Miranda Wrongs

What is even more irritating is that Miranda itself is not a constitutional command. It’s prophylaxis. Do terrorists get the benefit of prophylaxis as well?

Why is he an enemy combatant? Maybe I missed some information but I was under the impression that this guy was an independent not working for Al-Qaeda directly. What constitutes an enemy combatant now a days?

Sounds like it’s Klein’s ego’s time of the month. He needs an Ipad.

The Obama Administration retired the use of the term “enemy combatant” back in March of last year. There is nothing to be gained by trying him in a military commission, which are in any case in extreme disarray, and have a poor track record over the past decade in contrast to Federal Court. I agree he should have been interrogated for longer than 50 minutes. But Joe, you’re sounding like Kristol and Krauthammer. Not pretty.

Do we as a nation really want to go down this path, Joe?
.
When you are arrested, the local, state, or federal law enforcement officer gets to make the call as to whether you are read your rights or waterboarded?
.
Are you really ready to shred the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments to the Constitution?

Didn’t we finally identify the unibomber because his brother recognized his writing turned him in? If I remember correctly, this guy was a virtual hermit. What other info did we expect to learn, and how has this worked to our detriment years later?

Hayden has no one to blame but himself for this problem. As a key enabler of the torture regime he is responsible for the entirely predictable backlash to the war crimes committed in the name of security. Dozens of seasoned professional interrogators from the FBI and the military have spoken out about the damage men like Hayden did to our national security. Besides the stain it left on our nation, the damage to our intelligence gathering is quite profound. Clearly he was not the architect of these atrocities, but as a prominent member of the Bush national security team, including leadership of the CIA in 2006, he lent his prestige to a group who abandoned our most fundamental national values.

Intelligence officers need to know that someone has their back…

This is a very familiar argument but it can be rewritten “Intelligence officers need to know that they can improvise with impunity and do whatever they see fit and never be subject to any accountability”

As such it is a formula for disaster…..

Miranda is “stupidity” here? What other laws don’t you like?
.
This article is a collection of assumptions, unsupported assertions and political shot-taking. It is designed, no doubt, as a distraction– to create the appearance of some grand difference between the two administrations’ military policies, when little difference actually exists. I’m not surprised that the neoconservative-heavy WaPo is carrying it, but a little surprised that Joe was suckered in. Maybe I shouldn’t be.

See when you call people “Stupid and Dumb”, you soon learn the lesson that the American people are anything but…
.
Joe Klein is now back to a more sane and rational individual. Welcome back Joe.
.
Now apoligize, and we will let it all in the past, as one big mistake on your part.

If I remember correctly the Military tribunals did not work out all that well.
.
The real danger here is that people loose confidence in out court system, all over some political game. We can declare anyone a enemy combatant.
.
The system has worked for over 200 years now, so what has changed? Nothing except we have started calling our government stupid, our institutions stupid, our people stupid. And if we do not5 agree with the press , and Joe klein we are stupid.
.
I think I grow weary of your assessments

Should read; And, if we do not agree with the press and, Joe Klein, we are stupid

(I should probably elaborate a bit)
.
Detainee rights, military tribunal vs. criminal court, proper interrogation techniques, language, etc, while important topics, are non-essential to the military’s agenda as established under Bush. Articles like this (as with recent criticisms from Cheney, Bolton, Krauthammer…) provide the military sufficient cover to continue their pursuit of neoconservative ambitions: military bases in these regions, persistent low-level conflict, entrapment in unwinnable wars, a shamefully bloated budget.
.
If people feel that there are significant differences between the current and former administrations, they are less likely to discuss the similarities. These theatrics obscure the fact that both employ nearly identical military policy implemented by the very same decision makers.

You know Joe some days it pays to think before you speak!
.
Did it not occur to you that it took less than 50 minutes to get all the valuable information that existed since this was a kind of a hapless dupe who was purposely kept at arms length by Al Queda and sent into to cause what ever mischief he could, and while not much was expected directly, the hope was that the mere threat could turn Obama into a quivering mass like it does Cheney and he would overreact and shown that he doesn’t really believe his own rhetoric?
.
Secondly, does it also not occur to you that it’s entirely possible that if we had not acted in accordance with our ideals and as a nation steeped in a tradition of law and respect for individual rights that the next time a father or any other family member or friend is faced with this kind of situation they would not take such preemptive actions in the future?
.
You know I used to think Conservatives was about maintaining our traditions, but apparently its about advocating knee jerk reactions. I’m disappointed in you Joe, you’ve tried to be so thoughtful lately, but I guess everyone, especially those who fly frequently is allowed a boot quaking moment or two.

Joe, reading Miranda to the undiebomber did not stop them from continuing interrogation. If he lawyered up, his attorney may have told him not to answer questions. The accussed could have silenced himself. It seems to me, Joe, that you really wanted the questioners to use that euphenism, enhanced interrogation.
And Joe, why does the traditional media return for opinions to the people that got us into this mess and were the architects for torture. I never want to hear from Hayden,Bremmer, Cheney or any of the other masters of the universe during the Bush years. Yet, here they are in our papers and on our tvs.
In fact, it is hard to take seriously any of the traditional media who supported the Iraq war.

Joe Klein: What would happen in court if they hadn’t properly Mirandized him, do you think?

The only stupidity here is Joe’s. He’d just as soon this guy got off on legal technicality? Foreign, or not… he was arrested in the U.S. So, as Wiki notes, “A Miranda warning is a warning given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody, or in a custodial situation, before they are interrogated…. in which the suspect’s freedom of movement is restrained (judged by the “free to leave” test), even if he is not under arrest.”

Eight years after the establishment of the Military Commissions we have had 2 convictions. It is very debatable how much information we have obtained.
.
What is your source that, proof that any of what has happened since 9/11, the methods used, has been effective?

Just what the f*ck do you think this bottom-level operative knows about other al Qaeda operations and personnel that he could tell us about anyway? Think they had him memorize bin Laden’s addy in case he got lost or caught? With all your “intelligence” sources, why haven’t you learned a damned thing about how cell-based terrorism works?
.
Anyway, instead of having to destroy everything we used to stand for as a country and hold this dumbass without trial indefinitely for no other reason other than manifesting authoritarian insecurity, now we can convict him and throw his sorry ass in prison.

Yeah, I guess you could aggrandize a guy that managed to set his own crotch on fire – you know, call him a “combatant” instead of “inept criminal.”
.
Rational people would assume that only cowardly imbeciles might take that approach, but here we have a nationally recognized pundit saying these things.
.
Of course, one could argue that Joe Klein is not a cowardly imbecile – he just wants the American populace to remain stupid and pliant (despite his outcry last week).

I’ll support my accusation, in comment #9, that articles like the one linked are a purposeful distraction from the similarities between the Obama and Bush administrations wrt military policy. Former chief of staff to Sec State Colin Powell, Lawrence Wilkerson, says (link):
.
when Cheney claims that if President Obama stops “the Cheney method of interrogation and torture”, the nation will be in danger, he is perverting the facts once again. But in a very ironic way.
.
My investigations have revealed to me–vividly and clearly–that once the Abu Ghraib photographs were made public in the Spring of 2004, the CIA, its contractors, and everyone else involved in administering “the Cheney methods of interrogation”, simply shut down. Nada. Nothing. No torture or harsh techniques were employed by any U.S. interrogator. Period. People were too frightened by what might happen to them if they continued.
.
What I am saying is that no torture or harsh interrogation techniques were employed by any U.S. interrogator for the entire second term of Cheney-Bush, 2005-2009.
.
.
Why then would Cheney – the Angler – master technician, criticize Obama for using the same methods as his administration; methods that did not lead to an attack?
.
I believe it is because Cheney knows that if he criticizes Obama on side-issues, like interrogation, the American public will focus on the differences rather than the all-important similarities between the two administrations’ military policies.
.
And, I’ll ask all of you, why does the Establishment Media not only provide a platform for deceivers like Cheney (Hayden, Rove, Bolton…), but uncritically print their criticisms of Obama?
.
I see only two possible reasons: complicity or “stupidity”.

The logical progression is that Joe must believe we shouldn’t try such people in a court of law, but he doesn’t say that. Can’t have it both ways.

Mirandizing doesn’t mean you can’t interrogate. It does mean that what is said before may be inadmissable in court.

The assumption here is that in the 50 minutes the interrogators didn’t learn everything useful they might have from the suspect. Perhaps they did, though Hayden’s points on process are well-taken. Thus, they could take all the steps Hayden wants to and then Mirandize. There’s no rush.

It seems to me all they need for a conviction is to prove the guy tried to blow up a plane. If he would happen to admit that after Miranda, that’s a cherry on top, but they shouldn’t need that.

What I most dislike about this conversation is that moving terrorists through the criminal courts only became a problem after Obama was president. Wasn’t a problem, it appears during the Clinton and Bush administrations.

We actually have nearly 300 cases of trying terrorists, none of which produced show trials, all of which produced convictions.

Convict and kill the sorry bastard.

I’m not sure I understand why he doesn’t have Miranda rights. What’s the difference between “tried to murder a planeload of people” and “tried to attack us?” Are all mass murderers terrorists? Does a serial killer have miranda rights? Does a gang member or a member of the mafia have miranda rights?

Either people all have miranda rights or they don’t and the government either has an obligation to inform people of their fifth amendment rights or it doesn’t.

If he’s not an American citizen, we’re not legally obligated to give him those rights. Whether or not we’re morally obligated to or not is a different story.

” .. the bomber is an enemy combatant. ..”

What definitions and laws pertain?

“.. .. He doesn’t have Miranda rights. .”
JK, Isn’t one you don’t like suppossed to be guilty and killed even, until proven innocent – if at all you really want to bother?
Where art thou “rule of law”?

JK, would you say that you are often unjustifiably and/or duplicitously prone to condemn those you don’t like – say, Hitler’s henchmen for instance?

Obviously you don’t believe in such “universal rights” nonsense.
Nor do you expect Americans to be accorded any “rights” when in foreign countries. [ Call it the law of the wild ...]

Mr. Klein drives like a drunken sailor across a wide left to right Constitutional road.

Everyone should go over and read Greenwald, brilliant. He specifically talks about the linked article:
.
So that’s where the American consensus now lies. The practices used by Britain, Spain, India and Indonesia (and the Reagan administration) of treating Terrorists as criminals and convicting them in normal courts — with due process — is too fringe Leftist for the United States, which has spent decades sermonizing to the rest of the world about the need for due process and the evils of arbitrary detention. Instead, our political and media establishment demands that we replicate the policies of Libya and Saudi Arabia: simply hold accused Terrorists without trials or, at most, invent special due-process-abridging military tribunals to ensure they are convicted.
.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/31/nostalgia/index.html

pinto, I admire your more substantial contribution. I just slap my forehead and give up in disgust.

Joe’s absolutely right on this one. The old, unstated, policy on terrorists, foreign or domestic, was shoot on sight. no trials. Terrorism poses an existential threat to our country.

Citizens who don’t understand, believe in, and support the Constitution pose a bigger threat to our country.

No I don’t believe that being read your Miranda Rights is a universal right. It was decided by the courts here in America, and has origins in the Bill of Rights, which technically are only required to be applied to American citizens. I’m just making a point about the legal aspect of it, like I said whether we are morally obligated to give them said rights is a different story.
.
I don’t expect Americans to be given rights in other countries because typically it does not happen, and plus when you go to another country you accept that risk. If a tourist wants to go to another country that is fine but they should understand the legal risk of it and should have a basic knowledge of the rules of the country that they are visiting.

As serious a problem as terrorism is, and even with the possibility of a more potent attack than 9/11, there is only one way in which it constitutes an existential threat to the United States:When we let the fear cause us to undermine our Constitution and American values.

My position on rights for terrorists is moderate. I think they should be afforded basic human rights (like the right not to be tortured, held indefinitely, etc), but after that is where I think it gets murky. People refer to how we have treated them in the long past but the fact is the game changed on 9/11 in that regard, when it became more of a “war-like” atmosphere. I think it’s a difficult decision to make, when you are talking about interrogations, of which can save lives through information received but then having to balance that with which rights to give them. I personally don’t think that a terrorist who does not follow the basic rules of war should be given the same rights as a soldier who clearly fights under a flag and at least attempts to follow the basic rules of war (ie, not fake-surrendering, not intentionally targeting civilians, not strapping bombs onto civilians and sending them into a crowd, etc).
.
The Geneva Accord, for example, makes it clear that the rights laid out are only guaranteed to people who would qualify as enemy soldiers. Part of the point of it was to get people to adhere to the rules of war more closely, and in doing so get rewarded with more rights. It’s a two-way street. This is not as simple of an issue as both sides try to make it to be.

Miranda isn’t even required by the Constitution:
.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-5525.ZD.html
.
Why are we Mirandizing terrorists?

mx, that’s a great point. I’ve always thought that when we have to change our way of life and fundamental principles, then the terrorists win. It is possible for us to stay true to our principles and still effectively fight terrorism. It’s definitely not easy but I think it can be done.

Where is Mr. Hayden’s column “lamenting” this?

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/the-ceremony-of-innocence/

Where is yours, Mr. Klein?

Yes, too bad the “undiebomber” couldn’t be tortured into coughing up the identity of the “well-dressed man” who handled him. ABC News seems to think the FBI is looking for him after all:

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2010/01/09/connect-the-dots/

” .. a tourist … should have a basic knowledge of the rules of the country that they are visiting. ..”

Perhaps not – since, according to you, the laws of that country do not give legal cover to the tourist -and that the laws of USA do not accord any legal “rights” to the foreigner in USA.
So, we may ask, what is all that crap about “international law”, “human rights”, ICC, etc?

A foreign national whose only connection to our country is the desire and intent to do it harm?
.
This is what ticks me off these days. We’ve gone too far in the other direction. Torture is abhorrent but the notion that these people deserve the full protection of the Constitution is almost equally so.
.
During WW2 we executed (after military tribunal) would be German saboteurs whom attempted to sneak into the country and got caught doing so. We also executed German soldiers (without any tribunal, these were summary executions) who violated the laws of war by fighting behind the lines in Allied uniforms.
.
As long as our enemy hides behind civilians and refuses to obey the customary laws of war they shouldn’t be entitled to the protection of those laws. This isn’t to say that we should torture them — torture is abhorrent and ineffective as an inteligence gathering tool — but we don’t need to treat them like POWs or common criminals either.

The Constitution was never intended to apply to enemy combatants whose only connection to our country is the desire to attack it.
.
This isn’t something new that GWB came up with. The Lincoln assassins were tried before military courts and executed. The German agents of Operation Pastorius were tried before military courts and executed. On the Pacific Front we stopped trying to take prisoners altogether and gave the Japanese no quarter after they kept using white flags as cover to get close enough to kill our men. During the Battle of the Bulge we summarily executed German troops that were captured fighting in Allied uniforms. Spies remained subject to summary execution at least as late as the Vietnam War. All of these actions were and are perfectly legal under international law and the customary laws of war.
.
Your water boarding reference rather misses the mark. Torture is illegal under international law in all circumstances. Holding them without trial until the end of hostiles, trying them before military courts or even executing them on the battlefield (under certain circumstances) are all perfectly acceptable in the eyes of international law.

” ..terrorists .. shoot on sight. no trials. ..”

And that goes for “suspected terrorists” – including the one-year-old toddlers.

And thus, should an American citizen abroad be SUSPECTED of being a terrorist …

After all, according to your view of the USA, the leading star of legal, moral and ethical enlightenement as well as the world policeman, there is no need for “due process” to establish the facts – not in USA, not for USA citizens and hence, by supreme example, not anywhere else.

Should your Miranda rights be read to you if you were apprehended as a suspect?

I fully answered your question and don’t know what else there is to say about it, and frankly it seems like you’re misrepresenting my view on it.

I am not a terrorist. My point, of course, is that since Miranda is not required by the Constitution, then there is no reason that terrorists should get the benefit of it.

actually I will say more. I wasn’t really stating an opinion, re: Miranda Rights/Bill of Rights. That’s a fact and it’s indisputable. Nothing more to say on that.
.
And I don’t see how you think I’m wrong on that second part. Individual countries can do whatever the hell they want in regards to foreigner’s rights (again, stating a fact, not an opinion)…so wouldn’t it be a good idea to understand their laws before visiting so you don’t get screwed? Is being informed and responsible regarding foreign laws not important?
.
I made a related post on the 2nd page (#26) , if you want to know more about my thoughts on this read it and respond if you want.

thanks formerlyjames.
.
And it’s pint or two. Cheers!

that’s actually a very good point. I’ve read too that Miranda Rights technically (in most cases) do not have to be read to even US citizens.

forget the “shoot on sight” comment. My point is that terrorism is not ordinary criminal activity. There are serious and capable terrorists, non-state actors, whose intent is to decapitate this country and its leadership. This is not ordinary crime.

Terrorism poses an existential threat to our country.
.
Contrary to (apparently) popular belief, the oceans still protect this country. No foreign force can hope to invade us, much less conquer us, or otherwise threaten our existence. There may be a spectacular attack, from time to time, especially as we create martyrs, orphans and widows around the world. Fighting these illegal wars, torturing captives, detaining the potentially innocent, supporting violent regimes– this will only increase the desire to do us harm.
.
Do you think that the Taliban are a threat to you or me, as we sit and type on our computers in our homes? They may be a danger to US forces that occupy their lands- but not to us. Not these poor wretches.
.
Actual terrorists (like the wealthy Saudi- bin Laden, or Mohamed Atta- educated in Germany, lived and trained in the US) may be currently plotting an attack on American soil- but they don’t need that miserable stretch of rubble called Afghanistan to do so– I’m sure their blackberries will do nicely.

You know, Joe, as a so-called journalist, you should always sort of try to get the facts before you spout off, & you can count on Hayden to be fact-free. Here are two actual experts, former U.S. attorneys, writing in the Free Press:

“In fact, the military commission process has proven to be anything but successful. Since their institution in 2001, these proceedings have been subject to extensive and costly litigation. Constitutional challenges, some ending with resounding rejection of the commission process by the U.S. Supreme Court, have delayed justice for thousands of Americans affected by the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That same commission process has led to only three low-level convictions.”… AND

“Those who propose transferring Abdulmutallab to military custody for interrogation ignore that he reportedly proffered valuable information immediately upon his arrest. They imply that military interrogation will use “alternative methods of interrogation” that will therefore elicit more accurate and useable information.
We find this implication extremely disturbing. ” … AND

“It is because we need not choose between national security and traditional American values that we have joined a bipartisan coalition of over 130 former diplomats, military officials, federal judges and prosecutors, and members of Congress, as well as bar leaders, national security and foreign policy experts, and family members of victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in issuing Beyond Guantanamo: A Bipartisan Declaration.”

Here’s the link: http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100111/OPINION05/100111063/1322/American-values-v.-Abdulmutallab&template=fullarticle

Are you auditioning for Fox News or what?

The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com

The point is that human rights are human rights. People here speak of combat rights versus civil rights of criminals and of application of American rights to non-Americans. I am at a loss to understand such arguments when it is alleged that our interference abroad is to spread our form of government. But to exclude the principles of our form of government to others? Help me here. I need serious remedial help understanding the logic. And spob, please send your legal analysis to the Supreme Court which decided the Miranda provision as Constitutionally proper in regard to the spirit of the human rights for which the Constitution more than anything stands.

See Michigan v. Tucker and New York v. Quarles.

Miranda was an irredeemable thug criminal who as I recall was shot dead in a later criminal enterprise. What do I think of defense of his rights by the Supreme Court? I think we are better for that interpretation. But then again, there can always be a fascist interpretation. Who knows.

SCOTUS, 1942, Ex parte Quirin, unanimous opinion:

“…the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.”

Correction. I looked on Wiki and found that Miranda was stabbed in a card game with other thugs.
.
I once met a former German soldier who was captured after the end of WW2. He told me that he was released immediately to find his way. He wandered to his previous home, it was destroyed. Eventually he made his way and when I met him it was on a golf course in the USA. He was a US citizen, which I doubt would have happened had some of the present ideologies been in effect after the war.

Yeah, these enemy combatants don’t deserve Constitutional protection. Just the protections of the Geneva Conventions. No torture, Red Cross visits, and when the “war” is over they get sent home with a carton of Lucky Strikes and no hard feelings.
I dunno. I think I like trial, conviction and imprisonment better. And that means due process, same as we give anyone charged with a crime in the US, citizen or not.

Wow. the ignorance in this post is stunning.

charlier,
You should pay more attention to the news. This person spent 4 months training for this mission with Al-Qaeda in Yemen. Doesn’t that qualify as working with Al-Qaeda ?

along1,
JK sound rational for a change. Too bad you don’t. Terrorist like this are not US citizens and do not deserve to be treated like they are. This man tried to kill a plane full of innocent civilians. He should be tried as an enemy of our country.

kbang,
Read 4.1

Joe,
Excellent post. That’s twice in one week I agreed with you. What is the world coming to?

Dee,
You have no idea if all the information possible was received in the 50 min interview. Usually you comments show a little more intelligence than this. Your comments have nothing to do with the realities of this situation. Had the bomb trigger worked properly you probably would have had a different answer. Most suicide bombers are usually young brain washed individuals but info of where, who and how they were trained is information they often can provide.

It’s hilarious how the big government conservatives start to love the big government centrists when they put that side of their philosophy on display.
.
It’s so funny.
.
No cries of “Socialism!” or “Fascism!“, just the coos of little babies begging Big Daddy Government to protect them from the bad, ol’ underwear bombers of the world.
.
They’re such cowards, the ones that actually believe that the state will keep them warm and safe in their little beds.
.
The others, the ones that just like the state to have unaccountable power, that believe that system works for their interests, those are such liars.

The Republicans are going to absolutely trash the Obama administration on this one.

spob ” .. I am not a terrorist. ..”

Says who?

[You do insist that we are a country of "law and order" or "rule of law". Let us not question here why your target is declared a "terrorist" - without the discovery to be found in "due process". Indeed it may be suggested that without 'due process', any killings are considered unlawful, extra-judicial executions to be dealt with as such under the EXISTING "rule of law" requirements.]

Still, we may declare you a “suspected terrorist”!
(And trust me, it would be O so easy for us to do so, dear shrill, militant, wingnut spob of the anti-social, strident party of NYET).
Done! Spob cooked!
We kill “suspected terrorists” – USA citizens or not – on sight or remotely by drones and missiles, don’t we? It must be OK – since our phony UN and our pious Vatican and our hypocritical “human rights” bodies are not camping out complaining about us killing innocent barbarian lives.

Is a terrorist or “suspected terrorist” to be killed on sight or even remotely?
1) Do you worry that someone who detests you, say your mother-in-law or your ex-spouse, may tag you as a “suspected terrorist”? [Remember, you advocate no due process for "terrorists" and "suspected terrorists". Such malicious deadly targeting is said to happen often in our colonies of Iraq ands Afghanistan.]

2) Guess 2010: How many convicted but innocent people will be released THIS YEAR from USA prisons after spending more than 20 years of their most productive years behind bars – for nothing?

Miranda? Phew, I spit on thee!
With Millions Maimed, Dead and Dislocated: Exterminating Ways of Our Unrepentant Terrorist

Reason or no reason, I had to kill him. It is a brit thing. We had to. Do I need to justify? Rationalization is for the sissy – an indulgence, a mere inconvenience.

If anyone had plotted a violent ouster of Blair when he was in power, a totally miffed and belligerent Blair would have a few unflattering things to say about that plotter. I suspect that words like “civilized”, “rogue”, “terrorist”, “barbarian” would appear somewhere in Blair’s righteous diatribe.

HEY JOE,

The Undiebomber was read his Miranda rights after he stopped talking!!
.
From the LA Times:

The decision to advise the accused Christmas Day attacker of his right to remain silent was made after teleconferences involving at least four government agencies — and only after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had stopped talking to authorities, according to knowledgeable law enforcement officials.

Care to “right” your “Miranda Wrongs”?

“Either people all have miranda rights or they don’t and the government either has an obligation to inform people of their fifth amendment rights or it doesn’t.”

.
If you are a citizen of the United States, then you have miranda rights. If you are not a citizen, then no.
.
Simple enough for your?

If a frog had wings he wouldn’t bump his ass.

Care to “right” your “Miranda Wrongs”?

Yep.
Your rights MAY be read to you during or after your apprehension, self-incrimination (and torture), trial, sentencing, incarceration and/or execution – or maybe after.
Ever heard about the “law of the west” referred to as shoot first and ask questions later?

Hey, trust me: Such a ‘right’ is not to be found at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Baghram, rendition center or in a banana republic.

” .. so wouldn’t it be a good idea to understand their laws before visiting so you don’t get screwed? ..”

1) The assumption is that the foreign countries are bound by their laws, right? Most of us are convinced by our JK-types in the MSM that those other-world barbarians are lawless.

2) You do believe that those tourists are functionally literate. And that they would be bothered to dig up the intricacies of laws and precedents of all countries they visit on their itenerary.
Last summer’s ill-informed crowds at the town hall meetings may suggests otherwise.
Look at it this way: What would a visitor to the USA expect when they read about habeus corpus – that they wouldn’t be detained for years and even generations without trial – perhaps because of their name or looks?
That they can ask for legal representation right off the bat – against the wishes of some at this swamp?
How about the freedom of speech – that what they read at the libraries and online is private?
How about the freedom of association?

O, but you insist that our laws do not cover foreigners in USA.
So, Why should a hard-working, barely-literate, book-averse, foreign couch-potato care to bother with the legislate-as-you-go “laws” of the lawless?

Hey, Mr. Klein – aren’t you supposed to be a reporter? Doesn’t that mean you aren’t supposed to JUST MAKE THINGS UP? Because that’s what you keep doing and that’s what you’re doing with this column.

Almost all the protections afforded by the Constitution apply to citizens and non-citizens alike. There is no “enemy combattant” clause in the Constitution.

Terrorists have killed thousands of Americans. Since then, we have killed hundreds of thousands of non-Americans. I live in New York City; I was here in 2001; I knew people who died in the WTC; I tell you that more of my friends have died in auto accidents than terrorism, that more Americans die in a month in cars than have ever been killed by terrorism. We do not need to ignore the Constitution to fight terrorism.

And there’s no evidence that your evil and illegal tactics are actually useful. Time after time we discover that the only way to get actual information is intelligence and police work – not the brutal and harsh interrogations you love talking about so much.

TIME Magazine, why do you still employ this so-called reporter who just MAKES THINGS UP? I stopped reading you years ago when he was pushing the Iraq War based on MADE UP FACTS – I know a lot of other people who don’t trust your magazine because you print MADE UP FACTS – is this really a good idea?

If you re-positioned yourself as the new voice for the intelligent progressive you’d lose a few subscribers and gain a ton of active, enthusiastic new ones. There are an awful lot of us out

Start by firing Joe Klein – because he MAKES THINGS UP and yes, it does annoy me and yes, I am shouting because I want my journalism before anything to be factual.

Darn, if you hired Glenn Greenwald I’d get a two-year subscription immediately for that alone!

What’s ignorant about this?

Terrorism is a police issue. It’s a small number of individuals, unaffiliated with a specific nation, committing various crimes, mostly violent.

As such, it should be dealt with by the police, using due process, trials and jail. This is very effective in multiple ways: it’s much less expensive than warfare, it kills far fewer innocents in “collateral damage”, it’s fairer, more open and more honest.

The United Kingdom was not able to deal with its domestic Irish terrorist problem until they moved to this model – and then they successfully caught most of the criminals and brought the majority of the Northern Irish population back into harmony with the larger group in a single generation!

YES, if you use police mechanisms then sometimes, occasionally, guilty people will escape the consequences of their actions. This is a GOOD thing. We as a society decided a long time ago that given a choice between harming innocents and allowing evil people to go unpunished, we’d preserve the innocents. “Innocent until proven guilty” – this is one of our society’s proud mottoes.

If there were really so many terrorist attacks that society itself were in danger, we could consider revisiting that – but there aren’t, far more people die from not wearing seat belts or smoking – and in fact, it’s the very arbitrary and evil nature of our responses to the small amount of terrorism that exist that fuels each successive terrorist.

Maybe Joe Klein should talk to a lawyer before posting such a profoundly ignorant comment. A few points:

1. It is easy, in retrospect, to say that Undiebomber was an “enemy combatant.” However, at the time of the incident, all we knew for sure was that he was a nutjob who tried to light his balls on fire. What if Undiebomber turned out to be a deranged but lone-wacko terrorist sympathiser with no training and no links to actual terrorists? Joe Klein would risk relatively straight-forward prosecutions of this and all future airline incidents by tossing out Miranda warnings out of some Jack Bauer-esque motivation.

2. Miranda warnings arise out of Court-made rules against using evidence obtain by law enforcement absent such warnings. IOW, there is nothing preventing the FBI and CIA from interrogating Abdulmutallab further about terrorist links. They just can’t use the information against him in trial. But so what? If you just want to get more “actionable intelligence”, just keep interrogating him.

3. Unfortunately, following 9/11, neither the Bush administration, Congress, nor the intelligence community attempted to work in good faith to update our laws to help us protect ourselves while still maintaining our values. Instead, the Bush administration treated this stuff on an ad hoc basis and failed to create new rules. Hayden seems to be gung-ho to continue that half-assed system.

Bush set the precedent for these incidents with the Shoe Bomber. Consistency of how we prosecute these people is probably more important, IMO. After all, if you don’t have consistency, do you have justice?

This will be the number one or two issue for the Republicans is this coming year’s elections. Scott Brown won on this. For most Americans (read independents), this is a gut issue and will be a loser for the Democrats. The Republicans want to know who issued the order on the miranda rights. If it was Holder, they will want his head. If it was Obama, they will excoriate him continuously. This is politically bad for Democrats and legalistic arguments only make it worse.

Exactly!

Glenn Greenwald (once again) throws cold water on Joe Klein (and commenters here) who strangely believe the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Law in general does not apply to foreigners in the U.S. It most certainly does. To wit (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html):

“Over 100 years ago, the Supreme Court explicitly said that the rights of the Constitution extend to citizens and foreigners alike. The Court has repeatedly applied that principle over and over. Only extreme ignorance or a true desire to deceive would lead someone like Susan Collins [or Joe Klein?] to claim that such rights are “protection[s] our Constitution guarantees American citizens.”

[...]

“The only way to argue that these rights apply only to Americans is to argue that only Americans, but not foreigners, are “persons.” Once one makes that claim, then one is in Dred Scott territory. If foreigners are not “persons,” then what are they: sub-persons? Non-persons? Untermenschen?”

So if the United States was invaded tomorrow and we captured some of the invaders we’d have to turn them over to the criminal justice system and read them their rights?

shakrai, in your fanciful and ridiculous scenario we would presumably be at war. All of the manly war rhetoric notwithstanding, Congress has not declared war on anyone. The issue at hand is whether or not this particular criminal has rights under the Constitution. He clearly does.

What do you call the AUMF passed on 9/18/2001?

Maybe he thought you were in Delta Tau Chi…?

” .. this particular criminal ..”

And if indeed he has ‘rights’, then shouldn’t he be taken to court and convicted by his peers BEFORE he is tagged “this particular criminal”?

Pint: are you sure we can trust them Canadians…? I see them shifty-eyed Canucks across the Peace Bridge and I just wonders, sometimes: are they planning to attack us??? /sarcasm

” ..the invaders .. we’d have to turn them over to the criminal justice system ..”

Maybe we will turn them over to the invaders for trial in their lands. Perhaps the invaders will essentially operate above the law.
Isn’t that the protocol among the invaders and the invaded in Iraq and Afgfhanistan?

We are, however, still a country of laws. Take your proposition to it’s conclusion: we become a martial state where military law – whatever that means – takes over because we’re at “war” with everyone, citizen or not. Any crime – even jaywalking – could be considered a terrorist act. Isn’t that why the Founding Fathers created the Constitution in the first place: to protect us from unlimited government? And I don’t mean “too many government services,” but being held without proof or trial; executions without trial; etc. Is there where you want this country to go?

Shakrai: ” .. these people deserve the full protection of the Constitution ..”

1) “these people”?

2) Who does NOT desrve the full protection? Does our constitution and our laws fail to punish the guilty?

3) At some point our propagandists urged the “islamist” to engage us in a debate about their philosophy and their actions {hoping that they would relent – as if they don’t have as much faith in the correctness of their cause as we have about ours.}
In a war, the belligerent parties bomb, maim and kill mostly innocent people. They do. We do likewise.

Suppose our agent/fighter in a war is captured by the other side. What would be your righteous response if a bloodlusting functionary in the enemy camp said “This is what ticks me off these days. .. the notion that these people (Americans) deserve the full protection of our justice system is abhorrent.”?

It’s truly frightening to read some of the comments here. Have fun in November — if the posts here are even close to reflecting the views of the ruling party then they are in for a well deserved drubbing at the ballot box.

It cannot be said enough. Constitutional protections are not exclusive to “citizens”. It is simply not true, is presented nowhere in the constitution and has been settled by SCOTUS on multiple occasions. ANYONE arrested on US soil has ALL the rights enumerated by the Constitution. Sheesh.

It cannot be said enough. Constitutional protections are not exclusive to “citizens”. It is simply not true, is presented nowhere in the constitution and has been settled by SCOTUS on multiple occasions. ANYONE arrested on US soil has ALL the rights enumerated by the Constitution. Seriously.

[...] before a military commission — at Guantanamo.  Over the weekend, Time’s Joe Klein lambasted the Obama DOJ, and embraced Bush’s former CIA and NSA Chief Michael Hayden, by objecting to the criminal [...]

[...] before a military commission — at Guantanamo.  Over the weekend, Time’s Joe Klein lambasted the Obama DOJ, and embraced Bush’s former CIA and NSA Chief Michael Hayden, by objecting to the criminal [...]

[...] military commission — at Guantanamo.  Over the weekend, Time’s Joe Klein lambasted the Obama DOJ, and embraced Bush’s former CIA and NSA Chief Michael Hayden, by objecting to the [...]

[...] Underwear-bomber, Umar Abdulmutallab,  into the normal criminal justice system.  For example, see Time’s Joe Klein’s recent commentary: In the Washington Post today, former CIA director Mike Hayden has a column lamenting the fact that [...]