Obama Caving to the Right On Miranda?

Once again I get the sense that Obama is caving to the Right on important, core issues. He did it on the issue of prosecuting terrorists in civilian Federal courts (something this nation has always done), and now Eric Holder has signaled that the Administration is willing to tinker with Miranda to give law enforcement more flexibility when dealing with terror suspects. There have been several other examples of this caving to Conservatives. I have honestly lost count.

Now the Congress is even flirting with the idea of stripping citizenship from people involved in terrorism, sometimes even before the disposition of a trial; and Speaker Pelosi thought that it might be a good idea. What in the World is going on? One question that immediately comes to mind for me is.... will this law be applied to the Right wing terrorists and their organizations? I'm talking about the McVeigh's, the Eric Rudolph's, the Jim Adkisson's, the Matthew Hale's, the James Von Brunn's, the Benjamin Nathaniel Smith's, and the James Kopp's. Certainly they are terrorists. Will they be banished from the Country? Will they be stripped of their rights as citizens?

Of course the Obama administration is flirting with the idea of changing Miranda (which he can't change in any significant way because it is protected by Supreme Court precedent), all to sort of pacify Conservatives who are complaining about the way he is handling terror suspects...some suggesting that Miranda should be banished altogether, even for terror suspects who are citizens.

The fact is, Miranda doesn't need any significant changes. The investigative process has been working fine, for the most part, under the current law. In fact, a public safety exemption already exists, when it comes to Miranda. The exemption has been around for 25 years and was established in the case of New York v. Quarles. In it, the Supreme Court concluded:

"concern for public safety must be paramount to adherence to the literal language of the prophylactic rules enunciated in Miranda."

Law enforcement authorities already have flexibility in how they use Miranda. Obama, a Constitutional law scholar, has to know this. I think (and hope) these moves are designed to try to blunt Republican talking points....which have been driving the debate on just about everything. I hope this is not a signal that Obama is willing to change basic civil liberties. As much as some may disagree, even terrorists have rights in this Country.

The irony in all of this is the fact that since 9/11, the Country has proclaimed that it would not allow terrorists to change the American way of life. But by tinkering with core principles of due process, miranda, etc, the Country is signaling that it is willing to change its most fundamental values. The terrorists win every time a nutty Republican tries to divide the Country on issues of fundamental rights.

Republican Crazies Are Complaining About The Handling of Times Square Terrorist

I expected that the crazies would start complaining about the Times Square event. It didn't take them long at all. The idiots claim that providing miranda to a citizen is somehow out of step with Federal law and our legal norms. Of course this has been done since Miranda V. Arizona almost half a century ago. But who cares about the facts? Who cares about facts when you are a Republican and you live in a fantasyland where you can make up your own reality - a reality that you can get gullible American voters to buy into?

John McCain, one of the main complainers, is a U.S. Senator and should know the laws in this Country. This man scares the Hell out of me. I always thought he was somewhat of a whackjob. It's amazing that he almost became President. In fact, McCain would probably be President right now if not for Bush's economic crisis. Even with the unpopularity of Bush and the Republican Party, McCain was headed for victory (according to polling) against Obama prior to the economic collapse in the Fall of 2008. We definitely dodged a bullet.

Joe Lieberman took the crazy a step further by suggesting that Shahzad should have his citizenship taken away in order to eliminate the need for miranda or a trial in the Federal Courts.

From Huffpost:

Lieberman argued that if an act of terrorism was coordinated with a group designated as a terrorist organization, then an American involved with such a group would lose citizenship and the constitutional protections that come with it.

Ummm, excuse me Mr. Lieberman, but does that also include the Right wing Christian Conservatives, the Tea Party radicals, and White Supremacist terror groups that have been embraced by the Republican Party, either tacitly or out in the open? What about the members of Congress who are associated with radical extremists on the right and who stoke fear? I wonder how that would work out.

Faisal Shahzad Arrested for Attempted Times Square Attack

Possible Co-conspirator(s) Arrested Overseas

Lessons Learned? Unfortunately There Probably Won't Be. It May Even Send The Country Into A Deeper State of Complacency.

Faisal Shahzad, a 30 year old originally from Pakistan was arrested in the nick of time at JFK airport overnight. He was apparently taken off an aircraft, just before departure. More here.

I knew it would be just a matter of time before we started to see this kind of activity here in the U.S. (Car bomb attempts, IED's, etc). More of these events are probably inevitable. Unfortunately, the level of security in the U.S. is woefully inadequate for dealing with these types of threats. It was luck that prevented a disaster in Times Square.

The U.S. still has gaping holes in its security. At the moment, there is no effective comprehensive or cohesive security strategy. The U.S. system relies too heavily on the intelligence community on one extreme, and too heavily on conventional military power on the other extreme. In the middle lies a big hole (domestic security). I have always been baffled by this notion that the intelligence community should be able to stop every event. Traditionally, this has never been the role of intelligence. It was never meant to be 100%, 90% or even 80% effective in thwarting terrorist attacks. Intelligence - which began as a military concept - is just a tool in a much larger toolbox. It was traditionally meant to be used in conjunction with other resources, not as the end all be all. But due to sensational media coverage since 9/11, Americans have come to believe and expect that intelligence could magically stop everything. Events that go undetected are often mistakenly labeled as "intelligence failures"....regardless of whether they are really failures or not. In an open society like the one we have in the U.S., the best intelligence system will only stop about 50% of incidents like the Times Square event (and that's pretty good).

That "middle" that I mentioned includes an immigration system that should be more effective at screening who enters the country, should have a more effective vetting system for entrants from certain parts of the globe, should have a more selective system for determining who receives residency status, citizenship, etc. The "middle" also refers to a better ability to track suspects, the need for a system to limit or prevent the purchase of ingredients that could be used for IED's (ammonium nitrate for example), and soft targets, including high value targets, that are wide open. Our passenger rail systems, metro train systems, bus systems, and passenger ships are all inadequately protected. Commercial rail, which transports tons of hazardous materials through heavily populated areas, also lacks adequate security measures.

The U.S. also needs to utilize biometric ID technology. State ID's and drivers licenses should be tamper proof. Federal law should require ID and information to be recorded whenever there is a private transaction involving the sale of automobiles,
hazardous store-bought ingredients that could have dual uses, etc. Certain items shouldn't be available for sale at all, unless the customer can demonstrate a legitimate use for the materials. Americans would be surprised at what kinds of materials are available over the counter.

The biggest part of the gaping hole in the "middle" is the private security sector. We have a private security industry in the U.S. that is a complete joke. While other countries such as India, Israel, and much of Europe have nationalized most aspects of their security (like the nationalization of Health Care for example), the U.S. maintains a weak private, for-profit, security system. In the years to come, Americans will unfortunately begin to see how bad this really is. It's one of those gaping holes that has always been there, but won't be fully understood until there is a catastrophe. I recall flying from Germany one year (way back in the 80's) to come home for some kind of family visit, and I remember how strong the security was. The screening agents, even back then, worked for the State (West Germany at the time). It took a tragedy like 9/11 to get the U.S. to nationalize its screening operations (although the private screeners were not directly responsible for 9/11... they were used as a convenient scapegoat). But there have been other cases where private screeners, which worked directly for the airlines, proved inadequate. It was nonsensical to put airlines in charge of their own security screening operations. The whole concept was flawed from the beginning.

Hopefully the U.S. will wake up and strengthen its security posture before these sorts of events become the new normal.