Update Miranda? Should Be Considered, Holder Says
EmailAttorney General Eric Holder said that Congress should “give serious consideration” to updating the Miranda warning which requires law enforcement officials to inform suspects of their rights – including the right to remain silent.
In an interview on “This Week,” Holder said that the U.S. needs to exam whether the current rules regarding Miranda warnings give law enforcement agents the “necessary flexibility” when dealing with terrorism cases.
“If we are going to have a system that is capable of dealing, in a public safety context, with this new threat,” Holder said, “I think we have to give serious consideration to at least modifying that public safety exception” of Miranda warnings, which allows law enforcement agents to ask suspects about impending threats before reading them their rights.
Modifying that exception, Holder said, is “one of the things that I think we’re going to be reaching out to Congress to do – to come up with a proposal that is both Constitutional, but that is also relevant to our time and the threat that we now face.”
WATCH VIDEO HERE:
Santorum: Money Will Not Defeat Obama, Ideas Will 
Rick Santorum's Full Speech at CPAC 2012
Great Holder… just when I had some confidence in you, you go and cave.
Miranda works. It hasn’t failed yet. Everyone in this situation that has been given Miranda rights has talked. You’re trying to “solve a problem” that isn’t there, only to placate some vocal right-wingers who need some votes (c.f. Bennett).
It took a year for Obama to get a spine. How long for you?
Posted by: Karen | May 9, 2010, 10:01 am 10:01 am
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
Posted by: Joel Miller | May 9, 2010, 10:13 am 10:13 am
Maybe a person’s rights should be something one learns as a responsibility of being US Citizen… Then, when law enforcement requests a suspect for a passport and proof of citizenship (which should be a requirement for everyone), we might cut through the latency of solving serious crimes and solve a few other bueauracratic problems as well.
Posted by: liberaljihad2 | May 9, 2010, 10:56 am 10:56 am
Miranda is working great. Why cave into the fear mongering on the far right? No terrorist can destroy America, but it is all too easy to have our rights and nation gutted from the inside out of fear and cowardice.
Terrorist will kill more Americans. So will sharks, rabid bats, drunk drivers, and killer bees. None of those will cause the most prosperous and powerful free nation mankind has ever seen to fall.
Posted by: jhw539 | May 9, 2010, 11:02 am 11:02 am
You are deluding yourself if you think that every terrorist will waive their Miranda rights, and speak without a lawyer. What kind of silly brainless optimism do you people have. Criminal defendants request lawyers everyday to stall law enforcement. Terrorists will too, no doubt.
Posted by: Mik | May 9, 2010, 11:25 am 11:25 am
With miranda the US has achieved the highest incarceration rate the world, around 2.5 millon. From what im hearing is that marandizing these people would give them “righs”, im confused. Because they might terrorist? They say it gives law enforcement “flexablity”, I guess to torture or not to torture. And who declares a people terrorest? The arresting officer? If thats the case then anyone could be declaired an enemy of the state, political rivals, illegal aliens, anyone
Posted by: Ron | May 9, 2010, 12:08 pm 12:08 pm
Holder said, “I think we have to give serious consideration to at least modifying that public safety exception”
Piffle.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | May 9, 2010, 12:16 pm 12:16 pm
Who does this sound like..MCCain. Holder did work for bush via his firm before he was appointed as attorney general, by the dems with no dem values.. I expect this thinking from a republican..Are dems next on this undesireable list of his..
Posted by: bay | May 9, 2010, 12:34 pm 12:34 pm
Yes, deny a citizen’s constitutional rights because of the vague term “terrorist”.
Disgusting.
Even Glenn friggin Beck does not want that.
Posted by: parallax | May 9, 2010, 2:32 pm 2:32 pm
Holder is not the brightest bulb on the tree. His ideas on justice leave a lot to desired. Even common sense eludes this one. All we can hope for is that in a couple of years he to will be gone.
Posted by: savage24 | May 9, 2010, 2:57 pm 2:57 pm
An enemy combatant is an enemy combatant and it doesn’t matter if he managed to con the none to bright INS into giving him citizenship.It’s more than time that the Country tunes out the left wing crackpots,they are a shrinking minority and will soon be as influential as a Druid High Priest
Posted by: Dana | May 9, 2010, 4:03 pm 4:03 pm
This is freakin BS! I agree with liberaljihad2. The Miranda Warning should be taught in Junior and Senior High School and ANYONE crossing borders into our country should be required to, and prove to, know it before stepping foot into this country (include it on all visa applications) Our police officers should NOT have to tell everyone what they should already know before they commit a crime. Why should anyone not here legally have a RIGHT to counsel?
Posted by: The Mom | May 9, 2010, 4:17 pm 4:17 pm
they keep saying these suspects talk after being Mirandized. Where’s the proof? Why should we believe them? No one has been arrested, they haven’t told us where their leaders are! There are no results from them “talking”.
We are being lied to – Why does’t the media ask for proof?
Posted by: Karen | May 9, 2010, 5:14 pm 5:14 pm
WHY is this idiot Attorney General? He’s only previously demonstrated competence has been in getting presidential pardons for convicted felons who’ve fled the country.
HEY HOLDER! Any idea when we’ll find out WHY you dropped the prosecution of those Black Panthers for voter intimidation?
Posted by: GarandFan | May 9, 2010, 6:36 pm 6:36 pm
Holder amd obama need to leave well enough alone.People way smarter than them have alredy layed it allout.Just collect your checks and get the “L” out in 2012.Do us a favor,get out.
Posted by: dharc | May 9, 2010, 6:44 pm 6:44 pm
“If we are going to have a system that is capable of dealing, in a public safety context, with this new threat,”
Uh… new threat?
Posted by: Gary | May 9, 2010, 6:48 pm 6:48 pm
HEY HOLDER! Any idea when we’ll find out WHY you dropped the prosecution of those Black Panthers for voter intimidation?
Posted by: GarandFan | May 9, 2010 6:36:55 PM
______________________________________
Usually cases are dropped because there is insufficient evidence of any prosecutable activity.
You got all the inside dope on the evidence right?
Posted by: tierra | May 9, 2010, 7:06 pm 7:06 pm
Maybe all along we’ve been slicing this issue the wrong way. Maybe it’s not a question of whether Miranda rules are outdated when the “new” crime of terrorism has become prevalent. Maybe it’s a matter of time. Miranda is applicable to crimes already committed — past tense. As for terrorism, our fear is the horrific acts that might be performed tomorrow. Maybe Miranda is simply not applicable when a suspect is being questioned about what groups may be plotting terrorist acts in the future.
Posted by: Larry Thelen | May 9, 2010, 8:13 pm 8:13 pm
If John Ashcroft or Alberto Gonzalez had suggested this, the liberal media would have gone beserk. Keith Olbermann would have had smoke coming out of his ears before his head would have literally exploded live on the air. Instead, Holder suggests it and the ACLU shuts its mouth.
Don’t take the left wing legal organizations seriously any more. Their criticism of Bush was never about principle or the law, it was always about ideology and power.
Posted by: sunnyroberto | May 9, 2010, 8:41 pm 8:41 pm
Edwin Meese, Ronald Reagan’s much reviled attorney general, also advocated curtailing Miranda warnings for criminal suspects. Holder places himself in some interesting company.
Posted by: Michael | May 9, 2010, 8:56 pm 8:56 pm
Umm… Sunnyroberto – you’re wrong, my friend. The ACLU does indeed have a problem with this. They didn’t speak up soon enough for you? I get the impression that they couldn’t POSSIBLY have spoken up soon enough for you.
Posted by: Al Roberts | May 10, 2010, 10:27 am 10:27 am
New laws for outsiders? No way. First laws should be changed in benefit of the people who live in the United States BEFORE special considerations are made to outsiders. Unless of course we open all our borders. Can’t have it both ways, now can we? Why would a terrorist be given special treatment over a migrant worker from Mexico? We seem to have our priorities a bit mixed up. A suspected terrorist is less of a threat than an illegal immigrant is what our views appear to be leading to.
Posted by: Peggy Martin | May 10, 2010, 1:22 pm 1:22 pm
Romans, the greatest and most feared conquering nation fell from within before it fell to it’s enemies. Also including the Chinese empires, the Aztecs, the Mayans, the Soviet Union, etc. Maybe history can teach us something? The collapse comes from the inside when people become divided on lessor issues. It is only a matter of time before we write in our history books, “The Roman empire of the New World, became a faux paux. United they were not and divided they did fall.”
Posted by: Peggy Martin | May 10, 2010, 1:29 pm 1:29 pm