Change My Ass

Ok. Here I go again. Somehow I must be one of the few people in this country that just doesn’t get this “terrorist’s rights” issue. Today (or maybe yesterday) the Attorney General of the United States, the one appointed by President Change and confirmed by a overwhelmingly Democratic Senate, suggested that in cases of “suspected” terrorist activity, that it might be ok to limit “suspect’s” Miranda rights. We all know what Miranda rights are, but it is important to this rant of mine that we remember what they are supposed to accomplish.

In 1966, but a 5-4 vote, the United States Supreme Court ruled that statements made by criminal suspects to law enforcement personnel while in custody can only be used in evidence at any subsequent trial if it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that the suspect was advised that he had a right against self-incrimination and a right to consult with an attorney before making any statements to the police. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides that “(no person) shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”. The Sixth Amendment provides for the right to “Assistance of Counsel” in any criminal proceeding. Let’s be clear here. These are the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, not some Federal District Court ruling, and what good are rights if you don’t know you have them?

So our Attorney General, Mr. Eric H. Holder, now says that perhaps we should “modify” the “public safety exception” to allow for even less Constitutional protection for suspects when terrorist acts “may” be involved. The public-safety exception is a rather vague legal codicil to the requirement for Miranda warnings which allows law enforcement to delay the reading of such warnings in situations where there may be some immanent threat to public safety. In such cases, statements made to police prior to the reading of the Miranda warnings may still be admissible in court. The public-safety exception has been interpreted in various ways by different Federal Courts, but there is generally a clear burden on the State to demonstrate the existence of a threat adequately significant to warrant the waiver of established rights.

What exactly “modify” means in this context is unclear. Attorney General Holder has said that they would have to find a “Constitutional” method to provide greater flexibility for law enforcement in interrogating terror suspects, but there are no specifics being presented by the Obama Administration. Now I hate to be such a negative Nellie, but 18 month ago I was accusing Dick Cheney of treason over pretty much the same crap. I am certainly not going to be all warm and fuzzy about president Obama, from the mean streets of Chicago or not, screwing around with Constitutional protections for short-term political, or investigatory, convenience. I mean, where does this all go, back to waterboarding?

Here’s the reality. Freedom is a problem for law enforcement. Free people can come and go as they please and don’t have to answer any questions or let anybody take a look in their trunk. Constitutional rights are an obstacle to the swift arrest and prosecution of criminals. At least some majority of people who are arrested for stuff have actually broken some law, even if it not exactly the one they were arrested for. It would be way easier if the police could just walk in and take a look around whenever it suited their fancy and if they could keep you in the basement of Police Headquarters with no access to a lawyer while they interrogated you for hours on end. Way easier.

Please don’t anybody go getting all Jesse Helms on me; I’m not saying the police want to do this; I’m just making a common sense observation. Our Founding Fathers were suspicious of government and the use of government power to interfere in the lives of the citizens of a free nation. They deliberately made it difficult for the government to push you around. They even gave you the right to keep a gun to shoot at the forces of oppression if they ever returned to our shores, whether from without or within. As a free people we argue the merits of these concerns and the boundaries of these rights everyday.

In the darkness of the last days of the Weimar Republic, the Nazis fomented street violence and public chaos to justify repression of freedom as a necessity, and they politically put forward just the guy for the job. The history of every totalitarian state reads much the same. First there is anarchy and fear, and then Big Brother steps in with a plan to pacify the streets and identify the wrong-doers and trouble-makers. The tired, old “it can’t happen here” bullshit fails to take into consideration human nature and the history of societies under economic, military and political stress. We are only different from all other cultures that have preceded us in the fact that we have written down our principles clearly and specifically and have taken great pains to guard them as well as possible against all enemies, foreign and domestic, for almost 235 years now.

I understand that the threat of terrorism is real and that the consequences of successful terror attacks can be catastrophic. We have all seen what a handful of determined psychopaths can accomplish. I know that there are thousands of Americans still grieving today from events that might have been prevented if someone somewhere had just said “screw the Constitution, I’m going to find out what these suspects are up to.” The problem is that you can say that about most of the crime that occurs in the United States. There is not doubt that we would be far safer from the criminal element and random failures of character if we have a policeman on every corner and a camera in every bedroom, but that’s not how we roll. Taking rights away from people who may be American citizens, even if they have funny sounding names, based solely upon fear and suspicion, is the triumph of convenience over principle and the troubled sleep before the nightmare begins.