Should have been:
The specifics around procedures for detaining an enemy combatant in the U.S. we recently made clear by the president's top counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan in an interview discussing the attempted attack on the Northwest airline in December, 2009. Brennan confirmed that the FBI protocol for handling terror suspects is to (1) detain suspect, (2) bring in high-level interrogators to question the suspect for intelligence purposes and (3) read suspect Miranda rights.
This idea was formalized as "enemy combatant" logic by the Bush administration whereby those accused of terrorist activities or connections lose all rights to due process and the ability to challenge the accusation. The courts definitively rejected this proposal
http://career.myonlinecriminaljusticedegree.com/2010/02/what-is-fbi-due-process-for-suspected.asp
Others, knowing the technology that has been utilized in our countries to seek out terrorists, aren't so sure they want that type of monitoring in the USA. Yes, they are protecting our independence from the terrorists, but who is protecting our personal independence from the government?
The massive database of suspected individuals and inventory of eye scans has resulted in suspects being dealt with quickly and efficiently. With this technology, they can identify a suspected terrorist and shoot them immediately. There is no need for conversation, detainment, or to put the solider in harms way. If that sounds scary to you, that's because it is. Can you imagine this type of technology in the USA?
What started as a means of protection has evolved into an enterprise, where fear fuels the industry. It remains to be seen whether the fight against terrorism will give the government a legitimate reason to expand on domestic surveillance to the point where we all feel we are under a microscope.
http://career.myonlinecriminaljusticedegree.com/2009/11/how-far-can-homeland-security-take.asp
ME: We have more than enough FACTS that the system is problematic. In this day and age, and in this case, we have seen leaks to the media. The notion that we have not heard conclusively that the 8 hour interrogation was not taped is concerning.
DNA exonerations have proven that the problem is more widespread than many people think. In approximately 25% of the wrongful convictions overturned with DNA evidence, defendants made false confessions, admissions or statements to law enforcement officials.
The electronic recording of interrogations, from the reading of Miranda rights onward, is the single best reform available to stem the tide of false confessions.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/fix/False-Confessions.php
An exasperated trial judge recently told a police witness: If youve
got audio and videotape there, I think you ought to use it. I dont know
why I have to sit here and sort through the credibility of what was said
in these interviews when theres a perfect device available to resolve
that and eliminate any discussion about it.12
Detectives
with reservations became solid supporters after receiving training and
observing firsthand the benefits of an indisputable record.
Recordings protect our ability to do our jobs. They have proven
beneficial to law enforcement, and ease public concern about how our
officers treat people who are in police custody.
ME:Below notions about recording from local agencies. The Feral Bureau of Investagtion must certainly have protocols as to recording interogations.
Stockton, California Police Department We observed the
same kind of apprehension as when cameras were put in patrol cars.
Now the recordings are accepted and valued.
Broward County, Florida Sheriffs Office
observing and being involved in interrogations
I see how the use of video is much better than the old fashioned
method. . .
Many experienced officers said they would not consider
returning to non-recorded sessions,
Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriffs Office Every
detective should want to have a record of his questioning sessions.
Butte/Silver Bow, Montana Law Enforcement Department
We would never go back to unrecorded statements
Mesa, Arizona Police Department Electronic recording of
custodial investigations has raised our level of sophistication in
interview and interrogation techniques.
An experienced detective in Nevada said, Recording is the
greatest thing since canned beans, and another from Indiana
described recording custodial interrogations as the best law
enforcement tool in recent history.15
Law enforcement departments in the United Kingdom (England, Wales, Scotland
and Northern Ireland), Ireland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand record custodial
interviews in serious felony investigations. See the United Kingdoms POLICE AND
CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1984 (Tape Recording of Interviews) Orders 1991
(Northern Ireland has an equivalent 1999 Order); see also Irelands CRIMINAL
JUSTICE ACT, 1984 (Electronic Recording of Interviews) Regulations, 1997. Police
departments we contacted in the United Kingdom and Ireland echo the endorsements
we received from United States agencies emphatic support for recording as a
valuable law enforcement tool. Canadian and Australian authorities concur. See
ALAN GRANT, THE AUDIO-VISUAL TAPING OF POLICE INTERVIEWS WITH SUSPECTS
AND ACCUSED PERSONS BY HALTON REGIONAL POLICE FORCE ONTARIO, CANADA
(1987) (prepared for the Law Reform Commission of Canada); see also Wayne T.
Westling & Vicki Waye, Videotaping Police Interrogations: Lessons from Australia,
25 AM. J. CRIM. L. 493 (1998).
http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/Police_Experiences_Recording_Interrogations.pdf
