kiss your right to remain silent goodbye

[brad]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/134583315_miranda25.html

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/25/1038173694610.html

'But the Supreme Court is about to reconsider that widely known rule, in the case of a farmworker here who was shot five times after a brief encounter with the police. Legal experts say the case has the potential to reshape the law governing everyday encounters between police and the public. '

alan dershowitzes torture warrants arent looking so far fetched now, are they?

[HDPM]

I actually think the court will side with the shot guy and uphold the right to sue for violation of his civil rights. Last term the court rejected a challenge to Miranda that had a better rationale IMO. One thing the article doesn't mention is that Miranda violations only lead to suppression of the confession during the government's case in chief. If a defendant testifies, his confession can be used against him even after a Miranda violation. Cops sometimes will take a risk on a marginal case figuring, WTF? But if this case is decided for the city, I think cops will be more aggressive. At that point (and I think in this case) the issue of voluntariness of the confession comes in. No involuntary confessions are admissible, even if a suspect is given Miranda rights. The whole point of Miranda was to try to simplify the rules and litigation surrounding the admissibility of confessions. Miranda has not succeeeded in that regard, but a decision for the city will further muddy the waters. Issues surrounding voluntariness are difficult and not susceptible to bright-line rules. Criminal procedure is a mess anyway. We'll see I guess, but don't get worked up until the court actually issues its ruling. They might surprise you.

[MMMMMM]

I consider police overuse of force and brutality to be very disturbing topics. The legal issues are interesting and important.

Regarding Dershowitz's views on torture, the one article I read contained an interview with him which addressed this very issue. My recollection is that he did not advocate torture except in cases of obtaining critical information from terrorists--his argument seemed to be that since torture was going to be used against these terrorists ANYWAY (by transferring them to countries which would torture the info. out of them), that instead we should simply acknowledge this and get the subject out into the open, hopefully with more oversight.

Would you advocate or condone torture of certain people, say, for instance, certain al-Qaeda brass, in order to get key information which may be used to further disrupt their network or to avert massive attacks? It's not an easy question, but I don't think we can rule out that it may regrettably be necessary to some extent. The biggest danger in legalizing, however, may be that at some point in the future it might be expanded to forcing info. out of people who present lesser dangers, and for lesser crimes.

"Mr. Sulu, your agonizer [b]please[b]!"

[ripdog]

I don't think that torture is the way to go. Why lower yourself to that level? I don't think I'd have a problem with a truth serum, but it's shaky ground, even for a terrorist. I know that when I woke up from having my wisdom teeth pulled, I'd have sung like a canary. Whatever they pumped into my arm had me yacking about my hemmorhoid operation to a complete stranger. My wife was able to shut me up before I got into the gory details. She could have asked me anything and got the whole truth and nothing but the truth (and probably a few unrelated tidbits as well).

[brad]

the problem with chemical interrogation is that people tell the truth.

the virtue of torture is the fear it causes and the effect it has on enemies. imagine who nixon would have declared an enemy combatant. who would have moved against him if he could have people tortured.

[ripdog]

How about knocking them out and planting a tracking device under their skin? Let them go and let the satellites follow. The thought scares me, but I think it would be effective. It's not about intimidation for me, I just want the truth. It seems to me that the intelligence that could be gathered this way would be invaluable. We'd probably know where Osama is by now...

[brad]

funny you should say that was a link where policy makers (round table discussion or whatever) said maybe now they need to make microchips mandatory, maybe as national id.