Serena's+Page

The Miranda Rights: Modification for Suspected Terrorists?

** Brief Overview and Summary ** The Miranda Rights are a set of rites that a person in police custody has. They are,

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense,” from the U.S. Constitution Online ([]).

These rights were established in the 1963 case of //Miranda v. Arizona//. Ernesto Miranda was arrested for raping a young girl, and confessed to the police before he was notified of his rites. The case went to the Supreme Court, and the Court thus established the Miranda Rights. An important part of the Miranda Rights is that if a detainee speaks before he or she is notified of their rites, that information CAN NOT be used by the police. However, after the attempted Times Square bombing, Attorney General Eric Holder proposed modifying these rites; President Obama also discussed modifying the rites. The proposed modification of the rites is to add one exception: authorities can interrogate terrorism suspects with out informing them of their rites. The Attorney General felt that authorities need more “flexibility to question terrorism suspects,” “Holder Backs a Miranda Limit For Terror Suspects,” ([]).

** Example One Mainstream Media Coverage **

//** The Chicago Tribune ** // =Top Obama aide says president is open to reviewing Miranda issue= WASHINGTON (AP) — [|President Barack Obama] is open to the idea of reviewing Miranda warnings for terrorist suspects, senior [|White House] adviser [|David Axelrod] said Monday.

Axelrod's comment came after Attorney General [|Eric Holder] said changes by Congress may be needed to allow law enforcement more time to question suspected terrorists before being told about their right to a lawyer and their right to remain silent during interrogation.

Holder's weekend statements got a mixed reception from [|Republicans] on Capitol Hill, with Sen. Lindsey Graham saying he was generally pleased with what he heard from the attorney general.

Graham said: "I've been advocating a long hard look at all of our laws regarding the threats we face."

Senate Republican leader [|Mitch McConnell] said Holder's statements on Miranda were overdue.

"I would remind Attorney General Holder that we have been very much at war with international terrorism for a long time," McConnell said on the Senate floor.

In an interview with [|CNN], Axelrod said: "I think the president is open to looking at that issue. ... Certainly we're willing to talk to Congress about that." Axelrod said any changes would be in the area of adjustments, not a wholesale revision.

A group of families of victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks expressed concern about any move toward modifying Miranda.

"We urge caution and we invoke reason: We have laws that work to protect our citizens and our security," said Donna Marsh O'Connor, spokeswoman for September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows. "We should not proceed down a road that may become a slippery slope towards the curtailment of fundamental due process rights."

Analysis -article shows three viewpoints: Executive branch, Congress, and American public -focus is not completely on Obama, but more on Axelrod/Holder -gives details, facts quotes -last line leads into soon to be editorials/opinion pieces

** Citizen Media ** // Daily Kos // **Can Congress Limit 5th Amendment Rights?**

by [|Joan McCarter]
Tue May 11, 2010 at 11:20:04 AM PDT BTD [|asks] that question in response to the [|latest blink on an issue] from the Obama administration to GOP bleating about terror suspects and the Constitution.

The Obama administration said Sunday it would seek a law allowing investigators to interrogate terrorism suspects without informing them of their rights [. . .] Mr. Holder proposed carving out a broad new exception to the Miranda rights established in a landmark 1966 Supreme Court ruling. It generally forbids prosecutors from using as evidence statements made before suspects have been warned that they have a right to remain silent and to consult a lawyer.

BTD proposes as a question to nominee Elana Kagan whether Congress can "restrict fundamental Constitutional rights by mere passage of a statute?" Whether or not Kagan is asked (or answers) the question, Orrin Kerr [|weighs in]:

As a legal matter, I find this idea puzzling. Neither //Miranda// nor the //Quarles// public safety exception to it are statutory. Rather, they are constitutional decisions that the Supreme Court has adopted. **And the Supreme Court has been pretty clear that //Miranda// doctrine is up to the Justices, not Congress:** As the Court put it in [|//Dickerson v. United States//, 530 U.S. 428 (2000)], “//Miranda// announced a constitutional rule that Congress may not supersede legislatively.” Now, perhaps the courts would broaden the public safety exception to //Miranda// in terrorism cases if the Administration made the case for it. Indeed, I think it’s quite likely that today’s Supreme Court would be willing to adopt as a matter of constitutional law pretty much what the Administration wants as a matter of policy without any legislation. There just needs to be a case, and DOJ needs to make the argument. But I don’t really see why the Justices would care about a statute in this area if one were passed. I don’t see it relevant as a formal legal matter. And just from the standpoint of predicting votes, I don’t think it would impact how any of the Justices would vote. [emphasis mine]

Holder, and for that matter President Obama, should know as well as anyone that Congress can't change //Miranda// doctrine, leading to the conclusion that this proposal is more political than policy-oriented. Up until this weekend, Holder and the administration had been effectively pushing back against the GOP and Lieberman fear-mongering over //Miranda// and the effectiveness of the administration's prosecution of terror cases. Once again the administration blinks in the face of the GOP's lies, much as it did on death panels, "illegals" getting insurance in the health insurance reform plan, and "tax-payer funded permanent bailouts." It undermines the administration's arguments and gives the Republicans even more incentive to make outrageous claims. But in this case, it really doesn't make sense.

-link to other current issues--nominee Elena Kagan -more explanatory of the law, takes time to explain true meaning of law,clarify -clear opinion, sparks/provides the heat, conflict and real meat of news -supporting evidence -informal -very critical
 * Analysis **

** Example Two ** ** Mainstream Media ** // Fox News: Glenn Beck vs. Bill O'Reilly //

media type="youtube" key="xl-9LmRJ5Kg" height="385" width="640"

-use of comedy show to introduce--FOX tactic to poking Beck, sparking a show -Jack Bauer metaphor for humor -talk very quickly, jump from topic to topic -debate -flashy -humorous -crude/rude, yelling
 * Analysis **-presentational, showy

** Citizen Media **

// The Huffington Post // =[|Cornyn: Obama Got 'Lucky' That Times Square Bomber Is Talking]= First Posted: 05- 4-10 05:40 PM | Updated: 05- 4-10 06:00 PM

Even though the suspected plotter in the Times Square car-bombing attempt is talking to authorities after being read his Miranda rights, Republicans in the Senate aren't giving the Obama White House any slack. In a steady stream of indictments, top-ranking officials in the GOP said it didn't matter that the Obama Department of Justice was getting information from Faisal Shahzad, the now-detained the Pakistani-born American. The fact that the administration chose to read Miranda rights to the suspect shows a national security policy steeped in naivety and potentially dangerous. "That is a stroke of good luck," Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) said of the news that Shahzad was cooperating even after getting his Miranda rights read to him. "What if he had not waived them and just quit talking, said 'I want my lawyer'?" "Maybe we got lucky and [Shahzad] said I will go ahead and talk to you anyway," said Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). "But you didn't know that when you read [him] the rights. So I stand by what I said -- it is better in these kinds of cases to get the intelligence first and then, if you decide you want to proceed with an Article 3 prosecution, then read the Miranda rights." The critiques are consistent with boarder GOP efforts to chastise the White House for putting devotion to legal principles above national security. But the fact remains that, on several fronts, that argument is inconsistent. For starters, none of the aforementioned senators spoke out against the Bush White House for reading Miranda rights to convicted shoe bomber, Richard Reid. And DOJ officials say that the administration questioned Shahzad before reading him his Miranda rights -- the exact procedure that Kyl advocated. In the end, if the department wants to build a case against the suspected Times Square bomber, its hands are largely tied when it comes to what it can or cannot do both during interrogation and detainment. The Department of Justice under John Ashcroft understood this too. Which is why they not only read Miranda rights to suspected terrorists but publicly touted the convictions they were able to secure in criminal court settings.

-points out inconsistency (Shoe bomber vs. Times Square bomber) -citizen media changes with the swing in political view -promotes a critical viewpoint of government that many are disappointed with (not only in terrorism, e.g. economy) -viewers love criticism -critical of government -more of watchdog role (criticism)
 * Analysis **

**Comparative Analysis ** **Mainstream Media**

Newspapers do a very good job of showing the facts and notifying the public of an important issue. The reporters craft their articles chronologically, and include quotes from both political parties. Furthermore, the newspapers try to show commentary from as many groups of people as possible. In this Chicago Tribune article, the Executive branch and Legislative branch are represented, as well as American citizens. Therefore, the reader learns of the general opinion of three large and important groups in America.

Television broadcasts are more concerned with putting on an interesting demonstration for its viewers. By frantic gestures, crude language and loud voice tones, networks like Fox can create dramatic shows that increase their viewer ship. Who doesn't enjoy a good argument on television? I have noticed that many networks show clips from late night shows e.g. Jon Stewart and David Letterman to introduce their topic or speaker. Using humorous clips sets the mood of the show to be funny and entertaining. Furthermore, this particular clip is a debate where both sides are very critical and dynamic. I have found that the debates and guest speakers are the more useful and interesting part of a network, instead of simply listening to someone spit out facts and details. Most of the time during these segments of the show, it is difficult for the viewer to keep track of what is being discussed, especially when Glenn Beck begins to talk about Jack Bauer and nipple clamps.

**Citizen Media**

Citizen media is concerned with expressing its personal opinions. This is where issues are more clearly explained, hidden facts are uncovered and truthful analysis of the news is. Bloggers are very critical of the government, and seem to have taken up a watchdog role themselves. The citizen media reporters love to criticize, and also love to link a current issue to another topic, and compare and relate everything. I have noticed that citizen media likes to see how one issue will affect another, as these topics mainly affect the American people.


 * Overall **

Overall, I think that citizen media does a better job in reporting the news. I feel that the most important part of news is the debate and discussion, which comes in citizen media. Of course, the real heat comes from debate and criticism on an issue. Citizen media reporters are also not as concerned about a public image, as networks and newspapers are. Therefore, bloggers can be open, honest and as critical as they want in their writing. I hope that citizen media continues to flourish, as Americans should speak about how they feel about their government. If the government is doing something that citizens are not happy about, citizens should feel comfortable and motivated to criticize what is governing them.