Home
camryl9's Library tagged → View Popular, Search in Google
Under Miranda, any statement obtained by government officials during custodial interrogation is inadmissible in evidence in the prosecution’s case in chief unless first the defendant was informed of his constitutional rights to silence and the assistance of counsel and had made a knowing waiver of those rights before making the incriminating statement. ...
The decision reversing the grant of habeas relief was predictable in light of the Court’s long insistence on looking at all the facts surrounding the procurement of an incriminating statement to determine whether Miranda custody existed. ... The decision on custody, while unnecessary to decide this case, may be more significant. While recognizing that people in prison could [be] “in custody” for Miranda purposes, the decision suggests that persons who are incarcerated will rarely be deemed to be “in custody” because an inmate is familiar with the environment and is used to routine prison constraints. ... the standard for finding custody outside the jail or prison may be changing as well in the future.
Madison County deputies arrested two protesters this morning, members of an Occupy Wall Street group that has walked all the way from New York City to Athens, headed for Atlanta. ...
When the deputies asked the group members to produce identification, two refused, because they felt it was a violation of their civil rights as Americans, Annussek said. The Madison deputies took the pair into custody, charging them with obstruction of a police officer...
One difference between being a senator and being the rest of us? If you get stopped by an airport security scanner, it's all part of the price for our Enhanced Security Nation. If an archconservative senator gets stopped by the exact same scanner, it is quickly seen as evidence of a probable conspiracy: ...
As was pointed out previously, Rand Paul was detained because he refused to be patted down by a government-paid stranger after the first scanner triggered. Apparently he felt strongly about this government-sanctioned invasion of his privacy, which led to him being delayed while traveling to give a speech on how government should have expanded powers to take people's privacy away from them.
It's not clear if the scanners have a "detain this person" button. It is clear, however, that they are carefully calibrated for irony.
The Supreme Court today unanimously held that the warrantless placement of a GPS tracking device on the outside of someone's car constituted a "search" under the language of the Fourth Amendment, thus affirming the DC Circuit's reversal of an alleged drug dealer's conviction on trafficking charges because it was obtained via illegal evidence. In doing so, however, the majority largely abandons the sometimes-circular "reasonable expectation of privacy" test for one focused on physical invasions of one's property, and the effects of this shift are important. ...
While the Court was unanimous as to the outcome here, it was not unanimous as to the reasoning. The majority view was penned by Justice Scalia, with the Chief Justice, Justice Kennedy, Justice Thomas, and Justice Sotomayor signing on. According to these five, whether Jones' reasonable expectations of privacy were violated was not the question, but rather, whether the search violated the expectations of privacy in existence when the Fourth Amendment was adopted, which was centered around invasions of one's property: ...
In 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared December 15 to be Bill of Rights Day, commemorating the 150th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights.
In their zeal to crack down on undocumented immigrants, federal immigration officials have accidentally arrested and tried to deport thousands of U.S. citizens in the past year alone. Americans who find themselves in this nightmarish situation say their protests to the police fall on deaf ears, and they are denied any opportunity to communicate with immigration agents to clarify the situation.
Some citizens are held for a few days while the situation is resolved, but others have been locked in prison for months. ...
FBI records show that immigration agents were aware of Clarke’s legal status at the time he was arrested, and detained him anyway.
The Senate voted last Thursday to pass S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which would authorize the president to send the military literally anywhere in the world to imprison civilians without charge or trial. Prison based on suspicion alone. ...the president would be able to direct the military to use its powers within the United States itself, and even lock up American citizens without charge or trial.
No corner of the world, not even your own home, would be off-limits to the military. ... has no limitations whatsoever based on geography, duration or citizenship. And the entire Senate bill was drafted in secret, with no hearing, and with committee votes behind closed doors.
...[Senators] also ignored every top national security official opposed to the provisions. Opposition to the detention provisions came from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, CIA Director David Petraeus, FBI Director Robert Mueller, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, White House Advisor for Counterterrorism John Brennan, and DOJ National Security Division head Lisa Monaco. ...
... a provision authorizing worldwide war wherever any terrorism suspect resides, even if there is no threat to America or Americans.
In releasing a photo of the so-called discipline unit called “Five Echo,” the military at Guantánamo was showing to the public a detention block the media don’t see.
In recent weeks, Congress has reignited an old debate, with some arguing that only military justice is appropriate for terrorist suspects. But military tribunals have proved excruciatingly slow and imprisonment at Guantánamo hugely costly — $800,000 per inmate a year, compared with $25,000 in federal prison.
The criminal justice system, meanwhile, has absorbed the surge of terrorism cases since 2001 without calamity, and without the international criticism that Guantánamo has attracted for holding prisoners without trial. A decade after the Sept. 11 attacks, an examination of how the prisons have handled the challenge of extremist violence reveals some striking facts: ...
The Defense Authorization bill — a "must-pass" piece of legislation — is headed to the Senate floor with troubling provisions that would give the President — and all future presidents — the authority to indefinitely imprison people, without charge or trial, both abroad and inside the United States.
Urge your Senators to oppose sections 1031 and 1032 of the Defense Authorization bill.
The ACLU, which issued a scathing report on Obama's civil liberties record earlier this year, would probably disagree. The ACLU concluded that "most [Bush-era] policies...remain core elements of our national security strategy today." Bachmann also said the CIA was no longer interrogating anyone, which is false. The CIA is part of the interagency High Value Detainee Interrogation Group, or HIG. Also, prior to 9/11, the CIA didn't actually have an interrogation program.
[What could possibly go wrong? -L]
A federal judge temporarily blocked Florida’s new law that requires welfare applicants to pass a drug test before receiving benefits on Monday, saying it may violate the Constitution’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a stay on parts of the Alabama immigration law and allowed others to stand. It stayed the provisions that required residents carry proof of lawful residency in the U.S. and that tracked the immigration status of newly enrolled students.
Lawmakers in three dozen states this year have proposed drug testing for people receiving benefits like welfare, unemployment assistance, job training, food stamps and public housing...
A few days ago, Joe Lieberman, Scott Brown, Charlie Dent, and Jason Altmire took a step in a direction, by introducing the Enemy Expatriation Act which would revoke citizenship for Americans who engage in terrorist activities.
As the Occupy Wall Street movement gains steam, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) is standing beside the demonstrators and defending their right to speak their minds. ...
[If you're going to attend an Occupy event, look for your region/state's ACLU and download a "know your rights" pamphlet.
http://www.aclu.org/affiliates
-L.]
...the death panel has nothing to do with universal health care. But apparently it does exist...
I discussed the assassination of Anwar al-`Awlaqi last Saturday, just trying to reason through the moral, legal and constitutional issues as a layperson. When I got to the end of the posting, I just could not understand how what was done was legal or constitutional, since al-`Awlaqi was deprived of his 6th amendment rights to a trial.
Of course, under the laws of war (e.g. Hague IV), virtually anyone can be killed who is contributing to the war effort. But I still don’t understand how a drone strike by the CIA on a civilian in Yemen, authorized by a civilian body, is part of a war ...
A friend suggested that the assassination was authorized under the two executive orders (Ford and Reagan) forbidding assassination, which have a loophole. ...
But now Reuters is reporting that President Obama did not even sign off on the kill order... Nor does Congress...seem to have been involved. So the loophole...did not come into play.
Rather, a secret cell within the National Security Council...has drawn up a kill list, and gets an authorizing memo from the Department of Justice.
...the doctrine, if that is what it is, seems full of holes. If al-`Awlaqi were killed as an enemy officer, then why are the civilians at DOJ and the NSC making the decisions, and why is the order carried out by the civilian CIA?
...how solid is the intelligence showing that al-`Awlaqi had an operational and not just a propaganda role in al-Qaeda? As good as the intel on Iraq’s mobile biological weapons labs? ...
If the Reuters report is correct, the US government has completely gone off the rails....
By a 6-to-6 vote last month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit cleared the way for a legal challenge against a dubious legacy of the George W. Bush administration: the wiretapping of Americans’ international communications without a warrant or adequate judicial supervision in antiterrorism investigations.
The tie decision, which allowed an earlier ruling to stand, was a well-deserved setback to the Justice Department’s accountability avoidance strategy. This Catch-22 says that because the wiretaps are secret, no one knows for certain whether they have actually been tapped, and that means no one has a right to sue the government.
Selected Tags
Related Tags
privacy (10)- police_state (9)
- war_on_abstract_nouns (8)
- 2011_protests (7)
- security_theater (4)
- due_process (4)
- human_rights (4)
- reproductive_justice (4)
- tunisia (3)
- wikileaks (3)
- immigration (3)
- united_states (3)
- call_for_action (3)
- assassination (3)
- unlawful_government (3)
- undocumented_immigrants (3)
- u.s.a. (2)
- pan-arab_revolt (2)
- georgia (2)
Top Contributors
Highlighter, Sticky notes, Tagging, Groups and Network: integrated suite dramatically boosting research productivity. Learn more »
Join Diigo