Earl Warren
14th Chief Justice of the United States
In office October 2, 1953[1] – June 23, 1969

Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)

REASONING: (Warren, C.J.) Yes. When a person is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom, the following warnings must be given: he has the right to remain silent; that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law; that he has the right to have an attorney present; and if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him. …Conviction reversed.

http://www.4lawschool.com/criminal/miranda.htm

People do not understand that individuals were in no way protected by the Bill of Rights against enforcement of laws by state officials prior to the thirties. And there was no warning made by state officials until this case was handed down.

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) had already established that you are entitled to an attorney in any criminal prosecution that involved jail time.

And many cases established that the Due Process Clause of the 14^th Amendment to the Constitution incorporated the Bill of Rights, thereby making those rights applicable to everybody over the last hundred years.

Every U.S. jurisdiction has its own regulations regarding what, precisely, must be said to a person arrested or placed in a custodial situation. The typical warning states:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning

The U.K is not without a constitution regardless of what you have been told.

There are a series of documents, some going back 600 years that a sitting judge will refer to with regard to individual rights instead of the one document we refer to; although ours has been amended many times; of course quoting most recent cases citing those documents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Constitution

My Criminal Procedure book says the UK version (known as a "caution") goes like this: "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defense if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you say may be given in evidence." In addition, the suspect has a right to "independant legal advice" that is "free of charge." http://ask.metafilter.com/26898/Whats-the-Miranda-warning-called-in-countries-where-Miranda-never-happened-or-is-it-called-anything-at-all

Times change and warnings change. Our Department of Justice is rethinking these old Miranda Rights some 45 years later.

As demonstrated most recently after the attempted terrorist bombings on 12/25 and in Times Square last spring, law enforcement has the ability to question suspected terrorists without immediately providing Miranda warnings when the interrogation is reasonably prompted by immediate concern for the safety of the public or the agents. Because of the complexity of the threat posed by terrorist organizations and the nature of their attacks -- which can include multiple accomplices and interconnected plots -- we have formalized guidance that outlines the appropriate use of the well-established public safety exception to providing Miranda rights. To ensure that law enforcement is aware of the flexibility that the law gives them in these circumstances, the guidance has been distributed to relevant agencies.

We have a responsibility not only to the American people to do everything in our power to prevent attacks, but also to our law enforcement personnel to inform them of all the tools at their disposal to do their jobs. The terrorist threat against the United States continues to evolve in ways that present more complicated and dangerous challenges than we have faced in the past. We must continue to do everything in our power to prevent attacks, confront the terrorist threat head-on, and secure our country, and we will do so in a way that is consistent with the rule of law. h/tpmmuckraker

This is all from our new Attorney General, at least for the last two years. This is a threat that Miranda may not always apply to those charged with a crime. The 14^th Amendment guarantees are threatened.

A blogger from Arlington, Massachusetts has had his gun license temporarily suspended after he wrote a disturbing post regarding the Tucson shootings and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords titled, “1 Down 534 To Go.”

According to WBZ-TV, which reviewed the blog, the “1” refers to Giffords while the “534” refers to all members of Congress — both Democrat and Republican. The blog site was not operational at the time of this story’s publication.

“It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot indiscriminately. Target only politicians and their staff and leave regular citizens alone,” 39-year-old Travis Corcoran — who owns a comic book store — reportedly wrote on the blog.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/1-down-534-to-go-bloggers-gun-license-suspended-after-threatening-post/

And check out this companion piece. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/1-down-534-to-go-bloggers-gun-license-suspended-after-threatening-post/

This asshole blogger is an example that can be used by the right wing bastards who scream law and order for why our First Amendment protections are severely a threat to our nation.

But the right wingers, with Lieberman and McCain kissing each others lollipops, wish to redefine certain concepts.

On March 4, 2010, Sen. John McCain introduced S.3081, The “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010.”

Sen. McCain’s S.3081 would eliminate several Constitutional protections allowing Government to arbitrarily pick up Americans on mere suspicion—with no probable cause. Your political opinions and statements made against U.S. Government could be used by Authorities to deem you a “hostile” “Enemy Belligerent” to cause your arrest and indefinite detention. S.3081 is so broadly written innocent anti-war protesters and Tea Party Groups might be arrested and detained just for attending demonstrations.

.3081 if passed will frighten Americans from speaking out. S.3081 is so broadly written, it appears any “individual” who writes on the Internet or verbally express an opinion against or an entity of U.S. Government or its coalition partners might be detained on the basis he or she is an “unprivileged enemy belligerent”, “supporting hostilities against U.S. Government.” custody.

So I have come up with a revised Miranda Warning that may be more relevant today. 

You have the right to remain silent.

(Of course if you take advantage of these rights you may find yourself charged, convicted and sentenced for Obstruction of Justice.)

(Oh and if we believe that you have been involved in a conspiracy to terrorize, if you have ever written anything that could be taken as a terrorist threat, and you choose to remain silent you may find yourself in some Turkish prison where no one speaks English anyway and does not give a rats ass if you speak or not)

(Oh and this lawyer thing. Well when we tell you that if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for you, the term ‘afford’ may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. We might appoint one for you but we will make you sell your home, your car, your coin collection and anything else you might own at the time of the arrest. And if you attempt to hide your assets we shall prosecute you for fraud and perjury.)

(Oh and if you kind of look like a Muslim kind of guy or a mixed race kind of guy or….well fuck you, you deserve nothing and we will not even charge you. We will just keep you in a hole somewhere forever.)

The end.