Miranda Warning Revision| Obama Administration| Domestic Terrorism | The Atlanta Post
http://atlantapost.com/2011/03/28/miranda-warning-revision-may-be-bad-news-for-blacks/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+bossiprss+%28Bossip.com%29
Last week, news broke that the Obama administration created a new policy that allows investigators to waive Miranda warnings for domestic-terror suspects, even when there is not an “immediate threat,” thus giving the FBI more leeway to question terrorist suspects.
As pointed out by many commentators, this new approach to fighting terrorism is an about-face for the president, who once criticized the Bush presidency for its “ad hoc” approach to fighting terrorism. According to the Wall Street Journal, which obtained a copy of a FBI memo, the move is one of the Obama administration’s most significant revisions to rules governing the investigation of terror suspects in the U.S.
The Miranda warning, also known as Miranda rights, was created in 1966 as a result of the United States Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona. While the warning does not shield against self-incrimination, it does require law enforcement agencies in the U.S. to inform those suspected of criminal activity of their constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent or to have an attorney present, before being placed into police custody or undergoing custodial interrogation.
This isn’t the first time the Miranda warning has been altered. In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement could delay reading someone their Miranda rights if there is an immediate public safety concern involved. However, what’s so troubling about this recent revision is that it not only removes the immediate threat clause but clearly targets those who are considered a domestic terrorist – whatever that is.
The term “domestic terrorism” is partly defined by the U.S. Patriot Act as “activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State.” As such, the definition of domestic terrorism is broad enough to encompass the activities of several prominent activist campaigns and organizations. Over the years, reports have surfaced about how certain activist groups have been targets of secret Homeland Security investigations that have claimed to act under the guise of tracking “domestic terrorists.”
Even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) criticized the formation of the USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 as a result of the vagueness of the term, “domestic terrorist.” The ACLU expressed concerns that portions of the Patriot Act II could “create a federal crime that could link drug dealers to terrorism without proof of any connection to a Terrorist organization.” Basically, under the new designation, acts related to the manufacture, distribution or possession with intent to sell any amount of controlled substance could be directly or indirectly linked to aiding a terrorist organization.
Just three short years after the passage of the Patriot Act II, a document released by the U.S. Senate showed that in fiscal year 2008, 62 percent of sneak-and-peek searches—also known as delayed-notice warrants—that were conducted under the protection of the Patriot Act were in cases having to do with illegal drugs. By comparison, only 0.4 percent of the Patriot Act sneak-and-peek searches in fiscal year 2008 had to do with terrorism.
During that same period, it had been discovered that the FBI had abused other portions of the Patriot Act, including illegally acquiring phone records, IP addresses and portions of credit histories on thousands of Americans from 2003 to 2005 through the use of self-issued subpoenas based on fake emergencies.
While the revision of the Miranda warning will likely please conservatives, who over the last few years have criticized the Obama Administration for being too soft on terrorism, this revision also serves as a very dangerous slippery slope that could have unintended consequences down the line for American citizens, particularly black and brown people, who have been adversely effected by drug laws. Despite the threat of global terrorism, there is no real cause to give neither the executive branch nor law enforcement agencies carte blanche to roll back rights, including the Miranda warning, especially when those same agencies still have quite figured out who or what constitutes as a terrorist or imminent threat.
Charing Ball is the author of the blog People, Places & Things.
No comments:
Post a Comment