• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The FBI: A Pioneer in Protecting Rights (1 Viewer)

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It turns out the FBI was way ahead in protecting suspects' rights.




The right to remain silent, brought to you by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI

  • By Richard Willing

You have the right to remain silent. And the FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover to thank for it.
Fifty years ago this coming Monday — June 13, 1966 — the Supreme Court held in Miranda v. Arizona that the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, which establishes the right against self-incrimination, also requires police to advise custodial interrogation subjects that they need not answer questions or make statements. A brief filed by the American Civil Liberties Union is rightly credited with supplying the 5-to-4 majority with much of its intellectual ammunition. But Chief Justice Earl Warren’s majority opinion leaned just as heavily on a submission from the FBI, then as now not the most likely of ACLU allies. Virtually alone among law enforcement authorities, Hoover and the FBI argued that warning suspects of their rights was constitutionally sound and advisable and, in fact, had long been bureau practice. The court was impressed; Warren reprinted the FBI’s entire four-page note in his 35-page opinion. . . .
 
It turns out the FBI was way ahead in protecting suspects' rights.




The right to remain silent, brought to you by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI

  • By Richard Willing

You have the right to remain silent. And the FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover to thank for it.
Fifty years ago this coming Monday — June 13, 1966 — the Supreme Court held in Miranda v. Arizona that the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, which establishes the right against self-incrimination, also requires police to advise custodial interrogation subjects that they need not answer questions or make statements. A brief filed by the American Civil Liberties Union is rightly credited with supplying the 5-to-4 majority with much of its intellectual ammunition. But Chief Justice Earl Warren’s majority opinion leaned just as heavily on a submission from the FBI, then as now not the most likely of ACLU allies. Virtually alone among law enforcement authorities, Hoover and the FBI argued that warning suspects of their rights was constitutionally sound and advisable and, in fact, had long been bureau practice. The court was impressed; Warren reprinted the FBI’s entire four-page note in his 35-page opinion. . . .
Interesting article, and I wonder if this also squares with my general perception of the FBI only bringing charges when the have a more securely presented case, than sometimes is the situation with local law enforcement.

But my main comment here is: I miss the Warren Court - and this case exemplifies why. I can't imagine the loss of liberties inflicted by the War on Drugs, particularly from the Reagan's forward, occurring under that Court. They seemed to me to be the guardians of 'individual freedom', particularly as it applies to government intrusion.
 
Interesting article, and I wonder if this also squares with my general perception of the FBI only bringing charges when the have a more securely presented case, than sometimes is the situation with local law enforcement.

But my main comment here is: I miss the Warren Court - and this case exemplifies why. I can't imagine the loss of liberties inflicted by the War on Drugs, particularly from the Reagan's forward, occurring under that Court. They seemed to me to be the guardians of 'individual freedom', particularly as it applies to government intrusion.

What exactly do you think the court could do?
 
The Court would not allow abrogating our rights & freedoms.

How so, you really think they would overturn the government's ability to make treaties?
 
Maybe you should do some research and see where the federal government's power to make the drug laws come from
Maybe you should make your argument.
 
Interesting article, and I wonder if this also squares with my general perception of the FBI only bringing charges when the have a more securely presented case, than sometimes is the situation with local law enforcement.

But my main comment here is: I miss the Warren Court - and this case exemplifies why. I can't imagine the loss of liberties inflicted by the War on Drugs, particularly from the Reagan's forward, occurring under that Court. They seemed to me to be the guardians of 'individual freedom', particularly as it applies to government intrusion.

Hmmm. I'm not sure you've got much of a case there.
 
Maybe you should make your argument.

I did, you just don't have the knowledge to understand it. I don't know why you want to discuss drug policy when you don't even understand the basics of it. Our drugs laws come from the single convention on narcotic drug treaty (1961) and they are enforced at the federal level from the precedent set in Ware v Hylton (1796)
 
Hmmm. I'm not sure you've got much of a case there.

I did, you just don't have the knowledge to understand it. I don't know why you want to discuss drug policy when you don't even understand the basics of it. Our drugs laws come from the single convention on narcotic drug treaty (1961) and they are enforced at the federal level from the precedent set in Ware v Hylton (1796)
We're not talking "drug rights" here, but as I stated in my first post, "the abrogating of our rights & freedoms" due to the War on Drugs".

Things like:

- Property confiscation
- Capital confiscation
- Search and Seizure
- Financial monitoring

There's a ton of loss involved with the so-called War on Drugs besides the right to do the drugs themselves.

These are the things I'm speaking of.

It's a sad day in America when I can have my cash taken from me without a judges order, based solely on the fact that I have it in my possession during a traffic stop.

If you guys want to argue for this stuff, or insist SCOTUS has no say in it, be my guest! :doh

[but I must inform you I'm leaving shortly for several hours]
 
We're not talking "drug rights" here, but as I stated in my first post, "the abrogating of our rights & freedoms" due to the War on Drugs".

Things like:

- Property confiscation
- Capital confiscation
- Search and Seizure
- Financial monitoring

There's a ton of loss involved with the so-called War on Drugs besides the right to do the drugs themselves.

These are the things I'm speaking of.

It's a sad day in America when I can have my cash taken from me without a judges order, based solely on the fact that I have it in my possession during a traffic stop.

If you guys want to argue for this stuff, or insist SCOTUS has no say in it, be my guest! :doh

[but I must inform you I'm leaving shortly for several hours]

IIRC, a civil forfeiture case is on its way to SCOTUS now. I don't defend the practice, but I don't think SCOTUS fostered it.
 
We're not talking "drug rights" here, but as I stated in my first post, "the abrogating of our rights & freedoms" due to the War on Drugs".

Things like:

- Property confiscation
- Capital confiscation
- Search and Seizure
- Financial monitoring

There's a ton of loss involved with the so-called War on Drugs besides the right to do the drugs themselves.

These are the things I'm speaking of.

It's a sad day in America when I can have my cash taken from me without a judges order, based solely on the fact that I have it in my possession during a traffic stop.

If you guys want to argue for this stuff, or insist SCOTUS has no say in it, be my guest! :doh

You are talking about peripheral things that are only tangentially related to the war on drugs, each of those things have certainly been more affected by 9/11 than "the war on drugs"
 
IIRC, a civil forfeiture case is on its way to SCOTUS now. I don't defend the practice, but I don't think SCOTUS fostered it.
'Fostered' is a word of nuances, but the SC either affirmed or overturned the legislation that got us here.

They are/were directly involved.

Under the Warren Court there was an expansion of individual rights & protections, since then there's been quite a recession of them, including a plethora involving the War on Drugs and search & seizure in particular.

Thank God the trend was reversed a bit with the rulings on cell-phone searches and the citizen's right to record police in public.

So perhaps I just made a case against myself with the mention of the last two cases, but I do celebrate them and would like to see the trend continue.
 
'Fostered' is a word of nuances, but the SC either affirmed or overturned the legislation that got us here.

They are/were directly involved.

Under the Warren Court there was an expansion of individual rights & protections, since then there's been quite a recession of them, including a plethora involving the War on Drugs and search & seizure in particular.

Thank God the trend was reversed a bit with the rulings on cell-phone searches and the citizen's right to record police in public.

So perhaps I just made a case against myself with the mention of the last two cases, but I do celebrate them and would like to see the trend continue.

I'm not enough of a legal scholar to dispute, but I haven't felt my rights diminished.
 
You are talking about peripheral things that are only tangentially related to the war on drugs, each of those things have certainly been more affected by 9/11 than "the war on drugs"
No - the monitoring and confiscation of cash, the confiscation of your vehicle and real property, the requirement to submit your bodily fluid at will even in private employment or other activity, along with unauthorized access to your vehicle by the notion of a frisky dog, all have been the direct fall-out of the WoDs. It is the WoD that was either the rational to instate or greatly expand these intrusions.

But you are right: The WoDs was an abomination to personal freedoms, and the Patriotic Act took something that looked like it couldn't get worse, and actually got it far worse! :shock:
 
I'm not enough of a legal scholar to dispute, but I haven't felt my rights diminished.
Fair enough.

We all have our individual tolerances to personal freedoms & intrusion.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom