Courtesy of the excellent Newsy
Attorney General Eric Holder on ABC's "This Week": "People have been given Miranda warnings. People have continued to talk. ... But I think we also want to determine whether we have necessary flexibility..."
Under a public safety exception, suspected Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad was interrogated before law enforcement officials read him his Miranda rights.
Shahzad later waived those rights, but politicians and the media alike fiercely debated when -- and even if -- terror suspects should be mirandized.
Russia Today: "Could a move like that open the door for the United States to avoid proper treatment of its own citizens?"
Senator Joe Lieberman: "Those who join such groups join our enemies, and should no longer enjoy the rights and privileges of American citizenship."
Fox News: "Should terror suspects in this country have the very same rights as we do?"
MSNBC: "When we give up our freedoms for safety, we lose."
On MSNBC's Hardball, the Executive Director of the ACLU says there's no debating it: Miranda rights are rights.
"When you start opening up this pandora's box, whoa, we're going to have so much litigation on our hands. Congress doesn't have the power to chip away at the Fifth Amendment. That's a basic right. ... Ironically when this issue last came up in 2000, it was law enforcement officials that said they wanted Miranda. Because it made law enforcement effective and professionalized."
But in the National Law Journal, New York attorney Clifford Fishman says what many don't understand is that there's no constitutional right to Miranda rights.
"[Police] are under no obligation to ever give that suspect Miranda warnings. But if they do not give the warnings, the suspect's statements cannot be used as evidence of guilt at trial. ... If that is what happened ... this week in New York with Shahzad, then the officials involved should be praised, not criticized..."
On Fox News, contributor and liberal commentator Alan Colmes says he's disappointed with hints the White House is revisiting Miranda rights for terror suspects.
"Mirandizing with the public safety exception, which has been used now in two cases in a row has worked. ... I think this would be an egregious offense to our Constitution to narrow a right that people have... (CROSSTALK) The public safety exception is already there."
But for some, that public safety exception already in place isn't enough.
For The Washington Post, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer offers a solution.
"The public safety exception should be enlarged to allow law enforcement to interrogate, without Mirandizing ... (and make the answers admissible) ... no Miranda rights until we know everything that public safety demands we need to know."
Related i On Global Trends article: Tuesday, May 11, 2010, Human Rights: Altering Miranda Protections would be unconstitutional
See also Sydney Irresistible and Mike Hitchen UnleashedAttorney General Eric Holder on ABC's "This Week": "People have been given Miranda warnings. People have continued to talk. ... But I think we also want to determine whether we have necessary flexibility..."
Under a public safety exception, suspected Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad was interrogated before law enforcement officials read him his Miranda rights.
Shahzad later waived those rights, but politicians and the media alike fiercely debated when -- and even if -- terror suspects should be mirandized.
Russia Today: "Could a move like that open the door for the United States to avoid proper treatment of its own citizens?"
Senator Joe Lieberman: "Those who join such groups join our enemies, and should no longer enjoy the rights and privileges of American citizenship."
Fox News: "Should terror suspects in this country have the very same rights as we do?"
MSNBC: "When we give up our freedoms for safety, we lose."
On MSNBC's Hardball, the Executive Director of the ACLU says there's no debating it: Miranda rights are rights.
"When you start opening up this pandora's box, whoa, we're going to have so much litigation on our hands. Congress doesn't have the power to chip away at the Fifth Amendment. That's a basic right. ... Ironically when this issue last came up in 2000, it was law enforcement officials that said they wanted Miranda. Because it made law enforcement effective and professionalized."
But in the National Law Journal, New York attorney Clifford Fishman says what many don't understand is that there's no constitutional right to Miranda rights.
"[Police] are under no obligation to ever give that suspect Miranda warnings. But if they do not give the warnings, the suspect's statements cannot be used as evidence of guilt at trial. ... If that is what happened ... this week in New York with Shahzad, then the officials involved should be praised, not criticized..."
On Fox News, contributor and liberal commentator Alan Colmes says he's disappointed with hints the White House is revisiting Miranda rights for terror suspects.
"Mirandizing with the public safety exception, which has been used now in two cases in a row has worked. ... I think this would be an egregious offense to our Constitution to narrow a right that people have... (CROSSTALK) The public safety exception is already there."
But for some, that public safety exception already in place isn't enough.
For The Washington Post, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer offers a solution.
"The public safety exception should be enlarged to allow law enforcement to interrogate, without Mirandizing ... (and make the answers admissible) ... no Miranda rights until we know everything that public safety demands we need to know."
Related i On Global Trends article: Tuesday, May 11, 2010, Human Rights: Altering Miranda Protections would be unconstitutional
Multisource political news, world news, and entertainment news analysis by Newsy.com
Putting principles before profits
