The esteemed Mr. Eric Holder, the US Attorney General for the Obama administration, has demonstrated his radical left-wing bona fide on several occasions now. If there was any doubt as to his left leaning political ideology, one need only consider Mr. Holder's decision to try the 9/11 masterminds in civilian courts.... in New York City! There is no question the guy is a radical.... I'm referring to the radical Sheik Mohammed, not the radical schmuck Holder. He is a foreign national and was captured in Afcrapistan or some other turd world rat hole and there is no question as to whether or not he is an enemy combatant or should be so designated. He should be tried in a military tribunal and then promptly executed using the most painful process conceivable..... Burned alive at the stake comes to mind. Holder, on the other hand, should just be slapped around a bit and made to crawl on his hands and knees through broken glass to beg forgiveness from the survivors of the 3000 9/11 victims for even suggesting the 9/11 terrorists should be given any rights at all. But, that's just my opinion....
That is why it is very interesting now to see Mr. Holder whining about having to abide by the Miranda Rule, that liberal landmark of judicial activism that said cops are all brutal thugs and that criminals have to be advised of their right not to talk to them. He wants to have the rule changed now, so he can do his job a little bit easier. How convenient. http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/us/politics/10holder.html
The Miranda Rule stems from the infamous 1966 Supreme Court decision intended to stop cops from using all those terrible interrogation techniques designed to get completely innocent people to confess to crimes they didn't commit. Yep, the black robed soothsayers had watched a few too many B movies that showed the cops "working over" suspects in the interrogation room. Those brilliant legal minds arrived at the mysterious conclusion that the Constitution said, (somewhere), that cops must advise suspects of their rights, and among other things, to have a lawyer, who then invariably tells the suspect to shut up. Case closed, or at least the investigation usually grinds to a screeching halt.
The Robes had spoken. Or, you could say, the Robespierrers had spoken. In any case, as a result of the Miranda decision, cops always have to "read the rights". We've all seen it a kazillion times on TV and people think it is written in the Constitution somewhere that it has to be done. Hint: check it out. It ain't there. As usual, the Robes and legal scholars just say it's there and they'll argue until the cows come home that it is in there, but it ain't.
Therefore, since we are a "nation of laws, not men"....(unless those men are wearing black robes), we are stuck with the iconic dialog, "You have the right to remain silent....". It may as well be part of the damn 10 Commandments. The law enforcement community has learned to live with it and nobody even questions it now.... except Mr. Holder, apparently. Cops have been shackled with this ridiculous impediment to investigative crime fighting for decades. There is no telling how many scumbags have walked, confessions and even slight incriminating statements thrown out because of the exclusionary rule and little technicalities regarding that liberal Miranda decision.
In their overzealous activism to protect criminals from "evil cops" just trying to do their jobs, the public became the ultimate victim of the black robed administrators of "social justice". Cops are bad. Criminals are just victims of a racist system....blah blah blah. We know the liberal mantra. It's better for a thousand murderers to walk free, than to have one innocent person coerced into confessing to a crime he didn't commit by some mean cop saying something like, " Ah come on Joe. Get it off your chest. You'll feel better." Yeah, that was considered a coercive psychological technique.
So, fast forward to 2010 and we have poor ol' liberal Eric Holder who done got himself smack dab between a Barrack and a hard place. Here we have a radical "social justice" liberal Attorney General, to put it mildly, faced with having to deal with this dang ol' Miranda thing for which, of course, he was a strong advocate up until just recently. He wants sooo bad to be a good little smarmy liberal and prosecute all these terrorists in civilian court, but at the same time his entire ideological makeup is screaming to be an advocate for their constitutional rights. How does he sleep at night? Poor thing must be beside himself.
He's being pounded for failing to do his job, but he can't because he wants to treat terrorism like some 7-11 stop-n-rob crime because after all, "we were asking for it". But, to do that, he knows he must abide by that pesky Miranda rule that he loves so much. Oh my. What is a good liberal to do?
It wouldn't be a problem if he'd just hand them over to the CIA, interrogate the hell out of them and then, if they can still breath, give them to the Military to hold until they get around to having some kind of trial..... maybe....someday. All perfectly legal. Even the Robes say that's just hunky dory with them as long as they don't water board them or "torture" them with some other method akin to a frat house hazing ritual.
Frankly, I hope he is successful in getting an exception for the Miranda rule for terrorists suspects. Perhaps it would then open the door for a complete reversal of Miranda which never should have been foisted upon law enforcement in the first place. If it's ok to interrogate a terrorist suspect without his ACLU lawyer present to shut him up, then why not a guy like O.J. Simpson?
No comments:
Post a Comment