Has Eric Holder become a threat to our liberties?

[IndianaGreen]

Poll question: Has Eric Holder become a threat to our liberties?

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

-- Benjamin Franklin

Eric Holder: Miranda Rights Should Be Modified For Terrorism Suspects

Source: The Huffington Post

Attorney General Eric Holder said for the first time today on ABC's "This Week" that the Obama administration is open to modifying America's system of Miranda protections to deal with the "threats that we now face."

"The 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 . 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."

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."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4374050&mesg_id=4374050

Accused Terrorist Jose Padilla Sues Law Professor John Yoo

Published 1, January 6, 2008

In a curious lawsuit, accused terrorist Jose Padilla has sued Law Professor John Yoo. Yoo is the supposedly one of the authors of several memos supporting President Bush’s enemy combatant policy and has been linked to the abuse that resulted from that policy. Yoo and Georgetown Professor Viet Dinh have been criticized for their roles in creating these abuses that include a formal torture program and the denial of basic constitutional rights.

Jose Padilla’s case remains one of the most disturbing in U.S. history. After President Bush stripped him of his constitutional rights and held him without charge, he was subjected to cruel conditions and denied access to the courts and counsel. Neither Democrats nor Republicans did a thing in Congress despite an outcry from the nation’s lawyers and civil libertarians. All of the politicians running today on civil liberties were strangely silent for years as this abuse occurred in full knowledge of the public. Every effort to get judicial relief was block by cynical legal moves by the Justice Department to move Padilla or his case. The Supreme Court ultimately adopted the most technical of technicalities to avoid ruling on his case: the caption on this case was wrong because it failed to name the right government official. Of course, since the government was hiding Padilla and moving him around like a Where’s Waldo exercise, it was hard to name the right official at the time of original filing.

Ultimately, the Justice Department charged Padilla on crimes entirely unrelated to the original alleged crime: planning a possible nuclear attack on a major city. That was the sensational allegation trumped by John Ashcroft at an infamous press conference — forcing the White House to later retract Ashcroft’s statements.

Padilla is a U.S. citizen arrested in the U.S. He was however, denied the most basic constitutional rights for years and, according to his lawyers, remains mentally disturbed from his harsh treatment by the government. He was held without criminal charge for 3½ years at a Navy brig in Charleston, S.C.

Yoo was deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel and provided much of the justification for these infamous policies as did Viet Dinh. The lawsuit was brought by Padilla and his mother, Estela Lebron, and asks only $1 in damages. It is clearly meant to secure a moral judgment against Yoo. Padilla attorney Jonathan Freiman, a professor at Yale Law School, filed the action. Yoo is a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley. For a copy of the complaint, click here

http://jonathanturley.org/2008/01/06/accused-terrorist-jose-padilla-sues-law-professor-john-yoo/

Taking the two articles above into consideration, plus the fact that Scalia has been arguing for years that Miranda should be reversed outright, does Eric Holder's statement on Meet the Press today signal that he has become a threat to our liberties?

[CreatureFeature]

1. In my estimation, there are less than 5% of our current

elected officials that are actually interested in protecting our rights. Sometimes they will pretend to care, but it is only a pretense intended for political posturing.

[IndianaGreen]

2. No Miranda = cops can torture and beat you

until you sign a false confession. This is the stuff we used to criticize other countries for!

[ClarkUSA]

3. Um, Eric Holder did NOT say "Miranda Rights Should Be Modified For Terrorism Suspects"

This is what Holder actually said:

"We're now dealing with international terrorism. ... I think we have to give serious consideration to at least modifying that public-safety exception . 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."

What's wrong with "reaching out to Congress to come up with a proposal that is... constitutional"? Hmm?

[jenmito]

4. +1 and an unrec for the OP at another failed attempt to get more of us angry at the Obama admin. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

6. The Constitution should not be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency!

Eric Holder gave shelter and comfort to lawbreakers like John Yoo, and the rest of Bush/Cheney torture gang.

[jenmito]

17. Failed attempt to try to change the subject. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

19. There is a direct correlation between the Yoo memos, and the subverting of Miranda

It all involves the power of the state to deny basic human rights to a suspect!

[jenmito]

30. See post #3. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

5. The same Congress that passed PATRIOT without reading it, and...

gave immunity to the telecoms? How come I have no warm fuzzy feelings about relying on Congress to protect the rights guaranteed to me by the Constitution.

[ClarkUSA]

7. And Hillary didn't read the NIE report before she voted for IWR.

Does that mean we can never trust Hillary's judgment any issue of national security again? Does that mean Hillary doesn't read relevant material pertaining to hostile nations now before she makes an important decision?

Hmmm?

[IndianaGreen]

8. ACLU Sues Justice Department On Torture Report

Eric Holder's record leaves a lot to be desired, and comes up short on the high expectations many of us had of him when he was appointed AG.

ACLU Sues Justice Department On Torture Report

Zachary Roth | January 25, 2010, 9:08AM

Under the Bush administration, the Office of Legal Counsel issued a series of memos intended to permit interrogators to use methods that the United States had previously described as war crimes. As a result of those memos, hundreds of prisoners were abused and tortured, and some were even killed during the course of interrogations. The public has a legitimate interest in knowing whether the authors of the memos violated ethical rules as well as the criminal laws, and in ensuring that those who wrote the memos, as well as those who authorized torture, are held accountable. The release of the ethics report is long overdue.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/aclu_sues_justice_department_on_torture_report.php

[ClarkUSA]

11. lol! Moving the goalposts? You're not answering my question. I wonder why?

[IndianaGreen]

14. Holder's tenure at DOJ is not one of being a staunch defender of our liberties

instead, it has been one of protecting the lawbreakers from the previous Administration. This is why Holder's declaration on MTP that he was contemplating a further erosion of Miranda, is alarming to civil libertarians.

[ClarkUSA]

16. That is more baseless and hyperbolic polemic, which is par for the course, I suppose from someone...

... who has posted an OP based on misleading source titles.

[IndianaGreen]

23. So you don't feel that Holder will further erode our Miranda rights?

Is that what you are trying to argue?

[ClarkUSA]

24. Unlike you, I won't pre-judge someone before the facts are out on the table.

Since there are zero facts as to what changes are going to be made, if any, I feel that outrage on anyone's part is at best ill-informed and at worst manufactured. Furthermore, the HuffPo writer, the LBN OP and most of the folks on this and that LBN thread that have expressed outrage are terribly ill-informed as to the Constitution:

Constitutional law already permits law-enforcement officials to question a suspect in custody, without Miranda warnings, if public-safety considerations justify doing so. For at least 25 years, it has been clear that law enforcement does not have to provide Miranda warnings before asking a suspect questions that, as the Supreme Court has put it, are “reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety.” Thus, if the FBI captures a suspected terrorist bomber, and has grounds for concern that other attempted bombings might be in motion, the FBI can non-coercively interrogate the suspect for information about those other suspected plots without giving the suspect Miranda warnings.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/05/should-congress-codify-public-safety.html

"Holder knows what he's talking about. Those who don't need to stop pretending that using the words civil liberties makes them experts on the Constitution." http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=291804&mesg_id=291950

[COLGATE4]

10. Therein lies the rub

The public safety exception is itself a watering-down of Miranda rights. As it stands, it is more than adequate to address any of the frantic cries by the Rethugs about Miranda in general. However, Holder suggesting that we should look into 'modifying' it can only mean that he proposes a further weakening of Miranda. This is a problem for all American citizens. We should reject Holder's attempt to placate the Sarah Palins of the world.

[ClarkUSA]

12. Where's the "rub" if it's deemed constitutional by Congress?

And it's not "a problem for all American citizens" as it would only address the issue of international terrorists who are not citizens.

[IndianaGreen]

15. Congress is not the body that determines whether something is constitutional or not

that role is reserved for the judicial branch.

[ClarkUSA]

18. I suppose Congress doesn't consult with constitutional lawyers while writing bills of this nature?

:sarcasm:

[IndianaGreen]

20. Congress enacts laws, but only the courts get to decide if they are constitutional

at least that's the way it was before we slipped into this Orwellian nightmare on 9-11.

[ClarkUSA]

21. That doesn't mean they can't deem a bill to be consistent with the Constitution.

Speaking of "Orwellian" why did you include a misleading source title in your OP? It's funny that you did, because the facts in the source contradict its misleading title.

[IndianaGreen]

22. Take up your complaint with LBN's OP

I merely reposted it here.

[ClarkUSA]

26. Perhaps you should dig deeper the next time before you post erroneously-titled information.

The LBN OP is a noted 24/7 Obama critic, after all.

[harkadog]

33. Congress passed a law providing for the detention

of Japanese-Americans citizens in WW II. They said that was Constitutional. The Supreme Court said it was constitutional also. Is that a protection?

[ProSense]

34. There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about

Holder's position. The exception already exists.

[harkadog]

38. Just because the President gives you the title of Attorney General

Does not make you a constitutional expert and there is nothing in Holder's background that would suggest that he is. I am aware of the public safety exception and we will see what modifications are suggested.

[ProSense]

40. The fact that this isn't remotely unconstitutional has nothing to do with Holder. n/t

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

45. Maybe you should quit the name calling and try to understand what is being discussed.

The exception is not unconstitutional, and neither is Holder's desire for Congress to address the issue.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

43. Because the Obama Administration suggested it....

And we HATE the Obama Administration around here.

Jesus, read the memo!

:sarcasm:

[jaxx]

9. No.

But reading things into what is said has become par for the course.

[KingFlorez]

13. He is just like a complete fascist

Sarcasm. These posts are really getting ridiculous, give it a rest.

[IndianaGreen]

25. The underlying issue is that the law should treat everyone equally

What we are witnessing is the morphing of "equality under the law" into a multi-layered legal system that treats people differently depending on how the state wants to categorize them. This is not the America we used to know!

Those that give the state the power to do the things they want, will see the same power being used to do things they don't want.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

42. I know this doesn't matter to you...

because your priciple aim here at DU seems to be stirring up shit. But the Supreme Court ruled more than 25 years ago that police officers may make an exception to the Miranda Warning provided there is a clear case of public safety. It's up to a trial judge after the fact to determine if the officers exercised good judgement in interrogating a suspect before reading him his rights, and to determine if the information obtained may be used in open court.

Holder is suggesting the the Public Safety Exception to the Miranda Warning be reviewed in light of counter-terrorism (the deciding case in 1984 involved a suspected rapist). It did not contemplate suspects who were part of an international conspiracy nor did it take into account the prospect of the mass casualties that could result from an act of terrorism.

In light of that, reviewing the Public Safety Exception makes good sense.

Once again, you're attempting to sensationalize something that, when calmer heads reflect upon it, is not cause for alarm.

[WeDidIt]

27. Eric Holder hasn't, but Glenn Greenwald has n/t

[SnakeEyes]

28. If the system is effective..

There is no need to change things. This "threats in our time" rhetoric is the same crap we heard from the Bush regime. Obama and those around and supporting him rejected it prior to gaining office. What's their excuse now? Are they going to say that they didn't realize the true scope of things until they got there and also had access to the classified information? I call BS.

[ProSense]

29. An absolutely clueless question

Constitutional law already permits law-enforcement officials to question a suspect in custody, without Miranda warnings, if public-safety considerations justify doing so. For at least 25 years, it has been clear that law enforcement does not have to provide Miranda warnings before asking a suspect questions that, as the Supreme Court has put it, are “reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety.” Thus, if the FBI captures a suspected terrorist bomber, and has grounds for concern that other attempted bombings might be in motion, the FBI can non-coercively interrogate the suspect for information about those other suspected plots without giving the suspect Miranda warnings. One crucial consequence is that any statements the suspect makes during that questioning that also incriminate himself can be used against him in a later criminal prosecution.

Yet the Court has recognized and elaborated the public-safety exception in cases unlike many of today's terrorism cases, and thus the boundaries of the exception in the terrorism context remain unclear. When the FBI or other government agencies capture a terrorist suspect, they will often want to question him or her for two related, but different kinds of purposes: (1) for information that will protect the public against any immediate security threats and (2) for more general intelligence about others who might have assisted the suspect in the (completed or attempted) act of terrorism for which he has been apprehended, about the nature and organization of the terrorist groups he or she is associated with (if any), and the like. While the public-safety exception permits pre-Miranda questioning for the first purpose, how that exception applies to this second purpose is far from clear.

Is that a problem for effective counterterrorism efforts? Before addressing that question, it is important to clear up a common confusion. There is not much doubt that the FBI can non-coercively question a captured suspect for more general intelligence information, without Miranda, if the government does not use any of the suspect’s testimony to incriminate him at a later criminal trial. Constitutional law does not impose any free-floating, all-purpose, affirmative obligation on law-enforcement officials to provide Miranda warnings anytime they have a suspect in custody; as Orin Kerr recently pointed out, constitutional law imposes only the more specific obligation not to use any incriminating statements taken from a non-Mirandized suspect against him at his later criminal trial. If the FBI and other agencies simply use the information to go after the terrorist organization and other suspects – if the FBI gives this information to the government of Pakistan, for example, which then uses it to capture other suspects there – the fact that this information was obtained through non-coercive questioning, in the absence of Miranda, obviously does not create any legal problem.

link

Holder knows what he's talking about. Those who don't need to stop pretending that using the words civil liberties makes them experts on the Constitution.

[lib2DaBone]

31. Eric Holder is a big disappointment...

....about all he is good for is busting 70-year-old medical marijuana patients.

And Mr. Obama supposedly told him not to bother the medical marijuana people... holder couldn't even get that right.

What a jerk.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[katandmoon]

35. YES and KR for asking.

[ClarkUSA]

36. NO, because the constitutional right to interrogate terrorism suspects sans Miranda already exists.

Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=291804&mesg_id=291983

[slackmaster]

37. It's all a big joke until someone accuses YOU of being a terrorist

Yes, he's a threat.

[choie]

39. I don't know how many examples

of chipping away of our rights, and the rights of others, has to be offered before some DUers stop their apologias for Obama and his administration. You can parse Holder's words all you want - it's the only way to remain in denial.

[Odin2005]

41. Just another FASCIST CORPORATIST.