no obligation to become a hired gun after leaving the Justice Department. He could have become a university president, a law school dean, a nonprofit chairman, a public interest lawyer. True, he would have had to get by on perhaps $250,000 or so a year instead of ten times that amount. But he would have continued a life of service.

Holder did what so many Washingtonians--Democrat and Republican--do upon leaving government: he left the public interest behind. The money was more important. (In his confirmation questionnaire, Holder did note he has "done more than fifty hours of pro bono work in every year except one" at Covington & Burling.) Many of the people who follow this sort of path like to continue to define themselves by their public deeds. When they serve on boards or write op-eds, they tend to ID themselves as a former government official--not as a current shill for this or that in-trouble corporation. They assume they can easily move back and forth between public service and private service--and they are right. In Washington, public officials are not snubbed or denigrated when they become private profiteers. When it's time for them to return to public life, it's usually no big deal. The capital's revolving door spins people into and out of government.

Holder may get a slap or two from the Republicans on the Senate judiciary committee for the Rich pardon or something else. But he's likely to be confirmed. He may well become a good attorney general. Someday, down the road, he might be feted at a fancy testimonial dinner, and all his rather impressive accomplishments will be repeatedly noted. And with the encomiums flowing, there won't be any mention of the Purdue Pharma victims and the highly-paid work Holder did to protect the people and company who caused their suffering.

*This post has been corrected to reflect the fact that Purdue and its executives paid $634.5 million in fines, not $634,515. Sorry.

David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington bureau chief. For more of his stories, click here. He's also on Twitter.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Overcast

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,133
Re: Eric Holder...Go F Yourself!
« Reply #27 on: May 11, 2010, 11:19:44 am »
They Live. We Sleep.  :o
Most people don't care and will probably wait until they have no rights left before they get angry and react. But by that time it might be too late.  :-[

Not sure it would ever be 'too late' as much as 'too bloody'...
And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM!

Offline bigron

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
Obama administration backs stripping “terror” suspects of Miranda rights



By Patrick Martin

http://uruknet.com/?p=m65868&hd=&size=1&l=e

WSWS, 10 May 2010

Attorney General Eric Holder said Sunday that the Obama administration would seek congressional passage of legislation that would weaken or eliminate Miranda rights for anyone arrested on suspicion of a connection to terrorism, effectively permitting open-ended and coercive interrogations.

In appearances on several network television interview programs, Holder and chief White House terrorism adviser John Brennan responded to congressional demands for more sweeping attacks on democratic rights in the wake of the failed attempt to detonate a car-bomb in New York City’s Times Square May 1.

Senator Joseph Lieberman, an Independent Democrat from Connecticut, and Senator Scott Brown, the recently elected Republican from Massachusetts, announced May 5 they would introduce legislation to authorize the State Department to revoke the citizenship of any American believed to be linked to terrorism. Similar legislation is to be introduced in the House of Representatives by two Pennsylvania congressmen, Democrat Jason Altmire and Republican Charles Dent.

The Lieberman-Brown bill was announced amid a blaze of media publicity, after the arrest of Faisal Shahzad, the suspected Times Square bomber, a naturalized American citizen of Pakistani descent. Shahzad was taken off an Emirates Airways plane at Kennedy Airport May 3, interrogated and arrested. Right-wing criticism of the Obama administration and Holder in particular has focused on the decision to read Shahzad his Miranda rights after four hours of questioning.

The bill won immediate support from some leading Democrats. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she supported the "spirit" of the measure but wanted to see the details. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared, "United States citizenship is a privilege. It is not a right. People who are serving foreign powers—or in this case, foreign terrorists—are clearly in violation, in my personal opinion, of that oath which they swore when they became citizens."

Asked about the Lieberman bill on the NBC interview program "Meet the Press," Holder refrained from direct criticism, saying he hadn’t been able to review the actual text, which has not yet been released, but he cited possible "constitutional concerns" with the proposal. The attorney general offered a different anti-democratic measure as an alternative to the Lieberman-Brown bill: curtailing the Miranda rights of those detained for questioning as terror suspects.

The Miranda warning is read by police to a person they are arresting, in more or less these words: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney."

The warning entered US criminal procedures after the 1966 Supreme Court decision, Miranda v. Arizona, in which a defendant sued after his conviction on the basis of a confession coerced from him by a brutal police interrogation. He charged that his constitutional right against self-incrimination (the Fifth Amendment right) had been violated, and he won the case.

Eighteen years later, the Supreme Court carved out a "public safety exception" to the Miranda warning, in a case where an armed man fleeing the police ran into a supermarket and threw his gun away. Police observed his empty holster and asked him where the gun was, prior to giving him a Miranda warning.

Both the suspected Christmas Day airline bomber and the suspected Times Square bomber were questioned for several hours under this "public safety exception." But eventually, both were read their Miranda rights, after which they continued to cooperate and provide information to their interrogators.

Holder told NBC interviewer David Gregory that the Justice Department was reviewing the procedures used in the interrogation of Shahzad. "I think we have to look at the rules that we have and look at the situation that we now confront," he said, arguing that the current exception to the Miranda warning was established in the 1980s.

"We’re now dealing with international terrorists, and I think that we have to think about perhaps modifying the rules that interrogators have and somehow coming up with something that is flexible and is more consistent with the threat that we now face," he said.

Holder continued that the administration would work with Congress on a proposal to change the Miranda warning to "make our public safety exception more flexible and, again, more consistent with the threat that we face." He declared, "It is a new priority" for the administration.

Holder’s statement demonstrates that the Obama administration is once again using the pretext of the "war on terror" to push for far-reaching attacks on basic democratic rights. Holder’s discussion with David Gregory even invoked the "ticking time bomb" scenario, brought up whenever an attempt is made to justify torture or other illegal actions by the state.

The introduction of an expanded "public safety exception" through legislation, as suggested by Holder, would go far beyond the Bush administration, translating what were measures to be taken on executive authority, supposedly in emergency conditions, into the standard operating procedures of the US government and police agencies at every level.

The Lieberman-Brown bill, titled the "Terrorist Expatriation Act" is even more ominous in its implications for democratic rights. The blatantly unconstitutional bill would allow the State Department to revoke the citizenship of anyone it deems provides "material support" to terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, or who participates in attacks on the United States or its allies.

The terminology is subject to sweeping interpretation. The Obama administration has defined "material support" to include filing an amicus curiae brief in federal court, lobbying Congress, writing an op-ed column or teaching a human rights course. Under Lieberman-Brown, such actions could lead to revocation of citizenship for people who were born in the United States and lived all their lives here.

Participation in attacks on "allies" of the United States is a blanket charge applying to anyone connected to Hamas, Hezbollah and other anti-Israeli resistance groups in Palestine and Lebanon, as well as insurgent groups in many other countries, such as Turkey, Colombia, Spain, India or much of Africa.

In practical terms, the Obama administration no longer distinguishes between citizens and non-citizens in its counterterrorism policies. Both alike can be targeted for surveillance, arrest, indefinite detention, even assassination. The sole distinction that remains is that citizens cannot be tried by military tribunals, a procedure reserved to non-citizens.

Thus the Lieberman-Brown bill, if passed, would make it possible to transfer Faisal Shahwad or other US citizen detainees to the jurisdiction of a military tribunal, with far more restricted rights of legal representation and defense.

In introducing the bill, Lieberman pointed to the hypocrisy of the Obama administration, which postures as opposing the worst excesses of the Bush administration while explicitly authorizing the assassination of US citizens, like Islamic fundamentalist cleric Mohammed al Awlawki. If killing terrorist suspects without due process was permissible, Lieberman argued, what was wrong with depriving them of their citizenship?





 


Anti_Illuminati

  • Guest
At the rate they are going, they might as make it illegal to worship anything other than Lucifer, and usher in forced mandatory thought monitors to where if you pray to God, you will be executed.

Offline Overcast

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,133
At the rate they are going, they might as make it illegal to worship anything other than Lucifer, and usher in forced mandatory thought monitors to where if you pray to God, you will be executed.

At least I'll die in peace then :)
And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM!

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
At the rate they are going, they might as make it illegal to worship anything other than Lucifer, and usher in forced mandatory thought monitors to where if you pray to God, you will be executed.

I really believe they are overplaying their hand, there is only so far that willful ignorance can take someone.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Freeski

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,706
At the rate they are going, they might as make it illegal to worship anything other than Lucifer, and usher in forced mandatory thought monitors to where if you pray to God, you will be executed.

How would you define Lucifer? In this context.
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.

Offline bigron

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
Miran-Duhhhhh!

By Matt Taibbi

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25419.htm

May 11, 2010 "True Slant" -- WASHINGTON —

The Obama administration said Sunday it would seek a law allowing investigators to interrogate terrorism suspects without informing them of their rights, as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. flatly asserted that the defendant in the Times Square bombing attempt was trained by the Taliban in Pakistan.

via Attorney General Backs Miranda Limit for Terror Suspects – NYTimes.com.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/us/politics/10holder.html

Memo to those Tea Party activists out there who’ve been howling about those liberal wusses in the Obama Justice Department who read Faisal Shahzad his Miranda rights: congratulations. You’ve just opened the door for a major new expansion of government power.

Having followed the Tea Party around on and off for a few months now it’s been hard not to notice some of the contradictory messages emanating from the movement. You’ll hear the same people who want to abolish the EPA complaining about the slow federal response to the Gulf oil spill, or the same people who are stocking up on guns to ward off the inevitable government assault on their property cheering for beefed-up drug enforcement laws and the no-knock search warrant.

The reason I really respect the Ron Paul people is that they’re consistent on all of these things. If they don’t want the government telling you you can’t buy a gun, they also don’t want the federal government telling you not to smoke weed or patronize a prostitute. Paul understands that you can’t make appeals on general principle unless you actually believe in that principle across the board.

It seems to me that a huge problem that Americans on both sides of the aisle have is that they believe in personal freedom, but only for themselves; for the other guy they seem always to want a powerful and intrusive federal government. Red staters and blue staters are both equally guilty of this in my experience. You get conservatives asking for a federal ban on gay marriage and then in the same breath screaming that abortion should be a states-rights issue. And you get progressives who want to pass their own state-by-state medical marijuana laws clamoring for federal bans on handguns.

And… well, I’m digressing. The point is that this gesture by Eric Holder to drop to his knees and pray at the altar of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Sarah Palin is one of those things that both sides are going to end up seriously regretting.

For the Democrats, it will surely end up being one of the darker moments of the Obama presidency — not because it’s necessarily so terribly meaningful (at least compared to ending Too-Big-to-Fail), but because it represents a new low on the utter-lack-of-balls front. The only reason we’re even talking about this Miranda issue is because a bunch of morons on talk radio made a big fuss about it, and if our president is going to go sticking his thumbs into the constitution every time he can’t take a few days of getting reamed by a bunch of overpaid media shills whose job it is to hate him no matter what he does, then we’re all in a lot of trouble.

For the conservatives/Tea Partiers/Republicans (note that I have to make separate notations for each, since they’re not all necessarily the same people anymore), this Miranda furor is yet another one of those humorously contradictory political campaigns  of the “Keep the Guv’mint off my Medicare” variety that they’re becoming known for. I’m beginning to think that if the Tea Party had a symbol, it shouldn’t be the snake from that “Don’t Tread on Me” flag, it should be a drooling yutz sticking a pencil in his own ear.

The reason for that is that the Tea Party angle on this Miranda business is that they want to strip terrorist suspects of liberal/civil rights-era protections, and they think that foregoing their Miranda rights is a good way to get there. What they don’t get is that the inevitable consequence in this sort of meddling in constitutional theory is that we’re going to carve out exceptions to constitutional applicability for certain classes of people. We’re obviously not going to repeal the 5th amendment granting protection to American citizens against self-incrimination; and if we’re not going to tinker with that basic right we all enjoy, then the only other way around it is to start tinkering with the concept of who’s a citizen and who isn’t.

We’ve already seen a more than unusually ridiculous illustration of this instinct, with all-century blowhard Joe Lieberman coming up with a wacko plan to strip terrorist suspects of their citizenship, a completely useless idea that wouldn’t speed up interrogations one whit and in fact add nothing but another layer of bureaucracy to prosecutions of terrorism cases. This is an idea that has no practical application, but has a very broad theoretical consequence.

Basically we’ve opened the door for a discussion on whether or not it makes sense to selectively suspend the constitutional rights of Americans on a case-by-case basis. I’d like to see how the Tea Party responds to this concept the next time the ATF drives a tank into the compound of some group like the Michigan Militia. Given that they’re part of a movement that is driven almost entirely by a paranoid fear of the exploding powers of government, it’s bizarre to see these people signing on for the corruption of the 5th Amendment. But then again, no one ever accused these people of being smart.

   

Offline bigron

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
Eric Holder's Tinkering With Miranda Rights Is Dangerous Political Theater

Passing a law to add an emergency "public safety" exception to Miranda warnings would further erode our core civil liberties for the sake of cheap political point-scoring.


By Aziz Huq, The Nation
Posted on May 19, 2010, Printed on May 20, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/146921/

US Attorney General Eric Holder testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden will never face trial in the United States because he will not be captured alive, Holder told lawmakers on Tuesday.Photo Credit: AFP/Getty Images - Chip Somodevilla

Lost against the predictable hubbub about the predictable Kagan nomination, Attorney General Eric Holder announced last week that he will ask Congress to cut back on a decades-old constitutional protection for criminal suspects. He wants Congress to legislate an emergency "public safety" exception to the Miranda warnings that are given by police to suspects upon arrest to inform them of their constitutional rights. With some sharp liberal commentators endorsing the proposal, should progressives tone down their usual opposition to limits on criminal suspects' rights?

Not so fast. There is more to the Holder proposal than meets the eye. On the one hand, the proposal is likely to have little effect on the ground. But it is disturbing as a political concession. It is an admission that former Bush administration officials' framing of the debate over terrorism -- in which core constitutional rights are eroded without tangible gains in security -- continues to determine what's politically feasible today. Accepting this frame may be the path of least resistance today. But it robs the Obama White House of a durable, defensible position on civil liberties tomorrow, and thus invites the deepening erosion of our core civil liberties as a side effect of political point-scoring.

To understand the Holder proposal, it's helpful to know more about the Miranda warnings that police since 1966 have had to read suspects before questioning. The Supreme Court first demanded Miranda warnings as a way to protect suspects against police coercion that violated the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Until 1966, courts made case-by-case determinations of whether police had coerced suspects into false confessions. In the three decades before Miranda, two-thirds of the cases before the High Court involved the death penalty. Many came from the Jim Crow South. Yet because of the secrecy around the interrogation room, judges were placed in the impossible bind -- being asked to weigh the testimony of (often black) suspects against that of many (almost always white) cops, without knowing whether the suspect's testimony had been coerced. The result was massive underenforcement of the Fifth Amendment.

Miranda was supposed to fix that by ensuring that suspects could seek a lawyer before interrogation. Despite years of bitter tirades from police and politicians, the Miranda warnings stuck. In 2000, a seven-justice majority of the High Court, with then-Chief Justice Rehnquist writing, rejected as unconstitutional a federal statute seeking to replace Miranda warnings with the old all-things-considered test.

Holder and his supporters want the law to define by statute an emergency "public safety" exception. As they note, the Supreme Court in 1984 recognized an emergency exception to Miranda when "public safety" demands. But the so-called Quarles public-safety exception, they explain, focused on ordinary crime. The Quarles Court gave little guidance on how to deal with terrorism. And lower federal courts today are divided on now imminent a risk must be for the public-safety exception to apply. The Holder proposal, it is claimed, would bring clarity because, even if the law were challenged, the justices would defer to Congress's expertise and wisdom.

This logic is comforting but unsound. The first problem is that Miranda is a constitutional rule. The Court in 2000 was clear that it, not Congress, had the last word about its meaning. Even if Congress speaks today on exceptions to Miranda, the Court must still weigh in. Even if Congress passes a statute that allows FBI agents more leeway for "emergency" questioning, agents cannot be certain "un-Mirandized" confessions will not be thrown out in the courts.

Equally problematic is the premise, peddled by Representative Peter Hoekstra and others, that Miranda rights stop interrogations and thus pose a risk to security. Miranda's critics skate over the fact that the decision does not in fact ever prohibit questioning: It rather directs that interrogations without Miranda warnings cannot be introduced at trial in the prosecutor's central case. Critics who imply that Miranda stops questioning altogether are simply fibbing. If law enforcement chooses to keep questioning without a lawyer, Miranda doesn't stop them, even if it does direct courts down the road not to accept the resulting evidence.

Moreover, the Court since 1966 has lost no opportunity to weaken Miranda and to enable police to end-run it. So if a suspect is not "Mirandized," the prosecutor cannot use the answers in the so-called "case in chief," that is, the prosecutor's main case. But if the defendant chooses to testify, then the prosecutor can introduce the evidence so as to impeach him!

Physical evidence found as a result of the non-Miranda questioning can also be used. The Court has also signed off on tactics designed to circumvent Miranda. For example, the Court has said it's fine for police to interrogate without giving the warnings, get information and then give the warnings before pressing a suspect to repeat himself verbatim.

This is why the argument that a new law is needed to nudge the Court into giving police more latitude is misplaced. The justices already bend over backward to accommodate law enforcement, even when terrorism is not in the mix. It's close to frivolous to suggest that the federal courts would even exclude evidence based on a Miranda violation in a terrorism case. (In the one case in which a federal court of appeals in New York confronted this problem, it allowed the evidence in, despite the Miranda violation). Even without Kagan's likely pro-administration vote, the Court already tilts toward the state and against Miranda.

Furthermore, Miranda does not stop suspects from talking. Studies find an overwhelming number of defendants waive their rights and do talk. The ones who keep mum tend to have past felony convictions and experience with law enforcement. For this group, Miranda likely makes little difference. They know enough not to talk. Likewise, it's hard to believe that a determined and dedicated terrorist will decide whether to talk based on access to a lawyer. The Holder proposal and the Miranda debate to which it reacts, in short, is political theater with scant consequence for actual security.

Perhaps Holder knows this. Perhaps the proposal is proffered to divert attention away from even more harmful ideas, such as Senator Joseph Lieberman's misguided citizenship-stripping notion, which would treat being a suspect in a terrorism case as grounds to deprive a person of citizenship.   

Whatever its animating spirit, the Holder proposal entrenches a deeply harmful political dynamic. It shows that this administration has accepted the terms of public debate on terrorism and national security framed by Dick Cheney et al. It shows a Democratic administration again shirking its responsibility to define the debate, and triangulating instead. (Remember how well that went during the Clinton years.) It shows we have failed to throw off the straitjacket of fear that has pushed us time and again into knee-jerk and foolish responses to terrorism, from trying to gut habeas corpus to invading Iraq. If this is all the Obama administration has to offer by way of a new politics of national security, we are in deep trouble.

Yet even in the narrow confines of the Miranda debate, the administration can do better. There is an alternative proposal that would improve both security and liberty: videotape all interrogations, whether with counsel or not. Taping has clear security gains. The CIA, recall, taped its interrogations of terrorism suspects in military custody. Now the Defense Department has indicated it will videotape too. Who now would be against ensuring the accurate transcription of what suspects say? But recording interrogations is also a good way to prevent illegal coercion. Recall the CIA's decision to destroy its tapes once it saw they posed a prosecution risk. The agency knew that the taping solves the original problem of competing accounts that Miranda was intended to solve. (And a new law would have to prevent such tampering, of course). Indeed, there’s some reason to believe it does so better than Miranda ever did.

The Holder proposal is a sideshow, but a dangerous one. If taping is not in the mix when actual legislative language is proposed, it's a good bet that what's at issue is politics, not policy.


Aziz Huq is co-writing a book on national security and the separation of powers called Unchecked and Unbalanced, to be published by the New Press.

© 2010 The Nation All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/146921/

Offline bigron

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,124
  • RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2012
'Modifying' Miranda modifies the political debate

Mirandizing the political conversation: Obama administration gains a little breathing room

by PETE YOST
AP News

May 20, 2010 09:16 EDT
http://wire.antiwar.com/2010/05/20/modifying-miranda-modifies-the-political-debate-2/

Hammered for months by Republicans as soft on terrorism, Attorney General Eric Holder and the rest of the Obama administration are suddenly playing offense, offering to work with Congress on a law that would let law enforcement delay constitutional Miranda warnings to terror suspects.

The shift would give investigators greater flexibility in the critical early phases of terror investigations. It also gives the administration some momentum while two other knotty terror-related dilemmas — where to try 9/11 suspects and where to relocate detainees from Guantanamo Bay — have faded as front-burner issues.

"Clearly, the administration's actions fit the old adage that good policy is good politics," said Chicago-based Democratic consultant Eric Adelstein, who is working on several congressional campaigns for the midterm elections. "They are being tough on terror and forcing Republicans to make a choice."

What is less clear is how a change to the public safety exception in Miranda would work and how long it could delay providing the warnings. Miranda restricts using a suspect's answers in his criminal trial if he has not first been notified of his right to remain silent and get a lawyer.

Federal officials will not talk about their options, but seasoned constitutional lawyers and former prosecutors suggest such a terrorism exception could last up to 48 hours — longer than a court-mandated public safety exception that already allows law enforcement to hold off Miranda warnings for a short period during emergencies to save lives.

While the public discourse on Miranda warnings has warmed up, the issues of the 9/11 trial and the president's promise to close the military-run prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have done a slow fade — at least for now.

The three questions are "part of a big political puzzle," said Syracuse University law professor William Banks, who specializes in national security law.

Politics always mixed in to the federal government's fight against terrorism "but never close to the extent it does now," says former federal prosecutor E. Lawrence Barcella.

"You have career intelligence and law enforcement professionals who are used to dealing with all of these issues every day versus politicians who deal with none of these issues except when they can score political points," Barcella added.

Banks sees a range of possible approaches in any Miranda proposal that the Obama administration sends to Congress — for example, delaying for some reasonable period of time informing someone of the right to a lawyer and a right to remain silent, and possibly delaying delivering a suspect before a magistrate.

Another possible approach: authorizing emergency detention that would trump other legislation pertaining to the rights of the accused.

"I don't think the Justice Department would propose an open-ended exception," said Banks. He foresees a statutory presumption that "might delay Miranda for 24 or 48 hours, subject to renewal with some proof of the need before a judge."

When the Supreme Court established the public safety exception to Miranda in 1984, they did so in a case of momentary questioning. It was a police officer asking a suspect where he'd stashed a gun in a supermarket.

What's unclear now is "how far the exception extends," says University of Texas law professor Robert Chesney.

After the May 3 arrest of Times Square bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad, investigators questioned him for three to four hours before they finally read him his rights, John Brennan, President Barack Obama's top counterterrorism adviser, said recently.

It's not clear that, even if Obama gets Congress to go along with a law, it would pass muster at the Supreme Court. In 2000, the Supreme Court struck down a law that said confessions can be admitted if they're made voluntarily, regardless of whether Miranda rights had been read.

On terrorism-related questions of Guantanamo Bay and the 9/11 suspects, Michael J. Edney, former deputy legal adviser to the National Security Council under President George W. Bush, predicts "a simmer of inaction" for months to come.

The Obama administration "found that some of these difficult issues about the location and form of trials for the 9/11 attacks and moving Guantanamo detainees to the United States were far more politically contentious than they thought," Edney says.

Talk of a Miranda exception has won favorable comments so far from a lone Republican, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who raised the possibility days before Holder brought up the issue for the administration.

Graham, who has been a key figure in administration efforts to close Guantanamo, said he was "very pleased generally with what I heard" from the attorney general on modifying the safety exception to Miranda. Graham added, "I've been advocating a long hard look at all of our laws regarding the threats we face."

Graham said Miranda "has to be changed to accommodate the needs of the war on terror."

But Graham "is a constituency of one on these issues," said Christopher E. Anders, senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington, one of the groups opposing a change in Miranda.

Graham spokesman Kevin Bishop said there are other Republicans who are very interested in expanding the public safety exception on Miranda warnings, but until they see some legislative text, "they won't go further at this time."

Source: AP News