Tag Archives: The Constitution

Us? Not Hostile

The Obama Administration, in defending itself against a small group of legislators who dared suggest the President needs to consult with Congress before attacking another nation, suggests that firing missiles and airstrikes are not hostile enough to meet the criteria of the Constitution or War Powers Act.  From the Right Wing Conspiracy leaders, the New York Times:

The White House, pushing hard against criticism in Congress over the deepening air war in Libya, asserted Wednesday that President Obama had the authority to continue the military campaign without Congressional approval because American involvement fell short of full-blown hostilities.

In a 38-page report sent to lawmakers describing and defending the NATO-led operation, the White House said the mission was prying loose Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s grip on power.

In contending that the limited American role did not oblige the administration to ask for authorization under the War Powers Resolution, the report asserted that “U.S. operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve U.S. ground troops.” Still, the White House acknowledged, the operation has cost the Pentagon $716 million in its first two months and will have cost $1.1 billion by September at the current scale of operations.

I am a bit concerned this is the position of the Greatest President Of All Time, and a supposed Constitutional Scholar.  Looks more to me like a position the previous occupant of the White House might have held, a position The Greatest President Of All Time might have referred to as ‘failed policy’.

This looks more and more like a third term of the Bush Administration.


The Right Call

The Supreme Court made the right call in Berghuis v. Thompkins, as it’s the individual’s responsibility to know his rights.

The four liberals dissented in an opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a former Manhattan prosecutor who warned that, “Today’s decision turns Miranda upside down.”

The 1966 Miranda v. Arizona ruling — which protects suspects against self-incrimination and requires the warnings police give people in custody to let them know they have the right to remain silent — has been deeply woven into American culture. Yet, it remains controversial, as recent debate over Miranda rights for terrorism suspects shows.

Tuesday’s case did not touch on that controversy but rather addressed ambiguous signals a suspect may send regarding whether he wants an interrogation to stop after he has been properly read his rights.

The Michigan case specifically tested what happens when a suspect says barely anything during questioning but near the end blurts out an incriminating statement, and then claims that he had wanted to remain silent and that the statement was not made voluntarily.

Van Chester Thompkins, accused of first-degree murder in the 2000 shooting death of Samuel Morris outside a mall in Southfield, Mich., said little to police during a three-hour interrogation, at the start of which he had been read the Miranda warnings. He never explicitly said he wanted to stay silent and he never asked for a lawyer.

At one point, an officer asked, “Do you believe in God?” Thompkins said yes. The officer then asked, “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?” Thompkins said yes and looked away, according to the record in the case.

A jury found Thompkins guilty of murder and he was sentenced to life in prison without parole.

On appeal, Thompkins said he invoked his right to remain silent by refusing to answer questions for a long period of time and that the interrogation should have ended before he made his incriminating remark.

A U.S. appeals court agreed, rejecting arguments from Michigan officials that there was an implied waiver of Thompkins’ right to remain silent.

The Constitution is clear, you have the right to remain silent.  That doesn’t mean you have a right to not be questioned, and it doesn’t mean that if you are silent for a while and then incriminate yourself, you have a do over.  You waive your right when you stop being silent.

Sotomayor called their decision “a substantial retreat from the protection against compelled self-incrimination.”

In her most passionate opinion to date, Sotomayor, who joined the court last year, said the majority decision undercuts the “heavy burden” the government should carry to show that a defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right against self-incrimination.

I’m glad to see the immediate reaction is to defer to the individual over the government, but in this case, the individual never lost his protection from self incrimination; he was just too stupid to shut up.

Plain and simple, when the police put cuffs on you, simply say “I want a lawyer”.  Nothing else.  It’s not that hard.


%d bloggers like this: