Sen. Lindsey Graham: Miranda rights 'counterproductive' (in interrogating U.S. citizens)

Politico ^ | 2010-05-06 | Kasie Hunt

[rabscuttle385]

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) wants to allow the government to interrogate U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism without warning them of their right to remain silent—a proposal that would dramatically rewrite the rules regarding suspects captured inside the United States.

“Miranda warnings are counterproductive in my view,” Graham said at a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing Wednesday.

“The homeland is part of the battlefield. So this idea that you get to America, the rules dramatically change, to the benefit of the suspect – the terrorist – makes no sense,” he said.

Graham told POLITICO he is working on legislation that would redefine the so-called “public safety exemption” to Miranda warnings. Under current law, police can question a suspect to obtain admissible evidence without informing them of their rights if they believe that there is an “exigent danger” – like a ticking time bomb — that another crime is about to be committed.

[LRS]

I don’t trust this red herring. When the person is an American citizen, they get their rights, and should be chaarged with treason. If found guilty, then it’s firing squad time...

[ansel12]

"From 1953 to 1969, Earl Warren presided as chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Under Warren's leadership, the Court actively used Judicial Review to strictly scrutinize and over-turn state and federal statutes, to apply many provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states, and to provide opportunities for those groups in society that had been excluded from the political process. During Warren's tenure, the Court became increasingly liberal and activist, drawing the fire of political and judicial conservatives who believed that the Warren Court had over-stepped its constitutional role and had become a legislative body. The Warren Court itself became a catalyst for change, initiating reforms rather than responding to pressures applied by other branches of government.

The Warren Court was committed to the promotion of a libertarian and egalitarian society."

"But on the big legal questions, the war was over, and the liberals had won. And their victories went beyond the judgments of the Supreme Court. The Warren Court transformed virtually the entire legal culture, especially law schools.

"It was not surprising, then, that on the day after Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter in 1980, Yale Law School went into mourning."

[dforest]

McCain’s poodle has become quite the little fascist.

[Buckeye Battle Cry]

Still running interference for McCain I see.

[muddler]

Homeland security, Bush II.

[starlifter]

Really? So “effective” law enforcement trumps exercising one’s rights?

[starlifter]

You are obviously a leftist liberal.

LEO LEO Uber Alles!!!!!

[Sudetenland]

So the need for you being told the rights you should already know you have trumps your being guilty of a crime?

[NeoCaveman]

McCain, Graham, Lieberman want to take away our Constitutional rights.

[NeoCaveman]

Miranda is just another liberal hinderance to effective law enforcement.

No offense, but I find your post combined with your screen name to be high in irony.

[ansel12]

What does Miranda have with you exercising your rights?

Do you think that those rights did not exist before the leftist year of 1966, and the leftist, activist Warren Court?

[starlifter]

Why are you afraid to remind people of their rights?

[starlifter]

Nope. It’s what makes America a great country.

Somehow I suspect you were one those cheering the events of 1938.

[vicar7]

The Miranda decision was another one of the leftists/libertarian big victories during the 60s from the libertarian hero, Earl Warren’s radical court.

Yes it was but now it is not useful to the our agenda let us get rid of it. Citizen rights are getting in the way of our agenda. Rights be damn then I guess.

[MNJohnnie]

The spin that the Progressive Facists at Politico put on this is not accurate based on what Graham said. As the quote in the story shows, he was not talking about US Citzens.

“The homeland is part of the battlefield. So this idea that you get to America, the rules dramatically change, to the benefit of the suspect – the terrorist – makes no sense,” he said.

[ansel12]

Another “right” that you leftists “discovered” in the radical 1960s.

The “right” to make a cop serve as your personal lawyer and tell you not to speak to them.

“The Origin of the Miranda Warning
In 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix as a suspect for kidnapping and rape. Police questioned him. Miranda admitted to the crimes orally and in writing. He did not know he had no obligation to speak to police without a lawyer, or at all. The victim identified him in a lineup.

At trial his attorney objected to the use of his statements. Miranda was convicted. His statements and the identification were the evidence. He was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. His conviction was appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, which affirmed.

In 1966 his case reached the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated overturning his conviction. This was the case of Miranda v. Arizona.”

[ansel12]

What?

[ansel12]

What a childish way for you to phrase that question, do you so live in a world of fear that even on this thread you think that people are afraid of something?

[starlifter]

I'm sure your law enforcement union brothers are proud of you.

To say a warning about constitutional rights is forcing a cop to be your personal lawyer is ridiculous.

Or, in other words, uneducated or stupid people don't have rights.

[starlifter]

You have made abundantly clear that you are afraid of reminding people of their rights.