I had almost forgotten John Bolton existed.

Rhetoric like his could only be effective in a country whose culture does everything possible to achieve a perpetual state of pre-adolescent emotionality in its people.

Good thing no such place exists. If it did, people who live there might actually be agreeing with this guy.

What's that you say . . . ?

What about Miranda rights?

Could someone please tell me if this is a dealbreaker? Thanks.

If by "dealbreaker," you mean "could the case be thrown out because of the Miranda issue," I would say no, it's not a deal-breaker in and of itself.

Miranda, as I understand it, applies to statements/disclosures made to authorities by a suspect in their custody (though not necessarily under arrest), and any other evidence which is uncovered as a direct result of such statements, i.e. evidence uncovered by law enforcement officials which they wouldn't be able to uncover by any avenue other than the suspect's statements to authorities while in their custody.

If a court finds that a defendant's Miranda rights have been violated, that finding renders inadmissible any evidence which meets those specific criteria.

Any of the lawyers and/or law enforcement professionals who frequent this blog could give you a more detailed analysis than I've given you with regard to exceptions, state-by-state variations, "detention" vs. "arrest," etc., but that's my (admittedly rudimentary) layman's understanding of Miranda.

In the cases being brought to trial in Federal court, the U.S. Justice Department claims to have plenty of evidence other than —and not dependent upon— statements the defendants made to government officials while in custody.

It's difficult not to conclude that that's why these trials are going forward in the first place. The choice of venue/course of action (civilian criminal courts vs. military courts vs. military commissions vs. indefinite detention without trial) seems to be directly tied to the "slam-dunk" factor of the government's body of evidence against any given "suspected terrorist."

Instead of pursuing each case in the appropriate venue as dictated by the nature of the specific crime in question, the Obama administration appears to be choosing the venue on a case-by-case basis, based solely on how the given venue's evidentiary rules and the government's burden of proof will square up with the relative strength of the government's case. The objective, of course, is to maximize the chances of obtaining a guilty verdict.

Some people like to call that a "flexible strategy." Others might call it a "rigged game."

I guess that's more of an answer than you asked for. Sorry for venting.

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jul2009/gb20090715_210574.htm

and at sig

However, did you know that the current Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite was a prominent member of the Communist Party up to the time when Lithuania became independent?

So I can answer your sarcastic question: a very recent communist.

This could have something to do with the fact that it was illegal to be a member of any political party other than the Communist Party in the former Soviet Union. The existence of any other political party was expressly forbidden by their laws.

According to Businessweek, Ms. Grybauskaite was a professor of agricultural economics at "the Communist Party's in-house training college until 1990." Lithuania, the first breakaway republic, was a member state of the U.S.S.R. until March of 1990.

To you and me, nineteen years ago might seem "very recent," but maybe to others not so much. To you and me, a professor of agricultural economics in Lithuania might seem like "a prominent member of the Communist Party" in the Soviet Union, but maybe to others not so much.

I'll bet not too many people in the Politburo lost a whole lot of sleep in 1990 wondering what Dalia Grybauskaite was up to.

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jul2009/gb20090715_210574.htm.

I thought the sarcastic tone of this post was quite effective. It's understandable to react in such a way when one is faced with breathtaking absurdities.

A few of the governments of "Old Europe" —for which Henry Kissinger and his fellow travelers harbor such contempt— are now trying to do the job our own government refuses to do.

Those Spaniards, those Italians, those Lithuanians—those people must be crazy or something.

Unlike those unhinged primitive nations with no democratic traditions, we understand that government crimes should be disclosed, investigated and punished only when they occur during a time other than the Past.

FIREFLY: And now, members of the Cabinet (bangs gavel), we'll take up old business.

MINISTER: (stands up) I wish to discuss the tariff.

FIREFLY: Sit down. That's new business. (Pause.) No old business? Very well (bangs gavel), then we'll take up new business.

MINISTER: (stands up) Now, about that tariff—

FIREFLY: Too late! That's old business already. Sit down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsW-atvN9y0

You both seem to argue against eliminating the Federal Reserve. You argue for the continued existence of a central bank in some form or another. Okay.

The amendment in question doesn't seek to abolish the Federal Reserve, but merely to increase the House's auditing power over it. Aren't you overshooting the mark by a little bit?

My guess is, you're arguing against statements Rep. Paul has made in which he has expressed a desire to see the Fed abolished. Fine. That's not what's on the table at present.

Please leave the goalposts where they are.

Non American terrorists...

shouldn't be tried in American civil courts. Simple as that.

Damn the facts. Full speed ahead.