Attorney General Holder Attacks 5th Amendment
Read Time:2 Minute, 46 Second
So why did I think of Miles Davis when I heard what Attorney General, Eric Holder, had to say on ABC’s “This Week?”
Holder said the administration needs to consider at least modifying the public safety exception for reading a suspect his rights to ensure law enforcement can act with flexibility and within constitutional bounds.
It appears an attack on the reading of Miranda Rights to suspects of a serious crime is underway. Ignore the 5th Amendment just a little bit, because this guy is a terror suspect and we want to question him a little differently. Lets not be better people, lets dehumanize ourselves, just like the people who hate us.
Miles Davis experienced freedoms and half freedoms, sadly the half freedoms were in his own country. I always thought Miles Davis was, for a short time, the coolest person on the planet. His look, his stature and above all his music. The freedom in his music, did not reflect the freedom in his life, a trip to Europe set his music free.
Paris is many things: a city of romance; a hotbed of culture, and the inspiration for countless artists, musicians and poets. It’s also a place that, for more than 40 years, had a special relationship with the jazz trumpeter Miles Davis. Paris was the first foreign city Davis ever visited, and it was one of the last major cities he played in, shortly before his death on 28 September 1991.
In 1949, a 22-year-old Davis travelled to Paris, as part of a quintet. The band was booked to play at the first Paris international jazz festival since the war ended. In the US, Davis was already a rising star in the jazz world, but while he was highly respected among his peers, in mainstream America he was seen as a second-class citizen.
It was a time when segregation and discrimination were rife, and most US states enforced anti-miscegenation laws. But France was a different story, and nothing could have prepared Davis for the reception he would receive in Paris. “This was my first trip out of the country,” recalled Davis in his autobiography. “It changed the way I looked at things forever … I loved being in Paris and loved the way I was treated. Paris was where I understood that all white people were not the same; that some weren’t prejudiced.”
“Miles often talked about Paris,” says the Australian film director Rolf de Heer, who worked with Davis in Paris in 1990. “The French were in love with Miles and treated him like a god. He liked that because it was a form of respect he didn’t get in his own country.” French jazz pianist René Urtreger adds: “Miles was proud and touched by the fact that in France, jazz was considered to be very important music.”
Parisian cafe society in 1949, was full of love and humanity for all comers, after experiencing the beastly side of humanity since early 1940, they decided which way was best. Miles Davis found his musical freedom in Paris and he took that freedom everywhere with him from then on. The thought of a “Jim Crow” style attack on the 5th Amendment made me think Miles Davis wouldn’t like it.
MILES DAVIS
OH WHY OH WHY DID MILES LOVE PARIS
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0
We hate them over there so we don’t have to hate them over here.
“Deserting Barack Obama serves the enemy in 2012 so unless one is ready to vote for the alternative, or, even worse not vote at all, I think it important to remain loyal.”
How about being just as loyal to him as he’s been to you? The apple hasn’t fallen far from the BUSH.
It is very worrisome to think that even naturalized citizens can be held “indefinitely” for “questioning” (which will entail what- waterboarding perhaps?). If I had a suspicion that the law would treat any suspected domestic born terrorist the same, another McVeigh type, for instance, as they would a darker skinned fellow with a foreign-sounding name then I might be less likely to disapprove.
Confessions under torture are meaningless. We should have learned that from the Salem witch trials- but as a country we are notorious for ignoring history.
Obama continues to tread dangerously in ideologically unsafe waters. I am on the verge of adopting Woody’s “Shamwow” moniker for him.
It is not entirely true that confessions under torture are meaningless. If someone has information they will provide that information under torture. Torture becomes useless once the bad guy has told you all there is to tell. Past that point they will make things up to just to stop the pain. Now let’s not jump to the conclusion that I support such practices because I do not. I am sharing knowledge that is all, and no I have never tortured anyone, at least not knowingly.
As to the president I don’t see that he is advocating torture or in any way suggesting that we should be curbing constitutional rights. Eric Holder is only looking into the possibilities of modifying certain investigative practices. That does not make him a torture advocate or a practitioner of the Dick Cheney rule, which is “let’s give the guilty bastard a fair trial and then hang him.”
Finally, I am not going to “Shamwow” the president until I am ready to vote for Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin and I don’t see that happening. Deserting Barack Obama serves the enemy in 2012 so unless one is ready to vote for the alternative, or, even worse not vote at all, I think it important to remain loyal. It is not possible to agree with everything the man does. Then again, if he signs onto the International Whaling Commission’s recommendation that this barbaric practice be resumed I might be forced to Shamwow him. Everything else is just pure politics. When it comes to the killing of whales however……..
No madmike, it isn’t “Holder pandering to the right” it’s, Holder pushing Obama’s agenda!
Under the defense authorization act, Obama is creating a paralel justice system for what was once called “suspected terrorists” and renamed “unprivileged enemy belligerents”.
If that Orwellian crap wasn’t enough, under the act, the govt can “detain” people they suspect “might” commit an act in the future…for years if need be without charges or, trial.
No sir, Holder isn’t pandering, he’s just doing what he’s told.
THAT crap is something I’d expect comming from the Bush administration…but, it’s not this time.
As for the Times square bomber, IMO he is an American citizen and has (or, should have) all the legal rights and protections as every other citizen.
If the government starts making exceptions to the rule, we ALL lose!
Mike here is where you and I disagree about who knows there rights, Yes people here it all the time on television but they also think it takes an hour to solve even the most complex of crimes. It is a fact though that I still run into people who have less than an eighth grade education and do not understand the concept. I am not sure when you got into law enforcement but I started in 1968 right after the Miranda and the Gault decisions. Police were screaming, wailing, gnashing there teeth about not being able to solve crimes because no one would talk to them. That hasn’t been the case except for really sharp crooks. Most all of them, even today, if approached the right way will tell them everything they know, and even some things they don’t know. On the other hand, even with the warnings there have been a few rogue cops such those in Chicago who beat false confessions out some folks. Before you jump my case on this check the 2001 pardons that Governor Ryan had to hand out to 17 men on death row in the State of Illinois who were proven factually innocent by DNA. 13 of them had been forced to give false confessions. Holder is wrong on this, the Repubs are wrong on this. Why can’t anyone understand that if they start tinkering with the Bill of Rights it starts us on that slippery slope to where you lose a little liberty here and there and soon there is no more to lose. This whole damn country is essentially giving up to the terrorists. Soon we will be living in an environment as restrictive as theirs.
Bill: I got into law enforcement in 1966. I joined the army in 1968. I spent three years there and went back to the cops. I retired in 2002. Try to remember this time 🙂 🙂
Now, that being said, I don’t have a clue as to what you are talking about my friend or why you are once again attacking the police. I know you seize every opportunity to bash the cops but what has that to do with my comment? I agree with Miranda and think it should be read. Did you hear me? I think Miranda should be read to all the dirt-bags. Yes! You read it right. R-e-a-d M-i-r-a-n-d-a!
Peace be with you 🙂
In reality much is made of Miranda v. Arizona. Quite frankly you would have to live under a rock if you don’t know you have a right to counsel before questioning. It is all over the TV, over used and over stated. In the real world Miranda rights only need to be read to someone who is:
a) In custody or can reasonably articulate why they felt their freedom of movement was in any way restricted.
b) Before questioning.
Both of these elements must be present before Miranda needs to be employed. The cop shows have the police reading suspects their rights within seconds of first contact. Generally that is not necessary. I have seen cops advise motorists of their rights before writing tickets. That is just silly. Quite frankly the whole thing has been blown way out of proportion. More than 75% of those I Mirandized ended up talking without a lawyer and more often than not confessing. There is no need to water it down or modify it in any way. It is a routine procedure when the elements I have listed exist.
Finally I don’t know that Eric Holder has the authority to modify or in any way limit the use of Miranda warnings. The court ruled on this in 1966 and has refused to hear challenges. Holder is pandering to the Right on this one, and most of those idiots wouldn’t know Arizona’s Miranda from Carmen Miranda.
Great post by the way 🙂
Perhaps Holder may be pandering to the right, but he is asking Congress to do something about questioning people of interest, in certain cases, for indefinite periods. The Republicans and Blue Dogs would certainly go for that.
Yes they would. It would take an act of congress I think but how do they get around the 1966 decision? Where the heck is that lawyer when we need him 🙂