Obama and his tinkering with Miranda Rights

This is a part of a post I did back in 2011 with disturbing updates. We were concerned then, and we need to be more concerned now. Obama and Eric Holder have indicated that there is no need to Mirandize the Boston terror suspect right way. We will do some sort of a hybrid thing. No, not a military court but sort of a civil court with well……maybe 48 hours is permissible before he gets read his rights. Where does the constitution or court decision state this is “subject to interpretation.” But here is the concern. Recall that now Obama has deemed the whole of the United States a potential battlefield. Which means any of us could caught in his web. Worse, he now promulgates “Preventive Detention” and “Prolonged Detention”.

The Senate voted on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised his concerns about the NDAA detention provisions during last night’s Republican debate. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself. UPDATE: The New American has a great analysis… Be sure and look at this ACLU link.

Then we have “Prolonged Detention” that even Rachael Maddow had a problem with.  “Prolonged Detention” is the term being used. This is not your father’s Gitmo.

Tinkering with Miranda… is this another step… “Obama can unilaterally change Supreme Court rulings should be concerning to all Americans”. Obama has contempt for the Supreme Court, the Constitution which he says is flawed, and Congress. “Domestic Terror” suspects…my guess he has in mind American Citizens who he may feel are a threat to his growing usurping of all powers which belong to other branches of government.If he gets by with this one, what will be the next change to Miranda or any law for that matter. What is your guess?

Obama has already given Miranda rights to foreign terrorists and Somali pirates waging jihad against U.S. soldiers and civilians.

Now Obama and Holder have revised Miranda rights for what the Wall Street Journal describes as “domestic-terror” suspects. The policy is so vaguely described here, if at all, and who the new Miranda policy applies to and how Obama can unilaterally change Supreme Court rulings should be concerning to all Americans. via Rights Are Curtailed for Terror Suspects – WSJ.com.

New rules allow investigators to hold domestic-terror suspects longer than others without giving them a Miranda warning, significantly expanding exceptions to the instructions that have governed the handling of criminal suspects for more than four decades.

The Supreme Court’s 1966 Miranda ruling obligates law-enforcement officials to advise suspects of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present for questioning. A 1984 decision amended that by allowing the questioning of suspects for a limited time before issuing the warning in cases where public safety was at issue.

The Justice Department believes it has the authority to tinker with Miranda procedures. Making the change administratively rather than through legislation in Congress, however, presents legal risks.

“I don’t think the administration can accomplish what I think needs to be done by policy guidance alone,” said California Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. “It may not withstand the scrutiny of the courts in the absence of legislation.”

More at Creeping Sharia

17 Responses to “Obama and his tinkering with Miranda Rights”

  1. Ducky's here Says:

    I believe that the exception is only valid insofar as a judge agrees with you in an evidentiary hearing. You can claim all the exceptions you want, but the judge has to agree. In NY v. Quarles it was allowed when a cop asked a perp the moment he collared him where his gun was.
    I’m not sure the Feds can drag ii into a 48 hour interrogation period that the High Value Interrogation Detainee Group seeks to operate under, especially since it would be damn near impossible to classify a US citizen who acted in the US as a “detainee.” He is a criminal. End of story. I don’t think the court would be willing to walk down this path by allowing US citizens acting on American soil to be labeled “enemy combatants” or “detainees.”

    But the fringe right may know the legal facts. Well do you?


    • bunkerville Says:

      The crime is well documented. How we gain the maximum amount of information within our legal framework is my wish. That is all. He could be an enemy combatant yet not be tried in a military tribunal. Just what he says would not be used against him as I understan it.


  2. Brittius Says:

    Photograph of your late husband? Tell us the story behind it, if I am not intruding.
    I would like to know a few details, if it is not too hurtful to relate, please.


  3. Lissakrhumanelife Says:

    Then we have “Prolonged Detention” that even Rachael Maddow had a problem with. “Prolonged Detention” is the term being used. This is not your father’s Gitmo.


  4. Teeing it up: A Round at the LINKs (Images from the week edition) | SENTRY JOURNAL Says:

    […] BUNKERVILLE: Obama and his tinkering with Miranda Rights […]


  5. Designs by Dianne Says:

    Why not use Truth Serum? Would that being going against the ‘rights of a terrorist’ that this fake prez. upholds? You’d think his job were to protect ‘them’ rather than the Constitution or Americans (it’s pretty obvious). This is all so setup, once again, to harbor the guilty and restrict the Truth – protect the agenda.
    One motivation behind that is it might point the finger back at those who are really ‘home based terrorist’ – which names you mention above. The guilty are given rights, but the average Joe convicted because he’s a white American and could be held indefinitely without trial – Some online resources are stating Fed involvement (already knew of these two), when their boss is a part of the plan (Liar in Chief) what else is there to conclude?
    A comic of the scum on the bottom of the barrel depicted (as running over) thought – emerging from the creepy crawlers in leadership positions: http://cnsnews.com/cartoons/glenn-foden/marathon
    Imagine what we’d hear if ‘truth serum’ was given to ‘should be gone’ BO & Holder! That could explain a lot!


  6. Brittius Says:

    In the particular case of the alleged Boston Marathon bomber, Obama and Holder, got this one right. There remains too much unknown and the potential is far too dangerous. Personally, I prefer that everyone arm up and Stand Your Ground, but regarding placed bombs of innocuous suicide bombers, I believe the potential for harm to be too great as bombers will have the upper hand of surprise. In my opinion, from what has been coming out in the news of evidence and subsequent arrests of sleeper cells, the government got this matter right and, I believe that kid should be treated as an enemy combatant. There is no war between citizens and government so we are a nation wholly in tact. The system is not perfect. I do not know what any classification(s) may exist for defining a “domestic terrorist”, as Napolitano of DHS was flapping her pie hole about White people, Christians, Conservatives, Pro-Second Amendment, Pro-America, Pro-US Constitution, and basically anything else that by tradition and heritage has made America, AMERICA. It would stand to reason that in light of the Boston event, elected lawmakers should reassess their views on the People of America, and direct attention squarely on what has for years been a threat but political correctness, and liberal thinking has now welcomed actual terrorists into this country. Even, Bill Maher, sounded very conservative, as terror bombings in America are definitely no laughing matter.


    • bunkerville Says:

      I see your point. For me, a military tribunal with a bit of water boarding would be fine with me. We have a slippery slope. While it is fine this time, the next maybe not so much.


      • Brittius Says:

        Yes. Problem is, until all this liberal crap, America never really had any of these problems. Can you imagine, if Eisenhower, or Reagan, were president and all this stuff happened? Forget about it! Today, the liberals want us to accept that this is how thing are from now on, but YOU, cannot arm yourself and will remain defenseless. Where I live, police response is OVER one hour away, if they’re motivated and not busy elsewhere! Gunfights happen in seconds of time. Determination to use Deadly Physical Force takes on average under half a second. Being “nice” to everyone, caused all of this Ali Baba terrorist crap.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: