Eric Holder said on ABC’s This Week in reference to Miranda Rights, “Well, I think a number of possibilities, and those are the kinds of things that we’ll be discussing with Congress, to make sure that we are as effective as we can be, that agents are clear in what it is that they can do and interacting with people in this context, so we’re going to be working with Congress so that we come up with something that, as I said, gives the necessary clarity, is flexible, but is also constitutional, is also constitutional.”
This after he said, “We have used our law enforcement authorities that we have as they now exist very effectively. People have been given Miranda warnings. People have continued to talk, as was the case here, as was the case with Abdulmutallab in Detroit.”
If it is working effectively why do we need to change the law?
Yet our President seems to be agreeing with the Attorney General according to the New York Times, “In an interview on CNN, Mr. Axelrod said Mr. Obama was ‘open to looking at’ changing the Miranda rule, which generally bans prosecutors from using as evidence statements made by suspects in custody before they have been warned that they have a right to remain silent and to consult a lawyer. ‘There may be some things that have to be done,’ Mr. Axelrod said. ‘Certainly we’re willing to talk to Congress about that. But they would be in the area of adjustments, not a wholesale revision.'”
Everyone is against this move from a editorial in the Boston Globe, “Anyone arrested in the United States has a certain set of inalienable rights, and neither 9/11 nor any other awful act can change that.”
Jeff Stein also has raised that is just politics to placate the tea baggers and republicans.