Two top Republicans have already announced their support for a bill that would give the police the power to choose who gets read their rights:

After McCain, now it’s Lindsey Graham who’s saying certain crime suspects shouldn’t be read their Miranda rights. “Miranda warnings are counterproductive in my view,” Graham said at a Senate hearing Wednesday.

He’s trying to introduce a bill that would give law enforcement the power to decide if a detainee should or should not be read his rights. Graham said that he already had some Democrats on board, but wouldn’t name any names.




  1. bobbo, dogma so deep, I gotta wear waders says:

    #21–zybch==the relevant issue is not the time it takes and if it were not for the Court made up Miranda Rights to begin with, there would be no need for indemnification (sic).

    Rather than address your throw away ideas to the knee jerk idiots on this blog, why not up your game and speak to a higher class of people? Its true, I rant against LIEberTARDS, but I try to talk past them to the innocent pure of heart who have not passed the event horizon.

    The reading of Miranda Rights if removed would certainly remove some, but not all, constitutional rights. Its the fact that the reading of Miranda does 5-6 things that makes its evaluation a nice little exercise. Absolutely, not a black or white issue.

    #23–MikeN==Dickerson sounds like an interesting case to read. Could be easy–the justice disagreed with Miranda on one issue and that issue was not present in Dickerson, or harder, that Miranda was now precedent, but Sup Ct does not need to follow precedent as the Activist Roberts Court is showing us in spades.

    #25–Ah Yea===no, thank YOU!

  2. jccalhoun says:

    Ah_Yea said,
    Where does this end? What is the endgame? Throwing you in jail and tossing the key because someone THINKS you’re a terrorist?

    Been there. Done that. Just ask Jose Padilla. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28prisoner%29

  3. bobbo, we think with words says:

    #32–jc==thanks for the link. This makes me a bit sick in the stomach and fearful for my country:

    On February 20, 2004, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the government’s appeal. The Supreme Court heard the case, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, in April 2004, but on June 28, 2004, the court dismissed the petition on technical grounds because:

    1. It was improperly filed in federal court in New York instead of South Carolina, where Padilla was actually being detained; and
    2. the Court held that the petition was incorrect in naming the Secretary of Defense as the respondent instead of the Commanding Officer of the naval brig who was Padilla’s actual custodian for habeas corpus purposes.

    This is what happens when republican thugs take over the court.

  4. Jim says:

    Obviously, it’s time for a Constitutional Convention to rid this county of the shackles of Liberty!

  5. bobbo, we think with words says:

    Jim–you and zybch sound equally matched.

    Go!

  6. Benjamin says:

    #34 Jim said, on May 6th, 2010 at 8:39 am

    “Obviously, it’s time for a Constitutional Convention to rid this county of the shackles of Liberty!”

    Bad idea. At a Constitutional Convention anything goes. Everything you know or think you know about government could change overnight if a Constitutional Convention were held. The delegates aren’t bound by even the reason they were sent to the convention.

  7. ECA says:

    who here has ever heard the comment…
    “Ignorance of the law is NO EXCUSE”?..
    I suggest to those that SAY it, that they better live the rest of their lives in a Library FILLED with those books.

    When the LAWS are simple and BASIC.. Then someone can SAY the above.
    PERSONAL LAWS.
    When laws are for ONLY the interactions of more then 1 person.
    BUSINESS LAWS.
    Are to protect the consumer from the idiocy of CORP WEALTH.
    Land/PROPERTY LAWS..
    I BOUGHT IT, I PROTECT IT. I will call for help IF’ I need it.(I’ll call my GOOD friends first, they know where to bury the body.)
    Insurance/bank LAWS..
    They get NO MORE then the original contract said. NO CHANGES. NO RAISED interest rates, and NOT MORE then +5 on the interest rate over the NATIONAL/federal rate.
    Import/tariff..
    YOU had it sent to this country, you SELL IT. NOT the guy 3 levels above, and NOT 100% markup per level.

    There are so many laws to THINK/WORRY ABOUT. Which ones do you live by? Also understand that going from 1 state to the NEXT, could get you arrested. Laws change from 1 place to the next.

    As was posted about DOCTORS AND CHICKENS..
    lets do the same for LAWYERS and CONTRACTS.

  8. bobbo, we think with words says:

    ECA–how do you pay a lawyer in contracts?

  9. ECA says:

    Lawyers and what a person can afford. So feed them paper. Thats all they use..I should have said TOILET PAPER.

  10. ECA says:

    Basic humans laws to keep people Straight with each other..
    Contracts were designed to keep people Honest. NOW they are used to strip you of your rights and take your money.

  11. Rick Cain says:

    There was a time when we didn’t have Miranda rights, do we want to go back to those times?

  12. Mr. Fusion says:

    Bobbo,

    The Miranda Warning serves two purposes. First, it is usually the first indication that a person is under arrest and not merely detained. The second, as reported, is to advise the arrested of his rights.

    The police do not have to give a person a Miranda Warning however. That is a misconception. If they don’t, then they may not question the suspect OR use anything he says in court. In the recent Christmas “Underwear” and Times Square cases, the FBI gave the suspect their Miranda Warning right away so anything they said could be used. The FBI are smart enough to know that if the arrested person isn’t going to talk, he isn’t going to talk regardless.

    By careful interrogation techniques, they had both suspects confessing, giving full statements, and singing about their contacts. There was no need to torture or abuse the suspects. All involved can hold their heads up and say that America DOES believe in justice for all.

  13. bobbo, we think with words says:

    Mr Fusion–got better things to do lately? Good for you.

    I doubt any careful interrogation techniques were used here. More likely they had to rush the Miranda in because the guy would not shut up.

    SO–I’d like to know when the guy got an attorney who would have shut him up. I’ll bet he waived his right to an attorney.

    FUSION–in your mind, is a waiver of the right to counsel EFFECTIVE if you haven’t talked to an attorney first???? In a world not filled with games, it “should be.” But we play games.

    One sad game played now: that in a war on terror we honor liberty by encouraging terrorists to be silent as to their information on contacts, networks, other plots etc.

    I guess there actually is a “Domestic Terrorist Suspect” exception to the Miranda Rule? Or maybe just a recommendation for same. Hard to tell from the various sources.

    Too easy to be absolutist and you certainly miss the intellectual/educational exercise as you approach the gray middle===but thats where the fun/challenge is.

  14. Benjamin says:

    #43 Mr Fusion naively believes, “The Miranda Warning serves two purposes. First, it is usually the first indication that a person is under arrest and not merely detained. The second, as reported, is to advise the arrested of his rights.”

    The Miranda warning would only be beneficial to you if you exercised your Miranda rights when you were merely being detained. Before the police arrest you anything you say and do can be used in court against you no matter if you clam up as soon as you are arrested or not.

    Best advice is to not talk to the police, ask for a lawyer, and state that you do not consent to any search. They aren’t going to arrest you until they think they have enough of a case to get a conviction. If you open your mouth or consent to a search, you just gave them that evidence. Even if you have nothing to hide a cop might not remember exactly what was said and an honest statement can be twisted in court when he testilies.

  15. bobbo, we think with words says:

    Benji–I could quibble with what you say, but on the whole, IF YOU ARE GUILTY, your advice is quite correct.

    But 99% of police interactions are not with guilty people.

    If no one ever talked to the police as you recommend–society would not function.

    Well Done.

  16. McCoy Pauley says:

    A criminal trial attorney told me that, in Florida at least, most of the time, the police don’t even bother to read you your rights, and the courts are just fine with that. Same goes for your “right” to a phone call.

    “People believe that crap because they see it on the TV,” he told me. “Most of your ‘rights’ are already gone.”

    How sad. Oh, well. HEY! Let’s talk about the new _______ movie, shall we?

  17. Rabble Rouser says:

    If they don’t first notify someone of their Miranda Rights, they can tell them that they have to talk, or they will be thrown in the slammer forever. They can tell people that get arrested that they don’t have any rights.
    Keep the Miranda Rights notification, as not everyone knows what rights they have when they are being arrested. Also, someone under the stress of being arrested may forget that they actually have rights.
    This is supposed to be a country of laws, not police.

  18. chris says:

    #26 has the best practical advice on the topic.

    There’s a continuing theme in this thread that not knowing something makes you stupid, and if you’re stupid then you deserve whatever you get.

    That’s perverse. You could extend this by eliminating all road warning signs. The local cliff is going to present no danger to people already driving slowly, after all. The only people who go hurtling over the side are the ones who are going too fast. Since the speeders should have known better, and the sign is unnecessary for slower drivers, all signage should be removed.

  19. Benjamin says:

    #46 bobbo said, “Benji–I could quibble with what you say, but on the whole, IF YOU ARE GUILTY, your advice is quite correct.”

    Then you believe only the GUILTY have rights? I guess you don’t have anything to hide and your time is best spent being interrogated by police officers.

  20. bobbo, we think with words says:

    No Benji, what I posted does not imply what you post at all. Illogical response.

    But if you want to bring cop attention down on your ass, act as you recommend. “If you are guilty” being silent is a bet that the cops don’t have enough to really focus on you but it always is a fact dependent analysis.

    What an active imaginary life you live. Constantly role playing.

    Hee, hee.

  21. GregAllen says:

    >> stopher2475 said, on May 6th, 2010 at 5:11 am
    >> Did anyone actually see Lindsey Graham speak? Don’t read a terrorist his Miranda rights but heaven forbid you should stop him from buying as many guns and as much ammo as he can carry.

    I did hear about that on the news today — Lindsey Graham is against a terrorist having Fifth Amendment rights but DEMANDS the same terrorist have Second Amendment rights to bear arms!

    How the hell can we have a functioning two-party democracy when one of the parties have lost their friggin’ minds?

  22. deowll says:

    You always read a citizen their rights otherwise nobody has any rights.

    Sure it was mistake to make this guy a citizen but we did it so we live up to our end of the bargain.

    The guy doesn’t seem to be trying to get out of anything any way.

    What about the Fort Hood case? Any news or is the news still being suppressed?

  23. Maricopa says:

    # 43 Fusion – In the recent Christmas “Underwear” and Times Square cases, the FBI gave the suspect their Miranda Warning right away”

    Just a clarification: Federal officers were reading arrestees their rights long before the Miranda decision. As was also done in the military under the UCMJ.

  24. Buzz says:

    Miranda readings are just as much for the arresting entity as they are for the arrestee.

  25. MikeN says:

    Bobbo, I forget the details now, but I think the Miranda had some exceptions that Congress passed a law to clarify, overturning Miranda in some cases. This new law was ignored for a long time, until it was used in Dickerson.

  26. smartalix says:

    Everything I know I learned from Star Trek.

    From The Omega Glory:

    “The Yangs now bow to Kirk as a deity, but he orders them to stand and face him. He looks over the ancient, crumbling document, which appears to be a distorted version of the American Constitution. Kirk finishes the sacred speech and rebukes the Yangs for allowing the document to degrade to mere shibboleth. He declares that the words were not just for the Yangs, but for Kohms, as well, declaring that they “must apply to everyone or they mean nothing.” Cloud doesn’t fully understand, but swears to Kirk that the “holy words” will be obeyed. Kirk smiles at Cloud, convinced that the Yangs, along with the Kohms, will now rebuild their ruined world. Before departing, Kirk stops to take one last proud look at Old Glory.”

    Don’t you pencil-dick Right-winger asswipes know anything?

  27. amodedude1 says:

    This is insanity, THESE ARE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!!! The reason I enjoy living in this country is because I have rights, how could our government strip us of these sovereignties? This is madness!

  28. Uncle Patso says:

    # 5 jccalhoun:
    “If you read the actual article it looks like someone has been watching too much 24.”

    Exactly. Sometimes I think all of Washington is in love with it.

    – – – – –

    # 10 zybch:
    “#8 This ISN’T about removing anyone’s miranda rights, just not giving them the little speech when they get arrested to remind them of their rights.”

    You don’t think someone is going to step right over that tiny little line?

    – – – – –

    Just like a dead skunk in the middle of the road, this stinks to high heaven.

  29. 68flh says:

    Just to reiterate what some have said, Miranda is a WARNING, not “Rights”…you already have the rights under the 5th Amendment, which does not distinguish between “terrorist suspects” and anyone else.
    The Miranda warning was put in place because police tend to abuse people and treat them as if they do not have 5th Amendment rights. You have those rights no matter if the police read the warning to you or not.
    I don’t think McCain or Graham even understand this. I’ll bet they think that reading Miranda to a suspect GIVES them 5th Amendment rights. They are so F****** stupid that they will fight to pass a bill that won’t even change anything. We’ll all still have our 5th Amendment rights whether the Miranda warning is read to us or not…same as it’s always been.
    God, people are dumbasses these days!


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 8857 access attempts in the last 7 days.