Obama: Suspected Terrorists Shouldn’t Be Informed of Their Miranda Rights

by Will Potter on May 12, 2010

in Terrorism Court Cases

By Matt Bors. Just change Bush to Obama.

The Obama administration said this week it would support a law to allow interrogating terrorism suspects, including U.S. citizens, without informing them of their rights to remain silent and speak with an attorney.

The proposal to chip away at Miranda rights is yet another attempt in recent weeks to carve out exceptions to fundamental legal protections for people the government has labeled terrorists, or “suspected terrorists.”

Attorney General Eric Holder said the recent Times Square bombing attempt reflects the need for “modifying the rules” in the case of suspected terrorists. The administration argues that reading someone their rights interrupts the flow of interruption and could prevent investigators from learning critical information.

This is a solution in search of a problem. There is already a law on the books allowing a delayed reading of Miranda rights if there is an immediate threat to public safety. According to The New York Times:

After the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound jet on Dec. 25, for example, the F.B.I. questioned the suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, for about 50 minutes without reading him his rights. And last week, Mr. Brennan said, the F.B.I. interrogated Mr. Shahzad for three or four hours before delivering a Miranda warning.

Plus, even after Shahzad was read his rights, he waived them and kept talking.

In supporting this legislation, Obama is lock-step with far-right politicians who say that when it comes to “terrorism” cases, the rule of law is too inconvenient.

Former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani said of the Times Square bomber: “I would not have given him Miranda warnings after just a couple of hours of questioning…I would have instead declared him an enemy combatant…”

This proposal comes at the same time there is a bipartisan bill to strip “suspected terrorists” of their citizenship, and Arizona has outlawed ethnic studies programs and classes that are “subversive.” In addition to all of this, in Obama’s home state there is a secretive political prison that could be made permanent.

Supporters of all of these unconstitutional policies claim that if you aren’t a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about. These laws, we’re told, are merely tools to keep us safe.

My question at this point is: Is there anything off the table? Is there any part of the Constitution that Obama and others are not willing to hack? Any point at which they say, “No, now that would just be going too far”?

What was it again the terrorists hate?

  • http://kihope.com omgsoy

    Will, you're the expert here, but when Bush signed the Military Commissions Act in october of 2006 (which applies to all US citizens) he suspended habeas corpus. (and yes, that was unconstitutional, but the supreme court wouldn't hear it.) basically, as i understand it, all Obama is doing is making it so that terrorist suspects aren't going to be informed of rights they don't have under the MCA.

  • Kenxvx

    What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

  • http://www.greenisthenewred.com Will Potter

    That's a great point to bring up. One important difference in the scope of the Military Commissions Act is that it spells out that is is for “alien” enemy combatants, which is defined as non-citizen. This proposal (which, I don't believe, has been submitted as legislation… it's just talk) would include U.S. citizens (because the Times Square attempt was by a citizen).

  • lisaliberationnow

    So that means if I am arrested for being a suspected terrorist, I won't be read my miranda rights? The bill says even U.S. Citizens, so yes that means us. I think most of us know our rights anyways and would never talk under any circumstances. ( I hope we do!) Why don't we just tear the bill of rights to pieces, that's what they are doing anyways.

  • http://kihope.com omgsoy

    that is one of the controversies with the MCA, is that on one part it specifically says “alien” but on another part it doesn't. i firmly believe it was designed to be extended to citizens as well, and if any citizen ever challenged it that provision was put in there to ensure they had no legal leg to stand on.

  • veganlove

    Right; while I was reading this, I was thinking – my God, let's just throw the whole damned Constitution out the window! What a load of sh*t this is. I cannot take this anymore. What was it: Mc Davids attorney that said these guys can do whatever the f* they want? Yet another thing to make life 10 times worse for those in the A/R community being accused of terrorism.

  • GreenOrb

    “republican” on one side, “democrat” on the other….
    two wings attached to the same beast, working in concert.
    Its prey , is us.

  • keeperofthefire

    anyone who still believes polititions/military/cops/courts believe in or follow the bill of rights/constution has been asleep at the wheel the last 100yrs!!!!!!!!!! the american people have chosen not to stand up to the theifs&liers who have run this country into the ground,while imprisioning more of its citizens than the whole world combined,and while murdering millions of poeple world wide for f'ing money!!!!!!! fuck this piece of shit country!!!!!

Previous post:

Next post: