Holder, Say It Isn’t So!

The Obama administration has done an excellent job of respecting the human rights of terrorism-related criminal defendants, until now.

The Obama administration said Sunday it would seek a law allowing investigators to interrogate terrorism suspects without informing them of their rights, as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. flatly asserted that the defendant in the Times Square bombing attempt was trained by the Taliban in Pakistan.

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.

He said interrogators needed greater flexibility to question terrorism suspects than is provided by existing exceptions.

The proposal to ask Congress to loosen the Miranda rule comes against the backdrop of criticism by Republicans who have argued that terrorism suspects — including United States citizens like Faisal Shahzad, the suspect in the Times Square case — should be imprisoned and interrogated as military detainees, rather than handled as ordinary criminal defendants.

For months, the administration has defended the criminal justice system as strong enough to handle terrorism cases. Mr. Holder acknowledged the abrupt shift of tone, characterizing the administration’s stance as a “new priority” and “big news” in an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“We’re now dealing with international terrorists,” he said, “and I think that we have to think about perhaps modifying the rules that interrogators have and somehow coming up with something that is flexible and is more consistent with the threat that we now face.”… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <NY Times>

I oppose this move.

First of all, it’s unnecessary.  Standard interrogation techniques, including the issuance of Miranda rights, have allowed prosecutors a 90% conviction rate in overall criminal cases, 100% in terrorism cases.  Furthermore, any terrorism subject bright enough to have carried out a plot with even a minimal chance of success, already know that they do not have to talk and will demand a lawyer.  The only people this will impact are those so vulnerable that they need protection against pressure from overzealous officials intent on securing confessions, regardless of accuracy.

Second, the opportunities for abuse of this exception will be huge.  You may rest assured that the slightest criticism of Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer, or Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, for example, will instantly make the critic a terrorism suspect.

Holder’s desire to make the rules consistent with the threat, ignore the higher priority to make the rules consistent with the Constitution.  The presence of extremist ideologues on the Court, willing to mangle the Constitution to meet their own rabid world view, is no excuse.  If we allow our fear to undermine our Constitutional heritage, there is no need to fight terrorists.  They will have already won.