Skip to main content

View Diary: Lindsey Graham (Dipshit-SC) is a Threat to the Rule of Law (198 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I would have no problem with this (0+ / 0-)

    if they didn't then attempt to use any product of this non-Mirandized interrogation in court.  That's where the slippery slope starts.  Remember - we do have Miranda for a reason - because police historically abused their power to question suspects.  If it's left entirely to the executive to decide when a "national security exception" exists and they then successfully use what they find in prosecutions, we'll pretty soon see that every case in the world is a "national security" case.

    Need to question the guy to determine if there's still some imminent threat?  Fine.  Go right ahead and question away.  Just don't try to use that to prosecute him.

    “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

    by jrooth on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 06:50:41 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I disagree that it is up the executive to decide (0+ / 0-)

      when a "national security exception" exists.  That's entirely a matter for the courts.  Just because the executive dubs something a national security exception doesn't mean that it is.  The public safety exception has existed since 1980, so I'm not sure I buy the slippery slope argument, either.  

      •  Wait ... that's not the way I understand (0+ / 0-)

        the state of the law.

        Are you saying that, today, if investigators wish to avail themselves of the national security exception they need court approval to do so?  Or are you saying the courts will give strong scrutiny to the claim that each question posed in a non-Mirandized situation really was necessary for some national security interest before admitting the answer or any fruit of the answer?  I'm pretty sure the former is not the case, and frankly I'm really dubious about the latter as well.

        “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

        by jrooth on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 08:01:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They don't need prior court approval, no. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jrooth

          My point was that the executive can't just introduce a statement made by a defendant without the Miranda warning and just say "public safety exception" and have that be the end of the story.  The court is going to poke around in every case and make sure that (a) there really WAS a public safety emergency and (b) that the questions asked were directed at resolving that emergency.  

          Believe it or not, courts (particularly federal courts) DO probe into these issues with pretty searching scrutiny.  Courts don't just rubber stamp these cases. Take a look at cases like US v. Reyes (SDNY 2003), US v. Fautz (D. NJ 2011, US v. Guess (EDVA 2010), US v. Rumble (ND NY 2010).

          •  Thank you, I will. nt (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            misslegalbeagle

            “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

            by jrooth on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 10:19:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site