Eric Holder caves to conservative pressure again

[fortune]

Can Eric Holder get any weaker? He wanted to try KSM in civil court, then changed his tune saying he wasn't sure. He defended the miranda warnings as applied to the Michigan guy, and now all of a sudden this:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-09/holder-urges-congress-to-modify-miranda-warning-rules-update1-.html

Since when is it a Democratic or liberal stance that the miranda warning procedures need changes?

[ProSense]

1. Utter nonsense

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

[MIprogressive]

2. What is he thinking?

[Metta]

3. He's in the 'make stuff up' crowd and a blazing suckup. Happy karma.

How's that not trying war criminals thing going?

[RandomThoughts]

4. You know, the PR that is put out is a constant push to control.

How many people that used to be in positions in what was called the military industrial complex do you think are working in media and in corporate board rooms?

When Eisenhower said that phrase, he was talking about how people trained in intelligence would move into corporate and media systems to push a military corporate governance. And that system would be supported by money made in those corporate systems.

Simplest version is when an ex cia person became President, Bush in 1988, who was also Vice President in 1980. But they also have jobs in Media in many places.


But not all places, and there are many good people also.


So when I read news stories, I have to ask, is there a different intent then talking about something that actually happens, or is it PR of a system of control?


There are thousands of people in media that used to work with intelligence agencies, or you could say, still do.




Is secrecy being used to help people, or to dominate?

[Better Believe It]

5. Is Holder doing this without President Obama's approval or with his support?

Hold on awhile .... I need to figure this out.

[ClarkUSA]

6. Your OP title is completely fabricated.

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."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/09/eric-holder-miranda-right_n_569244.html

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

The OP and 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

[MrMickeysMom]

7. I heard him tout the necessity of the Military Commissions Act...

... What does THIS say about Eric Holder?

This was one of the MOST damaging Bush II doctrines ever ...Holder is caving into the the big LIE. Whaaaa? :wtf:

[ClarkUSA]

8. Link? I'd like to know what he actually said. n/t

[MrMickeysMom]

9. Senate Appropriation Committee, May 6th...

I'm trying to find the CSPAN link to it right now. It came after his general remarks and in response to one of the first questions he got from the panel.

I recall yelling at the television set. I'll try to find a link!

[MrMickeysMom]

12. ... and here's the quote from it-

Patrick Leahy: "I think the new manual for Military Commissions was issued last week... Is it safe to say that the Federal courts know what they're doing when they're handling these kind of cases?"

Eric Holder: "We want to make sure that we use all the tools that we have available to us in trying to prosecute this war. If you were to take from us the ability to us the Federal Courts, you will weaken our ability to win this war. You will weaken the strength of this nation. We have to have the ability to use the Article III Courts, the Reformed Military Commissions, our military power, our diplomatic power. We need to have all of these tools so that we are successful in this fight against AlQaeda and others who would do this nation harm."

[MrScorpio]

10. Conservatives think that Article III of the Constitution is some kind of wimpishness

Jeez.

[Bitwit1234]

11. I like to know SINCE WHEN ARE REPUBLICANS RUNNING THE SHOW

It seems as if no matter what the democrats propose, the republicans then complain. And Democrats turn around and do what the republicans won. Just who in the hell won the election, Us or Them.