04.22.13
by

National Constitution Center: Constitution Check: Are there limits on questioning a bombing suspect?

Lyle Denniston looks at the issues of Miranda warnings, Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Tsarnaev’s protections under the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, and the public safety exception.

The statements at issue:

“The police can interrogate a suspect without offering him the benefit of Miranda [warnings] if he could have information that’s of urgent concern for public safety. That may or may not be the case with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The problem is that Attorney General Eric Holder has stretched the law beyond that scenario.”

– Emily Bazelon, a columnist for Slate.com, in an article on April 19, “Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?” 

“[As of Saturday night] Authorities have not read him his Miranda rights, which include the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. Federal law enforcement officials said they plan to use a public safety exception, outlined in a 1984 Supreme Court decision, ‘in order to question the suspect extensively about other potential explosive devices or accomplices and to gain critical intelligence.’”

– Washington Post story on April 21, by reporters Joel Achenbach and Robert Barnes, “Authorities seek answers in Boston Marathon bombing.”

We checked the Constitution, and…

Some three decades ago, the Supreme Court for the first time gave police and federal agents the authority to avoid giving criminal suspects Miranda warnings about their constitutional rights, when the public safety justified that suspension. That authority, given in the 1984 decision of New York v. Quarles, has since been expanded by lower courts so that, even if a suspect has claimed the right to remain silent or the right to a lawyer, the questioning can go on if the public safety threat remains.

How long such questioning can continue, and what kinds of questions can be asked, is now the source of considerable uncertainty, as officials have developed interrogation policies they think are necessary in dealing with terrorist incidents. But one thing does remain certain: the Constitution still requires that the police not use outright coercion in order to get answers even to the most pressing questions. If authorities want to use the evidence that they gain by such questioning, that evidence must have been given voluntarily.

In the case of the 19-year-old suspected of bombing the Boston Marathon and other crimes after that, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, there is no doubt that he has some protection under the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment against being forced to implicate himself. He is a U.S. citizen, so he has the legal shield of the Constitution. (On April 2, we discussed the rights during terrorism investigations of suspects who are not U.S. citizens; those rights may differ.)

—

Click below for the full article.

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2013/04/constitution-check-are-there-limits-on-questioning-a-bombing-suspect/

04.21.13
by

Motley Fool: Will Obama Really Confiscate Your Retirement Savings?

The budget proposal President Obama recently submitted had several provisions designed to increase government tax revenue. But one provision concerning retirement accounts triggered alarm bells for many Americans, raising fears that the government will confiscate your retirement savings.

Why people think confiscation is possible The provision in the Obama budget calls for tax laws to “prohibit individuals from accumulating over $3 million in tax-preferred retirement accounts.” Specifically, the budget refers to a complicated formula that involves figuring out how much money a person would need in order to buy an annuity contract that would guarantee annual payments to retirees of $205,000 for the rest of their lives. The proposal would raise $9 billion over the next 10 years, according to the budget’s forecast.

Immediately, many analysts jumped to the conclusion that the provision might involve actually taking away money from retirement accounts. CNBC’s Larry Kudlow described the measure in a special editorial in the New York Sun as an “incredible and arbitrary limit or tax on — or even possible confiscation of — IRA-type tax-advantaged savings account [emphasis added].”

Past confiscation fears Constitutionally, the idea that the government could simply confiscate your retirement savings without compensation goes directly against the due process and takings clauses of the Fifth Amendment. More skeptical analysts will note that retirement accounts make up trillions of dollars in assets that major banks Bank of America (NYSE: BAC  )  and Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC  )  and many other major financial institutions use to drive profits, giving them a huge incentive to use their political power to ensure that those assets don’t disappear instantaneously.

Yet this isn’t the first time that the issue of confiscation has come up. Even before President Obama was elected, Congress looked at a proposal to replace 401(k) plans with government-managed retirement accounts. Under the plan from Prof. Teresa Ghilarducci of the New School’s Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis, these accounts would have had savers contributing 5% of their pay to a government-run retirement plan that would invest in bonds paying a fixed, guaranteed return over the rate of inflation. Ghilarducci’s plan did not propose confiscation, and as she described in an interview with Seattle talk show host Kirby Wilbur at the time, “Whatever you have in your 401(k) now will keep its tax break.”

Moreover, historians point to the 1933 executive order that required individuals to deliver gold coins, bullion, and certificates to banks in exchange for regular currency at a rate of $20.67 per ounce as being functionally equivalent to confiscation. With the government proceeding to devalue the dollar to $35 per gold ounce the following year, those who complied with the order suffered a substantial loss of purchasing power. Indeed, many gold investors use that same argument in arguing against bullion ETFs SPDR Gold Trust (NYSEMKT: GLD  ) , iShares Gold (NYSEMKT: IAU  ) , and iShares Silver Trust (NYSEMKT: SLV  ) , preferring instead to take physical possession of their gold and silver to ensure its safekeeping themselves.

Click below for the full article.
04.21.13
by

Daily Kos: The Slow Death of the Fourth Amendment

The government has been chipping away at the 4th Amendment since the start of the War on (some) Drugs. The stop-and-frisk policy in New York is just one of the latest steps in destroying privacy in this country.

Now the DHS has decided that the freedom from suspicionless searches doesn’t apply near the nation’s borders.

 “We also conclude that imposing a requirement that officers have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a border search of an electronic device would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits,” the executive summary said.

 The President George W. Bush administration first announced the suspicionless, electronics search rules in 2008. The President Barack Obama administration followed up with virtually the same rules a year later. Between 2008 and 2010, 6,500 persons had their electronic devices searched along the U.S. border, according to DHS data.    According to legal precedent, the Fourth Amendment — the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures — does not apply along the border. By the way, the government contends the Fourth-Amendment-Free Zone stretches 100 miles inland from the nation’s actual border.

Did you catch that? 100 miles inland. That includes shipping ports. That means that around 2/3rd of the nation’s population, around 190 million, lives in these areas that are free of the 4th Amendment restrictions.Photobucket

The DHS has already set up 33 “internal checkpoints” deeper in the country.

The expansion of the police state in America would be mindboggling to anyone living as recently as the 1980’s or 1990’s. It doesn’t seem to matter which political party is in power.

Click below for the full article.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/10/1185972/-The-slow-death-of-the-4th-Amendment

04.21.13
by

Motley Fool: Gold Fell to $1,400? Welcome to the New Gold Rush!

With everyone talking about how the great gold boom is over, that with the price of gold tumbling to $1,400 an ounce the back of the yellow metal as a safe-haven investment  has been broken, you might be surprised to learn there’s actually a new gold rush going on. With every drop in the price of gold (and silver, too), individuals are buying as much of the precious metal as they can.

According to the former assistant secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, the price collapse was an orchestrated attack on gold and silver coordinated by the Federal Reserve. The assault saw prices plunge an unprecedented 10% in one day at one point.  SPDR Gold Shares  (NYSEMKT: GLD  )  is now 12% lower from where it started April, while the iShares Silver Trust  (NYSEMKT: SLV  )  is down 18%.

For the tinfoil hat brigade, the collapse, coming as it did just days after President Obama met with the heads of Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Bank of America, was enough of a nexus to indicate that this was a response to the threats posed by gold (and even Bitcoin) to the Federal Reserve system.

Gold Price in US Dollars Chart

Gold Price in US Dollars data by YCharts, Shaded area represents U.S. recession.

While I’m not sure I buy into conspiracy theories like that, I do know that if it’s true, then the Law of Unintended Consequences must surely be at play. There’s anecdotal evidence everywhere that despite the dumping of tons of paper gold assets on the market, demand for physical gold and silver has never been greater.

The new gold rush Bullion dealers are reporting they’re seeing individual purchases every bit as strong as occurred back in 2008. My bullion and coin dealer, JM Bullion, has upwards of a three-week delay in shipping American Silver Eagles, yet dealers everywhere are finding it increasingly difficult to get supply. Buyers from India to China are also racing to scoop up gold, with the China Gold Association reporting retail sales tripling in the country between April 15 and April 16, while Hong Kong and Macau have reported volume surges of as much as 150%.

Click below for the full article.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/04/21/gold-fell-to-1400-welcome-to-the-new-gold-rush.aspx

04.20.13
by

Bloomberg: Obama Decision on Interrogating Suspect Draws Criticism from Civil Liberties Groups; Republicans argue still not tough enough

The Obama administration’s decision to interrogate the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing without first warning him of his rights has sparked criticism from both sides of the political spectrum about the best way to prosecute terrorism cases.

Justice Department officials have said their move to question bombing suspect Dzhokar Tsarnaev, 19, without reading him the Miranda warning of his right to remain silent is a necessary legal tool in cases of domestic terrorism.

Civil liberties groups said yesterday the tactic raises concerns about infringement of Tsarnaev’s constitutional rights, especially since he’s a naturalized American citizen. At the same time, four Republican lawmakers criticized the administration for not being tough enough, saying Tsarnaev should be designated an enemy combatant with no right to counsel……..

……….

Holder’s push has been criticized by civil liberties groups that say delaying Miranda warnings poses risks to the constitutional rights of suspects.

“Obama’s Justice Department unilaterally expanded the ‘public safety exception’ to Miranda in 2010 beyond anything the Supreme Court ever authorized,” Vincent Warren, the executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a legal advocacy group that focuses on civil-liberties litigation, said in a statement yesterday. “Each time the administration uses this exception, it stretches wider and longer.”

—

As we stated before, Republicans and Democrats (at least some of the key players in both parties) seem to think that the constitution only applies some of the time and to a subset of the citizenship.  What do you think?

Click below for the full article.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-21/obama-decision-on-interrogating-suspect-draws-criticism.html?cmpid=yhoo

04.20.13
by

Yahoo News: Boston bombing suspect’s arrest presents intelligence opportunity, legal challenges

BOSTON – Keeping bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev alive and able to answer questions would be a badly-needed intelligence coup for terror investigators, a former U.S. District Attorney told Yahoo News on Saturday.

“The fear of law enforcement has always been the small, insular cells that are kind of under the radar,” said Richard Roper, a federal prosecutor for 21 years. “Either the lone wolf or the small cells … they’re difficult to obtain intelligence on. I hope they get some good stuff out of him.”

On Saturday, Dzhokhar was reportedly clinging to life and under heavy guard at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. He apparently suffered gunshot wounds to the neck and leg during separate gun battles with authorities on Friday.

Tsarnaev, 19, and his brother, 26-year-old Tamerlan Tsarnaev, are believed to have planted the two backpack bombs near the finish line of Monday’s Boston Marathon. The twin explosions killed three people and injured 180 others……..

……..

“There’s a need to immediately question the guy whether you Mirandize him or not to save lives,” Roper said. “The question is how far do you go before it turns into a custodial interrogation?”

Republican Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina went a step further, suggesting Dzhokhar be treated as an enemy combatant like a soldier captured in war. The move drew the ire of longtime McCain aide and speechwriter Mark Salter.

“My friend, Lindsey Graham, is wrong on this,” Salter posted on his Facebook page. “However unforgivable his crimes, he’s a US citizen, arrested on US soil, with, at this time, no known associations with foreign terrorist organizations at war with the U.S. To declare him an “enemy combatant,” and deny him his rights is un-American.”

——

What do you all think, does the constitution only apply to some citizens or all?

Click below for the full article.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/boston-bombing-suspect-arrest-presents-intelligence-opportunity-legal-183858408.html