• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Holder wants new look at Miranda rights

NolaMan said:
Perspective... Democrats are in total control of the House, Senate, and the White House. Republicans have no way to push their legislative ideas without Democrats.

A Democratic Attorney General is talking about reviewing this issue, and you make an attempt to bring it back as "Republicans taking your rights away."
Click to expand...

How in the hell did you come to this conclusion? I was in no way claiming Republicans were doing this.
 
Crunch said:
BS..... if a person isn't in this country legally they shouldn't have the protections of our constitution.
Click to expand...

Here is the problem with that view. Our forefathers didn't say that citizens are endowed with inalienable rights. They said that all people are endowed with inalienable rights. And, according to our forefathers, these rights are given by God, not by government. Therefore, I have a hard time understanding those who want God in our government, but refuse to recognize the inalienable rights given to all by God. Sounds like a psychotic break to me. LOL.
 
Wow I can't believe how many people here would give away their rights and liberties, just like that.
 
Why read them their miranda rights?

I ask why not?

Isn't a system that reminds people of their rights a good thing?
 
Deuce said:
How in the hell did you come to this conclusion? I was in no way claiming Republicans were doing this.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I misunderstood.

I took your comment of "it is YOUR party" to the person that listed their political views as "very conservative" to mean Republicans.

If I jumped the gun, then I am sorry.
 
Crunch said:
BS..... if a person isn't in this country legally they shouldn't have the protections of our constitution.
Click to expand...

The constitution applies to everyone, period. Also, they're discussing pushing back these rights for anyone accused of terrorism. Whether they are a US citizen or a foreign terrorist who entered the country covertly.
 
Deuce said:
The constitution applies to everyone, period.
Click to expand...
No, not everyone. There are any number of people that do not enjoy the same protection of their rights under the Constitution as, say, you and I do.
 
Is it too much to ask that just ONCE we get an attorney general who isn't a complete ****up? Mukasey was tolerable, but every other attorney general for the past 20 years has been god awful.
 
jamesrage said:
Shouldn't you have already learn about rights from school? Why should the police have any obligation to remind you?
Click to expand...

The suspect might not have gone to school in this country. Or they might have gone to a school that didn't teach them their Miranda Rights. Or they might have finished school before Miranda v Arizona was the law of the land. Or they might have forgot. Or they might simply not be very intelligent.

There are lots of reasons. The police should have an obligation to inform you of your rights so that suspects are not manipulated by the police.
 
Queen said:
Wow I can't believe how many people here would give away their rights and liberties, just like that.
Click to expand...

Let me respond to that by uttering two words.......

Ben Franklin.
 
Guess Holder believed all the political hype piled onto the Bush administration by the vile democrat campaign machine. Now he wants to adopt all their legal interpretations. Will he be inviting ex-AG Gonzalez in for a consult soon? Not likely. Then he'd have to admit AFTER he thoroughly considered the issued he came to the same conclusion.

What an idiot!
 
LowRevs said:
Guess Holder believed all the political hype piled onto the Bush administration by the vile democrat campaign machine. Now he wants to adopt all their legal interpretations. Will he be inviting ex-AG Gonzalez in for a consult soon? Not likely. Then he'd have to admit AFTER he thoroughly considered the issued he came to the same conclusion.

What an idiot!
Click to expand...


Umm so why are you angry with him? Shouldn't you be happy? :confused:
 
so the white house is forced to BACK DOWN yet again on yet another of its preposterous foreign policy positions

when's that meeting with the leaders of iran gonna go down, without preconditions?

when's gitmo closing?

why did NINETY SENATORS push that piece of complete stupidty back in his perplexed face like a pumpkin cream pie?

when's ksm gonna be tried in manhattan?

when's the admin gonna decide?

civilian trial or tribunal?

why the preconviction of the creeps, doesn't that kinda defeat the purpose?

what's going on with that special prosecution of (the lowest levelers at) the cia?

what's a 1 off?

how do you know when THE SYSTEM WORKED?

what's an ISOLATED EXTREMIST?

why did holder hold out on jiltin joe's homeland security which only asked for the fort hood hitman's personnel files?

why the whitewash of the pentagon's promotion of hasan?

why did president pie-in-the-face castigate karzai as corrupt?

now he's kissing the crazy kook's can, TODAY

Hamid Karzai gets full White House welcome - Carol E. Lee - POLITICO.com

remember when pieface's PARTNER in the theater threatened HIMSELF to go join the TALIBAN?

it's embarrassing

what is the white house's ANSWER to the mexican cartels?

NONE?

NO answer, at all?

not even TALKING POINTS?

what's obtuse obama's policy TODAY for iran?

he doesn't HAVE ONE?

embarrassing

amateurish

washingtonpost.com

Despite arrest, White House on defensive - Glenn Thrush and Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

Eric Holder takes fire over no-fly list - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com
 
Kandahar said:
Umm so why are you angry with him? Shouldn't you be happy? :confused:
Click to expand...

I am gratified that they (the O administration in general) seem to be coming to the same conclusions that the Bush administration attorneys did; I also feel a little more secure. However, I will never stop being angry at the way they treated various members of the Bush administration who were simply doing their duty as public servants to the best of their ability. Calling a general officer and theater commander a liar on public airways in a congressional hearing room was far beyond the pale. And then there is the racism. When are they going to prosecute the democrat party worker thug with the club outside the So. Philadelphia poll? And then there's the . . .

Maybe sometime after November I'll start to cool down.
 
Manc Skipper said:
They must have heard the howls of criticism from conservatives when they offered the failed Times Square bomber his miranda rights. Now they can't do right for doing wrong....
Click to expand...

If that were actually true I would still want someone so weak-willed about our civil liberties kicked out.
 
Goobieman said:
No, not everyone. There are any number of people that do not enjoy the same protection of their rights under the Constitution as, say, you and I do.
Click to expand...

If you read the constitution you'll notice it's got a list of things the government can't do. No person shall...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

No person.
 
Deuce said:
As a whole it's YOUR party that's been pushing hardest for this so I'd keep some perspective if I were you.

Removing rights from terrorists is removing rights from everyone.
Click to expand...
Bull****! You can't make a blanket statement like that.
 
Deuce said:
The constitution applies to everyone, period. Also, they're discussing pushing back these rights for anyone accused of terrorism. Whether they are a US citizen or a foreign terrorist who entered the country covertly.
Click to expand...

Technically, Natural Rights apply to everyone. The Constitution is, admittedly, built off of Natural Rights and if we are to honor the spirit of the Constitution; we should acknowledge everyone's Natural Rights. However, the US Constitution itself only applies to the relation between the US citizens and their dully (yes, dully) elected government.

Look at it this way, if the Constitution applied to everyone; we'd be filing legal suits against every country of the world. Since we're not, I can assure you that the Constitution does not apply to "everyone."

I can understand the argument that the Constitution is, at heart, a restricting influence on Our Lord and Savior: the Imperial Federal Government. Thus, "terrorists" are not protected by the Constitution--they merely share in the benefit of the restrictions placed the US Federal government as the judicial equivalent of an economic free-rider. However, you don't seem to be the type who believe the Constitution is, at heart, a restrictive influence on the Federal government. I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure you're more of a loose interpretation man.

It seems that you are trying to say that the Constitution, loosely interpreted (which would logically follow other loose interpretations), should compensate for failing to restrict the Federal government in (among other things; considering most Arabs guilty until proven innocent) all the countless deep infringements on liberty by expanding the purview of a shallower type liberty (such as the Miranda Rights). I find this personally distasteful, and an inaccurate view of the Natural Rights the Constitution was founded on.
 
Last edited:
Areopagitican said:
Technically, Natural Rights apply to everyone. The Constitution is, admittedly, built off of Natural Rights and if we are to honor the spirit of the Constitution; we should acknowledge everyone's Natural Rights. However, the US Constitution itself only applies to the relation between the US citizens and their dully (yes, dully) elected government.

Look at it this way, if the Constitution applied to everyone; we'd be filing legal suits against every country of the world. Since we're not, I can assure you that the Constitution does not apply to "everyone."
Click to expand...

This is incorrect. The Constitution applies to our government. It restricts our government's behavior, regardless of who that behavior is directed at. An Irishman robbing a convenience store in Arkansas still gets legal counsel and a trial. SCOTUS upholds this.



I can understand the argument that the Constitution is, at heart, a restricting influence on Our Lord and Savior: the Imperial Federal Government. Thus, "terrorists" are not protected by the Constitution--they merely share in the benefit of the restrictions placed the US Federal government as the judicial equivalent of an economic free-rider. However, you don't seem to be the type who believe the Constitution is, at heart, a restrictive influence on the Federal government. I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure you're more of a loose interpretation man.
Click to expand...

This is also incorrect and your partisan hyperbole only serves to detract from your argument.


It seems that you are trying to say that the Constitution, loosely interpreted (which would logically follow other loose interpretations), should compensate for failing to restrict the Federal government in (among other things; considering most Arabs guilty until proven innocent) all the countless deep infringements on liberty by expanding the purview of a shallower type liberty (such as the Miranda Rights). I find this personally distasteful, and an inaccurate view of the Natural Rights the Constitution was founded on.
Click to expand...

I never said anything of the sort. At least YOUR straw man is a new one. You're trying to interpret my views through a partisan lens and failing miserably.

My point is that you can't possibly push back Miranda rights of "terrorists" because until due process of law decides someone is guilty, they aren't terrorists. (legally speaking) You can only push back Miranda rights for someone accused of terrorism. Such a person is still innocent if you stick to one of our fundamental tenants.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
Shouldn't you have already learn about rights from school? Why should the police have any obligation to remind you?
Click to expand...

Because in our school system today, you can't count on anything having been properly covered. And if the officer is going to curb your freedom by taking you into custody (keep in mind, you are taken into custody under suspicion and have yet to be convicted of a crime), then yes, he has an obligation to cover your most basic right to defense.

Besides, the reading of the Miranda rights protects the prosecution from losing out to a technicality as much as it does the suspect.
 
Deuce said:
This is incorrect. The Constitution applies to our government. It restricts our government's behavior, regardless of who that behavior is directed at.
Click to expand...

Er, awkward. Did you read my second paragraph or did you just skim over it when you dismissed it as partisan hyperbole? I suggest you read it. I would say 'again,' but the truth is fairly evident that you didn't even bother the first time around.

An Irishman robbing a convenience store in Arkansas still gets legal counsel and a trial. SCOTUS upholds this.
Click to expand...

Robbing an American convenience store, to be tried in American courts, for an American crime and to be dealt an American punishment? Hmm, I think you need to rethink that metaphor.

The focus is, obviously, not on the Irishman. If he, for instance, robbed a convenience store in Ireland; would he be protected by the Constitution or his Natural Rights? Obviously, his Natural Rights. However, when you bring in an American government aspect (especially an American court) you bring in the Constitution.

Our biggest difference lies right there. You argue that the terrorist/Irishman is protected by the Constitution, by the mere virtue of existing the Constitution (i.e. Federal government) grants them assorted rights, and I argue (more idealistically) that the terrorist is protected by the Constitution because of the restrictions placed upon the government. My whole point is that the Irishman is not really protected by the US Constitution's granting of Miranda Rights, he's protected from the government itself. However, the Federal government has stopped, long since, caring about restrictions placed upon it by the Constitution. Thus, rendering terrorists (in effect) open game to having their judicial free-ride revoked. Of course, you can argue that the Constitution is a strict, enforcing document but you can't say it then grants rights to people; that'd be a contradiction of terms. What you seem to be implying is that the Constitution is a loose document that grants rights to people, any people, but then you run into the fact that the Constitution isn't granting rights; those rights are already there and thus the realization that you have conceded the Federal government Natural Rights; rights they can take away as easily as they give them (which, I believe, is where America is at. No matter how much I disagree with that position it is the current and most logically consistent foundation to deal with contemporary terrorists).

This is also incorrect and your partisan hyperbole only serves to detract from your argument.
Click to expand...

So you're a strict constitutionalist?


I never said anything of the sort. At least YOUR straw man is a new one. You're trying to interpret my views through a partisan lens and failing miserably.
Click to expand...

A new strawman from a partisan lens? Sir, I believe you are speaking in contradictions.

My point is that you can't possibly push back Miranda rights of "terrorists" because until due process of law decides someone is guilty, they aren't terrorists. (legally speaking) You can only push back Miranda rights for someone accused of terrorism. Such a person is still innocent if you stick to one of our fundamental tenants.
Click to expand...

Just some idle questions. A: whose "due process" and whose "law?" How do we decided that a terrorist is "guilty," before he blows himself (and/or others) to the 24 Virgins? B: legally speaking from whose point of view, and what are the definitions of "accused?" C: innocent in what way, innocent because he is actually innocent or innocent through the eyepiece of the law? Also, "fundamental tenants," as defined by what? You must realize that fundamental tenant must be, well defined, so as to be fundamental.

This questions actually do matter in their own significant way. Without knowing if you mean the due process of law for the proverbial "terrorist," implying that his Natural Rights are protected by the Constitution, or the due process that American courts adhere to, implying that the terrorist is a judicial "free-rider," is the heart of the difference.

The same with legally speaking and "accused." I mean, if we can't decide on what the legal defense of the terrorist is, I'm not sure how we can both understand what legally speaking even means. The same with "accused," as Miranda Rights deal almost exclusively within a gray legal netherworld; it doesn't help matters that terrorism, in of itself, is also squiffy (until it is entirely too late).

Finally, C, is fairly self-explanatory. I'm not sure if I'm understanding our proverbial "terrorist" correctly; especially when it comes to his innocence. If we are back to "innocent until proven guilty," then I direct you back up to questions in "A" and associating paragraph. If he is actually innocent, that would also be interesting. Then there is the whole concept of "fundamental tenants," which I have no idea how to interpret. I mean, it could just be a euphemism for "my beliefs," which would be disappointing, but I doubt it.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
If you read the constitution you'll notice it's got a list of things the government can't do. No person shall...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
No person.
Click to expand...
So? This does nothing to negate what I said.

You said:
The constitution applies to everyone, period
Click to expand...

This is incorrect, as there are any number of people that do not enjoy the same rights, privileges and immunities under the Constitution.

Examples:
-Minors cannot vote.
-Non-citizens cannot vote.
-Public school students do not have the full protection of the 1st amendment
-POWs may be held indefinitely w/o charges being brought, must less a trial

This list goes on and on...
 
Last edited:
I wonder if Holder has read Miranda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom