<< Who Funds Terrorism? | Main | Attorneys General >>

Why did Eric Holder drop the ball on Miranda reform?

Marc Thiessen has this column in the WaPo with the above headline.  He notes that nearly three years ago, Mr. Holder declared that legislation altering the Miranda rule was "a new priority" and "big news."  Then nothing happened.

Why are we still operating under the same flawed legal framework for questioning of suspected terrorists that Holder pledged to fix three years ago? Why didn't the Obama administration follow through on Holder's promise to work with Congress to change the law? Why are we once again reading a suspected terrorist his Miranda rights before intelligence officials are done questioning him for national security purposes?
Does Congress have the authority to alter the Miranda rule?  Let's go back to the source:

It is impossible for us to foresee the potential alternatives for protecting the privilege which might be devised by Congress or the States in the exercise of their creative rule-making capacities.  Therefore we cannot say that the Constitution necessarily requires adherence to any particular solution for the inherent compulsions of the interrogation process as it is presently conducted.   Our decision in no way creates a constitutional straitjacket which will handicap sound efforts at reform, nor is it intended to have this effect.  We encourage Congress and the States to continue their laudable search for increasingly effective ways of protecting the rights of the individual while promoting efficient enforcement of our criminal laws.  However, unless we are shown other procedures which are at least as effective in apprising accused persons of their right of silence and in assuring a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following safeguards must be observed.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467 (1966).

Leave a comment

Monthly Archives