Innocent until proven guilty, right?
Not according to our Attorney General. According to an article in the Huffington Post, Eric Holder says we should ease Miranda Rights for suspected terrorists.
The key word here being "suspected".
Eric Holder on ABC's This Week:
"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."
So, the "system we have in place has proven to effective" but we need to take away rights from our own citizens.
Why, would we need to alter the right of a citizen being told that he can remain silent and has the right to attorney when that citizen is being arrested? At that point the citizen is still considered a suspect. Innocent until proven guilty, right? Isn't that the bedrock of our justice system?
Is the Obama Administration actually considering pushing arguments that come out of "24" or something? How do you justify taking away someone's right before they've had due process to prove they are guilty?
I find this willingness to discuss the erosion of citizen's rights very disturbing.
While the system of tracking the would-be Times Square Bomber may have failed, how has giving someone their Miranda Rights ever failed?
Moreover, are we really ready to start allowing our government to have this kind of unmitigated power? What happens when they strip the rights of the innocent by accident or worse? Isn't our entire nation built on the fight against this kind of abuse of power and the desire to build a system that protected us from it?
This is not a pleasant way to wake up on Mother's Day.
UPDATE TO CLARIFY:
zenbassoon reminds us:
Why does EVERYONE think that (0+ / 0-)
Miranda CONFERS rights? It DOES NOT. The rights are ALREADY THERE. Miranda is just a REMINDER and a CYA for police. The SECOND you get arrested you are able to say "I have the right to an attorney so I'm going to shut up until I get one."
My outrage over the Holder comments is about our constitutional rights, not simply a Supreme Court ruling. The Miranda case was simply affirming our 5th amendment rights. A basic foundation of our country which should never be altered if we want to remain a true democracy with a little 'd'.
Our 5th Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Our 6th Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.