Daily Archives: May 9, 2010

Ah yes, Miranda’s definitely divine

No, not that one

or that one

Or even that one. But she is interrogating a suspect after all, which leads us to –

“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?
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.
If you are not a United States citizen, you may contact your country’s consulate prior to any questioning.
You can decide at any time from this moment on to terminate the interview and exercise these rights. ”
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? ”

In practical terms —

But This Dude thinks otherwise.

eric

to whit –

Attorney General Eric Holder said for the first time today on ABC’s “This Week” that the Obama administration is open to modifying Miranda protections to deal with the “threats that we now face.”
“The [Miranda] system we have in place has proven to be effective,” Holder told host Jake Tapper. “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 [to the Miranda protections]. And that’s one of the things that I think we’re going to be reaching out to Congress, to come up with a proposal that is both constitutional, but that is also relevant to our times and the threats that we now face.”
America’s system of Miranda rights developed out of a 1966 Supreme Court ruling which found that the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights of an alleged rapist and kidnapper, Ernesto Arturo Miranda, had been violated during his arrest and trial (Miranda was later retried and convicted).
The Court ruled that before being interrogated, a person in custody must (among other things) “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,” and that they “must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning.”
Holder, who was making his first appearance on a Sunday morning news show, also declared that the Pakistani Taliban was behind the attempted bombing of Times Square by Faisal Shahzad last week.

“We’ve now developed evidence that shows that the Pakistani Taliban was behind the attack,” Holder said. “We know that they helped facilitate it. We know that they probably helped finance it. And that he was working at their direction.”

As we all know, schmuckface

Faisal

fucked-up royally.

“A crude car bomb of propane, gasoline and fireworks was discovered in a smoking Nissan Pathfinder in the heart of Times Square on Saturday evening, prompting the evacuation of thousands of tourists and theatergoers on a warm and busy night. Although the device had apparently started to detonate, there was no explosion, and early on Sunday the authorities were still seeking a suspect and motive.”

Thanks to top-notch straightforward police work he was captured 24 hours later. And being that he was an American citizen was read his Miranda rights during interrogation.

It’s strictly pro forma, folks.

“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).
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.”

Nothing magical here. No wand is waved to “grant” rights. Those rights are already there.

For everyone.

Though Barry’s a tad confused on this point.

Hence Holder’s “clarification.”

which was scarcely necessary because –

“Mr. Shahzad, a naturalized United States citizen from Pakistan who lived in Bridgeport, Conn., was charged with attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction and other federal charges, several related to explosives. He was interrogated without initially being read his Miranda rights under a public safety exception, and he provided what the Federal Bureau of Investigation called “valuable intelligence and evidence.”
He continued talking after being read his rights, the F.B.I. said.”

Let’s heat that last line again, shall we?

“He continued talking after being read his rights, the F.B.I. said.”

But professionalism and truth are nothing when Lieberstraum hogs the camera.

A fortiori

“O Brave New World, to have such people in it.”

Sing us out Elizabeth