Fuck Obama

[Maddy]

Eric Holder: Miranda Rights Should Be Modified For Terrorism Suspects

Attorney General Eric Holder said for the first time today on ABC's "This Week" that the Obama administration is open to modifying Miranda protections to deal with the "threats that we now face."

"The [Miranda] system we have in place has proven to be effective," Holder told host Jake Tapper. "I think we also want to look and determine whether we have the necessary flexibility -- whether we have a system that deals with situations that agents now confront. ... We're now dealing with international terrorism. ... I think we have to give serious consideration to at least modifying that public-safety exception [to the Miranda protections]. And that's one of the things that I think we're going to be reaching out to Congress, to come up with a proposal that is both constitutional, but that is also relevant to our times and the threats that we now face."

America's system of Miranda rights developed out of a 1966 Supreme Court ruling which found that the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights of an alleged rapist and kidnapper, Ernesto Arturo Miranda, had been violated during his arrest and trial (Miranda was later retried and convicted).

The Court ruled that before being interrogated, people in custody must (among other things) "be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says will be used against that person in court," and that they "must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning."

Holder, who was making his first appearance on a Sunday morning news show, also declared that the Pakistani Taliban was behind the attempted bombing of Times Square by Faisal Shahzad last week.

"We've now developed evidence that shows that the Pakistani Taliban was behind the attack," Holder said. "We know that they helped facilitate it. We know that they probably helped finance it. And that he was working at their direction."

[Video @ link]

[Nordic]

So will that hold true for domestic terrorists? Or just the kind-of foreign ones.

What a bunch of assholes.

He might as well stand up there and say "the terrorists won. We're shredding the Constitution because of them."

[barracuda]

The "public-safety exception" to Miranda is essentially the Jack Bauerism of the ticking time bomb interrogation. I can't for the life of me see how it in anyway applies in the instance of the Times Square car bomber. Holder is wiggling under pressure from right-wingers who complained that Shahzad was mirandised at all. That doesn't make his statement any less fucked, though. Just the opposite.

[chump]

The "public-safety exception" to Miranda is essentially the Jack Bauerism of the ticking time bomb interrogation. I can't for the life of me see how it in anyway applies in the instance of the Times Square car bomber. Holder is wiggling under pressure from right-wingers who complained that Shahzad was mirandised at all. That doesn't make his statement any less fucked, though. Just the opposite.

I don't agree. TV likes to make it look that way and the wingers are a show. The ongoing strategy to tear up the Constutution seems to work for both parties.

[barracuda]

You don't agree about what? If McCain and the GOP hadn't raised the issue of Shahzad's Miranda warning, the question would never have surfaced in the first place, and Holder wouldn't have had any comment. This doesn't make the administration out to be good guys. From their present track record, I assume they'd be perfectly happy to justify strip searching and waterboarding your average American's grandmother in the filthy basement of a Syrian rendition camp if it meant they'd get more political power or a frothier cappucino from the deed.

[chump]

I don't agree that Holder is wiggling under pressure.

Of course, I believe that the Times Square Car Bomber was a purely a psyop to help people understand the new rules and the reason for them. Anybody could be a terrorist; and don't be surprised if you're not mirandized after being pulled over with no probable cause. The news has been conditioning the public with this pseudo debate for a while; and I think they've made it clear that the new rules are going into effect.

[crikkett]

I think they've made it clear that the new rules are going into effect.

It took me a while to guess at what you may mean by "the new rules"

ABC News
Holder called for clarifying the so-called public safety exception to the requirement that Miranda rights be read to people under arrest, especially in terrorism cases.

The public safety exemption gives law enforcement agencies permission to delay protocol involving reading a suspect his or her rights when the suspect is believed to be a significant threat to the general public.

"We're now dealing with international terrorism," Holder said, "and if we are going to have a system that is capable of dealing in a public safety context with this new threat, I think we have to give serious consideration to at least modifying that public safety exception."

Holder said the administration will be working with Congress to modify the exception in a way that "gives the necessary clarity, is flexible, but is also constitutional."

"As we've seen in prior investigations, the giving of Miranda warnings has not deterred people from talking to us, and Mr. Shahzad is in fact continuing to cooperate with us," Mr. Holder said, adding that the warning "allows us to make sure that statements they give to us are going to be admissible in court."

If someone is questioned before being read their Miranda rights, their testimony is not admissible in court, unless they are questioned under this public safety exception. I think it's good for us that Holder want clarification of a rule established in 1984. Because without that clarification the public safety exception will be abused.

[Simulist]

Eric Holder is no friend of civil liberties or of the U.S. Constitution.

If literal witch hunts were still in vogue, Eric Holder wouldn't be trying to stop them, he'd be trying to modify whatever legal protections the witches might once have had in such a way that "gives the necessary clarity, is flexible, but is also constitutional."

Terror suspects are the new witches.

[barracuda]

I think the Miranda issue might call for it's own thread, so I made one just in case...

[Jeff]

Obama -- Killing Us Softly With His Words ...

Tue, 05/11/2010 - 6:32am

Martin Luther King never in a million years would have made a joke such as the one Obama did at the recent WH Correspondents' Dinner. It was about drones. Martin Luther King had respect for humanity. As I see it, President Obama not only hasn't redirected America from the slippery slope of amorality, he apparently has brought his sled.

I want to talk about Obama in reference to personality vs. character, but I know many of my fellow progressives will bristle. My protest of the offensive joke may seem to them a petty over-reaction. I am one of those people who often discerns character or its lack thereof within the smaller life gestures, you know, those proverbial ones like how a person treats a waiter, shares (or not) an umbrella in the rain, untangles Christmas tree lights, etc.

Obama's drone joke I saw as his doing a little verbal two-step "on other people's graves" so to speak -- graves that his own decisions brought about. Heartless and shameless are the words that come to my mind.

I didn't watch Obama at the dinner. I read about the drones remark in an article entitled: "Did you Hear the Joke about the Predator Drone That Bombed" by Medea Benjamin and Nancy Moncias. An angry nausea invaded my stomach as I read. I speculated that the President’s joke probably did NOT bomb. Not enough, though it is good to see it has gotten a bit of indignant internet buzz. Part of the account:

"Jonas Brothers are here, they're out there somewhere," President Obama quipped as he looked out at the packed room. Then he furrowed his brow, pretending to send a stern message to the pop band. "Sasha and Malia are huge fans, but boys, don't get any ideas. Two words for you: predator drones. You'll never see it coming."

I suspect the urbane Obama deftly shot it out and the black humor was rewarded with a respectable amount of laughter. The audience-paralyzing-moment like the Springtime-for-Hitler number of the Producers movie that deserved to happen, didn’t. I suspect the “good” people that Edmund Burke once powerfully alluded to did nothing. Enabled and indulged the President’s horrifying minimization of the ongoing horror of war, the horrifying violence of this latest robotic weaponry, the drone.

...

The best we get from Obama right now in reference to these tragic wars and the violence which Chris Hedges describes as America's primary way of communicating is a lame and disgusting drones joke? Or his assurance that nuclear weapons will not be off the table re Iran? Or his assuring young military cadets that America will provide them with medical care upon any of them returning with, say, traumatic brain injuries. Good God!

...

http://www.correntewire.com/obama_killi ... _his_words

[crikkett]

Obama -- Killing Us Softly With His Words ...

Tue, 05/11/2010 - 6:32am

Martin Luther King never in a million years would have made a joke such as the one Obama did at the recent WH Correspondents' Dinner. It was about drones. Martin Luther King had respect for humanity. As I see it, President Obama not only hasn't redirected America from the slippery slope of amorality, he apparently has brought his sled.
...
Obama's drone joke I saw as his doing a little verbal two-step "on other people's graves" so to speak -- graves that his own decisions brought about. Heartless and shameless are the words that come to my mind.
...
"Jonas Brothers are here, they're out there somewhere," President Obama quipped as he looked out at the packed room. Then he furrowed his brow, pretending to send a stern message to the pop band. "Sasha and Malia are huge fans, but boys, don't get any ideas. Two words for you: predator drones. You'll never see it coming."

http://www.correntewire.com/obama_killi ... _his_words

Dr. King would not make a 'drone' joke because he was a pacifist. The only pacifist I know of in American politics is Dennis Kucinich.

The joke reminded me of my relationship with my own father. When I was not quite old enough to begin dating my father said I could start dating once he had a shotgun mounted inside the front door. The joke is common. The message is paternal insecurity and overprotection. It's a black thing.

Now, watch this drive...

[Simulist]

Obama -- Killing Us Softly With His Words ...

Tue, 05/11/2010 - 6:32am

Martin Luther King never in a million years would have made a joke such as the one Obama did at the recent WH Correspondents' Dinner. It was about drones. Martin Luther King had respect for humanity. As I see it, President Obama not only hasn't redirected America from the slippery slope of amorality, he apparently has brought his sled.
...
Obama's drone joke I saw as his doing a little verbal two-step "on other people's graves" so to speak -- graves that his own decisions brought about. Heartless and shameless are the words that come to my mind.
...
"Jonas Brothers are here, they're out there somewhere," President Obama quipped as he looked out at the packed room. Then he furrowed his brow, pretending to send a stern message to the pop band. "Sasha and Malia are huge fans, but boys, don't get any ideas. Two words for you: predator drones. You'll never see it coming."

http://www.correntewire.com/obama_killi ... _his_words

Dr. King would not make a 'drone' joke because he was a pacifist. The only pacifist I know of in American politics is Dennis Kucinich.

The joke reminded me of my relationship with my own father. When I was not quite old enough to begin dating my father said I could start dating once he had a shotgun mounted inside the front door. The joke is common. The message is paternal insecurity and overprotection. It's a black thing.

Now, watch this drive...

Has your father ever actually shot someone with a shotgun, Crikkett? If he had would that joke still be funny, or appropriate? I tend to doubt it.

Obama has actually been responsible for the deaths many human beings — using "predator drones." With that context in mind, Obama's choice to use "predator drones" in a joke — about anything — betrays a remarkably cavalier attitude about human life and death.

Roberta Flack could sing "Killing Me Softly" all she wants with little flack, but if someone who's committed multiple homicides were to sing it, then it becomes more than a little creepy — and entirely inappropriate.

[crikkett]

Obama -- Killing Us Softly With His Words ...

Tue, 05/11/2010 - 6:32am

Martin Luther King never in a million years would have made a joke such as the one Obama did at the recent WH Correspondents' Dinner. It was about drones. Martin Luther King had respect for humanity. As I see it, President Obama not only hasn't redirected America from the slippery slope of amorality, he apparently has brought his sled.
...
Obama's drone joke I saw as his doing a little verbal two-step "on other people's graves" so to speak -- graves that his own decisions brought about. Heartless and shameless are the words that come to my mind.
...
"Jonas Brothers are here, they're out there somewhere," President Obama quipped as he looked out at the packed room. Then he furrowed his brow, pretending to send a stern message to the pop band. "Sasha and Malia are huge fans, but boys, don't get any ideas. Two words for you: predator drones. You'll never see it coming."

http://www.correntewire.com/obama_killi ... _his_words

Dr. King would not make a 'drone' joke because he was a pacifist. The only pacifist I know of in American politics is Dennis Kucinich.

The joke reminded me of my relationship with my own father. When I was not quite old enough to begin dating my father said I could start dating once he had a shotgun mounted inside the front door. The joke is common. The message is paternal insecurity and overprotection. It's a black thing.

Now, watch this drive...

Has your father ever actually shot someone with a shotgun, Crikkett? If he had would that joke still be funny, or appropriate? I tend to doubt it.

Obama has actually been responsible for the deaths many human beings — using "predator drones." With that context in mind, Obama's choice to use "predator drones" in a joke — about anything — betrays a remarkably cavalier attitude about human life and death.

Roberta Flack could sing "Killing Me Softly" all she wants with little flack, but if someone who's committed multiple homicides were to sing it, then it becomes more than a little creepy — and entirely inappropriate.

I understand your sensitivity to the joke and it's valid.

[Pele'sDaughter]

From the Obama Administration's recently released National Drug Control Strategy (hat tip to NORML reader Glen):

Encourage States To Adopt Per Se Drug Impairment Laws [ONDCP]
State laws regarding impaired driving are varied, but most State codes do not contain a separate offense for driving under the influence of drugs (DUID). Therefore, few drivers are identified, prosecuted, or convicted for DUID. Law enforcement personnel usually cite individuals with the easier to prove driving while intoxicated (DWI) alcohol charges. Unclear laws provide vague signals both to drivers and to law enforcement, thereby minimizing the possible preventive benefit of DUID statutes. Fifteen states have passed laws clarifying that the presence of any illegal drug in a driver's body is per se evidence of impaired driving. ONDCP will work to expand the use of this standard to other states and explore other ways to increase the enforcement of existing DUID laws.


Here are the states President Obama would like the others to emulate:



Arizona: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 24 hours jail, up to 6 months upon conviction.

Delaware: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites.

Georgia: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 24 hours jail, up to 12 months upon conviction.

Illinois: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, up to 12 months upon conviction.

Indiana: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, up to 60 days upon conviction.

Michigan: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, up to 93 days upon conviction, vehicle immobilization for up to 180 days.

Nevada: 15 ng/ml for cannabis metabolites.

Ohio: 15 ng/ml for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 72 hours in jail, up to 6 months upon conviction, 6 month to 3 year license suspension.

Pennsylvania: DUID for cannabis metabolites, amount unclear.

South Dakota: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites for persons under the age of 21.

Utah: Zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites, mandatory 48 hours jail, up to 6 months upon conviction.


Nine of the fifteen states cited have "zero tolerance for cannabis metabolites". What this means is that if the inactive (read: non-impairing) THC metabolite (THC-COOH) is detected in the urine of a driver, that driver is impaired in the eyes of the law. (There are actually 17 states that have per se DUID laws, but Iowa, Minnesota, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Wisconsin exclude metabolites of cannabis.) Nevada and Ohio have 15 ng/ml levels which are very low; most workplace pre-employment screenings set the initial screening limit at 50 ng/ml. At the confirmation level of 15 ng/ml, the frequent cannabis user will be positive for perhaps as long as 15 weeks.

Of course, faithful NORML readers and most of the public know that cannabis metabolites can remain detectable in the urine for up to 100 days or longer for a regular cannabis consumer and up to fifteen days for the casual consumer, even after quitting cold turkey. Metabolites in urine don't tell you a driver is actually impaired, they tell you someone used cannabis, but not when. Even the US Department of Transportation admits that a positive test for drug metabolites is "solid proof of drug use within the last few days, it cannot be used by itself to prove behavioral impairment during a focal event."

Cannabis metabolites are funny things; they don't eliminate from the body in any predictable fashion. In fact, when you think about it, a metabolite is produced when the body metabolizes, or breaks down, a substance. The presence of metabolites for THC tells you the body has already broken down the THC! You could actually call a urine screening for metabolites a non-impairment test!

Now some of these laws do have per se standards for actual THC in the blood and you could argue that is a more realistic determinant of current impairment, but do you think most cash-strapped city, county, and state police are going to use an expensive, invasive blood test when a cheap urine screen is available and more likely to get them a conviction for DUID?

These per se DUID "zero tolerance" laws are nothing but discrimination against cannabis users, plain and simple. Metabolites for every other drug, legal and illegal, are eliminated from the body much more quickly:




PCP ("angel dust") = up to 2 days detection.

Cocaine (and "crack") = up to 2-3 days detection.

Opiates (heroin, oxycontin, etc.) = up to 1-2 days detection.

Amphetamines (meth, speed) = up to 1-3 days detection.

Barbiturates (Seconol, etc.) = up to 3 days detection.

Benzodiazepenes (Xanax, Valium, Clonopin, etc.) = up to 2-3 days detection.

Alcohol (Budweiser, Jim Beam, Reisling, etc.) = you can actually be considered unimpaired with current blood alcohol levels up to 0.08%, so long as you pass the roadside sobriety test!

Cannabis (marijuana, hash, pot) = up to 7-100 days detection.


So you could smoke some dust, snort some coke, shoot some smack, and pop some pills at the party Friday night, and possibly be considered an unimpaired driver by Monday (you could even have a couple of drinks before you got pulled over), but if you smoked a joint last month, in eleven states you could be going to jail and losing your license for endangering the public on the roadways.

These "zero tolerance" laws are criminalizing an entire population - cannabis users - for molecules in their bodies that have nothing to do with impairment or driving ability. Can you imagine the uproar if police harassed drivers based on the melanin content of their skin... whoops, never mind.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russ-belv ... 74483.html

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/pub ... cs2010.pdf

[crikkett]

From the Obama Administration's recently released National Drug Control Strategyhttp://www.whitehousedrugpolicy ... cs2010.pdf

The 'stratergy' is comical

Page 8:

We have many proven methods for reducing the demand for drugs.

So wrong!

Keeping drugs illegal reduces their availability and lessens willingness to use them.

Tell that to Portugal.

That is why this Administration firmly opposes the legalization of marijuana or any other illicit drug. Legalizing drugs would increase accessibility and encourage promotion and acceptance of use.

That's true, at least in the case of cannabis. People would save money on pharmaceuticals and/or spend their beer money on pot. Then we'd all live longer and vote differently. It would be a disaster.

Diagnostic, laboratory, clinical, and epidemiological studies clearly indicate that marijuana use is associated with dependence, respiratory and mental illness, poor motor performance, and cognitive impairment, among other negative effects, and legalization would only exacerbate these problems.

I understand why this report wouldn't mention one of the myriad positive effects of marijuana use. But to say that marijuana use is 'associated' with negative effects is weaseling around the fact that marijuana doesn't 'cause' any of them, except for short-term intoxication.

Intoxication is also found in people on any number of medicines, including antihistamines. I've never been more blissed out than when I was on Benadryl. It's not a justification for criminalizing a medicine.

Furthermore there is no proof that the conclusion is true. In fact, the case of Portugal's legalization of marijuana shows the conclusion to be false.

I'm just at the executive summary, there are 111 pages left to go.