• About

Desperado's Outpost

Desperado's Outpost

Category Archives: Bill of Rights

McCain: Miranda Rights for U.S. Citizens a “Serious Mistake”

04 Tuesday May 2010

Posted by Craig in Bill of Rights, Dick Cheney, McCain, Politics, Republicans, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Faisal Shahzad, John McCain, Justice Department, Miranda rights, Peter King, Scott Roeder, Shahzad, Times Square bombing

John McCain has taken the baton from Dick Cheney as drum major in the crazy parade. McCain said today it would have been a “serious mistake” to read the suspect arrested in connection with the May 1 attempted Times Square bombing his Miranda rights.

“Obviously that would be a serious mistake…at least until we find out as much information we have,” McCain said during an appearance on “Imus in the Morning” when asked whether the suspect, 30-year-old Faisal Shahzad, a naturalized American citizen from Pakistan.

“Don’t give this guy his Miranda rights until we find out what it’s all about,” McCain added.”

Sen. McCain, I know the suspect doesn’t have a good old ‘Murrican name like John, or Cindy…or even Sarah, but he is a United States citizen and he is entitled to Constitutional rights.

Scott Lemieux at Lawyers, Guns, and Money asks this:

“Did John McCain strenuously object when Scott Roeder was read his Miranda rights?   If not, I wonder what criteria McCain is using to determine which American terrorists are entitled to their constitutional rights and which aren’t?”

But the Arizona Senator didn’t stop there. He’s already assessed the death penalty—despite not knowing the charges:

“There’s probably about 350 different charges he’s guilty off — attempted acts of terror against the united States, attempted murder,” said McCain, cautioning that he’s not privy to the charges with which Shahzad might be charged. “I’m sure there’s a significant number to warrant the death penalty.”

And not to be outdone, New York Rep. Peter King also questioned the Justice Department with this:

“Did they Mirandize him? I know he’s an American citizen but still,” King said.”

I’ll leave it to your imagination what Rep. King was thinking but left unsaid.

President Obama, Have You No Principles?

06 Saturday Mar 2010

Posted by Craig in Bill of Rights, Constitution, Justice Department, Obama, Politics, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Attorney General Eric Holder, civilian trials, constitutional rights, Elliot Richardson, Guantanamo Bay, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Nobel Prize speech, President Obama, Richard Nixon, rule of law, Saturday Night Massacre, Watergate

An open letter to President Obama and Attorney General Holder:

President Obama, have you no principles sir? Is there nothing for which you are willing to take an unwavering stand? Nothing which you are unwilling to sacrifice on the altar of political expediency? Nothing that will deter your quest for the Holy Grail of bi-partisanship? Nothing that is done without a moistened finger in the wind gauging current public opinion? If this story from the Washington Post about the decision not to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other 9/11 co-conspirators in civilian court is true, sadly the answers to all of the above questions appear to be no, nothing.

Do you remember your Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, sir? Let me refresh your memory (emphasis added):

“We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor — we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it’s easy, but when it is hard.”

This is one of those times, sir, one of those times when it is hard. This is one of those times when ones true character is tested. When the right thing to do and the popular thing to do are not one and the same, as history has shown us they seldom are.

Our constitutional rights and protections–in which our system of justice is anchored–and the rule of law are not, and should never be, subject to political compromise and deal-making. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments are not bargaining chips to be dealt away in the pursuit of Republican support for the closing of the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Furthermore, who is prosecuted and how they are prosecuted is not the discretion of the president of the United States, and most assuredly not that of his chief of staff. That duty falls to the man whom you nominated and whom the Senate confirmed as Attorney General, Eric Holder. Once upon a time we had a Justice Department independent from political influence. That line of demarcation was blurred, if not completely erased, by the previous administration. You were elected on the promise of restoring that independence, but apparently that was only campaign rhetoric.

Attorney General Holder, you have a duty here too, sir. By virtue of the position which you hold, you are chief law enforcement official in this country. If you believe strongly that KSM and the others should be tried according to Article III, and if you want to be seen as more than an attorney-on-retainer who does the bidding of the White House, you have the obligation to tell the president to either make this decision yours and your alone, based solely on legal grounds, or resign your office.

One of your predecessors in the office of Attorney General faced a similar situation. He was ordered by the president to do something which went against his principles and was in violation of his duties as AG. Rather than be seen as a puppet of that administration, he resigned on the spot, as did his deputy when given the same order. His name was Elliot Richardson and the president was Richard Nixon, in the constitutional crisis now known as the infamous “Saturday Night Massacre” of the Watergate era.

This is no less a constitutional matter, sir. Your obligation is no less than was Mr. Richardson’s.

The Constitutional Scholar Considers Indefinite Detention Law

16 Tuesday Feb 2010

Posted by Craig in Bill of Rights, Congress, Obama, Politics, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Guantanamo Bay, indefinite detention, Lindsey Graham, President Obama, White House

The Constitutional Scholar-In-Chief is ready to deal away Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections in exchange for Lindsey Graham’s vote to close Gitmo. Well, not actually close it, just re-locate it to Illinois (emphasis mine):

“The White House is considering endorsing a law that would allow the indefinite detention of some alleged terrorists without trial as part of efforts to break a logjam with Congress over President Barack Obama’s plans to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Monday.

“I’m sure that that’s what Sen. Graham thinks [but] I don’t have any reason to think the administration has changed its view on this…said Elisa Massimino of Human Rights First. “In both private conversations and in public, the attorney general and other people in the administration said they’re committed to driving the people detained without charge to zero. I think that would be inconsistent with a pledge to do that.”

…speaking at a news conference in Greenville, S.C. Monday, Graham said the White House now seems open to a new law to lay out the standards for open-ended imprisonment of those alleged to be members of or fighters for Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

…While Graham has long favored closing Guantanamo, he said Monday that his support for doing so is contingent on a new law to govern the detention of those the government wants to keep in custody outside the criminal justice system. He also said that, with such a statute in place, he could support Obama’s plan to convert a state prison in Illinois to a federal facility for former Guantanamo inmates.

…Some human rights advocates said Monday that they didn’t doubt Graham had discussed a detention statute with the White House, but were skeptical that officials there are actively considering it.

Right. It would be the height of inconsistency for this administration to backtrack on a pledge or a campaign promise. There’s nothing in the past year to make anyone think they might “change” their views or principles, as if they had any, in the face of the slightest amount of pressure, or in pursuit of another sellout compromise. Perish the thought.

Obama DOJ v. Fourth Amendment

13 Saturday Feb 2010

Posted by Craig in Bill of Rights, Constitution, Justice Department, Obama

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

cell phone records, Fourth Amendment, Justice Department, probable cause, Third Circuit

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss:

“The government argued on Friday that it should be allowed access to people’s cell-phone records to help track suspected criminals… A Justice Department attorney urged a federal appeals court to overturn lower court rulings denying it the right to seek information from communications companies about the call activity of specific numbers that authorities believe are associated with criminal activity.”

Believe? What happened to probable cause?

“Law enforcement agencies hope to obtain cell phone location data from cellular providers without first showing probable cause of a crime _ and without the customer’s knowledge. The data comes from cell phone towers, and in densely populated cities can pinpoint a person’s location to within a few hundred yards.

“An individual has no Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interest in business records, such as cell-site usage information, that are kept, maintained and used by a cell phone company,” [Justice Department lawyer Mark] Eckenwiler wrote in his brief.”

One of the judges on the Third Circuit panel hearing the case, Judge Dolores Sloviter, questioned Eckenwiler:

“You know there are governments in the world that would like to know where some of their people are or have been. Can the government assure us that it will never try to find out these things? Don’t we have to be concerned about this? Not this government right now, but a government?”

Yes, Judge Sloviter. This government. Right now.

Newer posts →

Recent Posts

  • Turn Out the Lights, the Revolution’s Over
  • Climbing Aboard the Hillary Train
  • You Say You Want a Revolution…
  • Proud to be a War Criminal
  • Drug Testing Welfare Applicants Struck Down in Florida

Archives

  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • April 2014
  • January 2014
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008

Blogroll

  • Bankster USA
  • Down With Tyranny
  • Firedoglake
  • Memeorandum
  • naked capitalism
  • Newshoggers
  • Obsidian Wings
  • Taylor Marsh
  • The Market Ticker
  • Tom Dispatch
  • Zero Hedge

Categories

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 7 other subscribers
  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Desperado's Outpost
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Desperado's Outpost
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar