Drifting Towards A Police State
It’s a drift, it’s not a straight-line march; well, it is certainly straighter than I’d like it to be, unfortunately, but look at some of the signs, all of which by the way have been occurring regardless of which party was in power. Until now the one that has bothered me the most has been the para-militarization of our police forces: the proliferation of these SWAT forces that love to engage in no-knock breaking and entering ‘actions’ of the type that folks like Rodney Balko have been so good at exposing, people getting arrested for filming police, the police acting more and more like bullying thugs, etc.
But I have to say this latest pronouncement from Attorney General Holder has got me concerned
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Sunday it would seek a law allowing investigators to interrogate terrorism suspects without informing them of their rights, as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. flatly asserted that the defendant in the Times Square bombing attempt was trained by the Taliban in Pakistan.
Mr. Holder proposed carving out a broad new exception to the Miranda rights established in a landmark 1966 Supreme Court ruling. It generally forbids prosecutors from using as evidence statements made before suspects have been warned that they have a right to remain silent and to consult a lawyer.
I don’t want prosecutors deciding which rights I get, especially now that they have expanded the term “terrorist” to cover a wide variety of crimes. This Administration’s philosophy, which is a carry over from Clinton’s, of treating everything as a law enforcement issue is a huge part of their problem here. The UndieBomber should not have been Mirandized, as he is not a US citizen, whereas it was completely correct to read Fievel his rights, because as a citizen he has them.
When we allow the government the power to deny us our rights if we do something they deem to be “terrorist” in nature then you can rest assured they will expand that definition so they can always use it.
And this must be vigorously resisted.
Morality, Nanny State, Politics | Mr. Bingley | 
May 10, 2010 9:05 am
Subscribe
Alcee Hastings, D. Fla., had that covered last year. He inserted a clause in a military appropriations bill that gives Holder and O the power to decide what’s hate speech (Ol’ Alcee made it easy for them: it’s any criticism of O’s policies or campaign platform) and where to put miscreants such as myself.
I think it was HR 6500, his companion bill, that authorizes the feds to transform closed military bases into internment centers, i.e., concentration camps, for all us haters.
Non-citizens have the same Miranda rights as citizens. Equal protection applies to all.
Miranda should not apply to combatants or spies. I think that is what you meant.
If a man comes here from australia to visit a friend or be a tourist, he is protected from abusive police tactics. We want guests to be safe.
If a man comes here as the representative of a nation or organization dedicated to destroying our nation through war, then he is an enemy combatant. This man deserves no protections.
And we’re ALL haters in their eyes.
Oh, aMEN, brother.
Also, it’s not really clear how congress can enact legislation to void what has been found to be a constitutional right. Congress cannot ignore the 14th amendment.
Oops. I shouldn’t have listed the 14th.
The bright line is two-fold: 1) are they a US citizen and 2) where were they captured.
Citizen, captured in US: Mirandized, full rights, US court trial. Charged with treason.
Citizen, captured on the field or outside US: Limited rights, Military tribunal, charged with treason
Non-citizen, captured in US: Limited rights, Military tribunal.
Non-citizen, unlawful combatant captured on the field: Interrogate and then shoot.
So, define “field.”
That bright line becomes a bit fuzzier if the “field” is not a battle field where bullets and artillery shells are flying about.
If you capture a non-citizen unlawful combatant at a wedding party (they seem to have a lot of those) then is that the “field?”
What if the non-citizen is a banker that just launders money for Al Qaeda? Is he to be shot? My opinion, yes, but I am in favor of abandoning most of the laws of war. If you follow the laws of war, then this becomes a much stickier question.
Also, it’s not really clear how congress can enact legislation to void what has been found to be a constitutional right.
Since Congress went ahead and enacted legislation that is (in the opinion of many people) contrary to the Constitution (i.e., ObamaCare), Congress ignoring the Constitution, period, is a moot point.
Or haven’t you been paying attention to current events?
True enough. The Constitution only means what 5 people want it to mean.
Actually, I was thinking that all of your above arguments are moot, given how you assume a rational Congress and a rational Federal bureaucracy, Skyler. Which is Mr. Bingley’s point.
Apples, oranges, mixed, etc.
(And, yesssss, Sisssss, we is all hating hatey haters, yesssss, we are!)
Also, it’s not really clear how congress can enact legislation to void what has been found to be a constitutional right.
Hate crime laws are one of the most glaring examples.