Reply #55: The OP is not only misleading but its premise is based on the HuffPo writer's cluelessness...

[ClarkUSA]

... regarding the Constitution. Holder never said "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?

Furthermore, the HuffPo writer, the OP and most of the folks on this 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