Tag Archives: Fifth Amendment

Former attorney general says Boston bombers must have had help in attack

A former U.S. attorney general says the two men police say are behind the deadly Boston Marathon bombings likely had help in the attack.

“I don’t believe they couldn’t have done what they did without technical assistance building the bomb and without…spiritual encouragement,” Michael Mukasey, the former U.S. attorney general under George W. Bush, told Fox News.

Mukasey added that he thinks the belief that the bombers only followed a rulebook from the Internet “doesn’t do it” for him.

Mukasey joins a growing number of officials who say Boston Marathon bombing suspects Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, and his older brother, Tamerlan, who was killed in a shootout with police, likely had assistance in the bombing that killed three people and injured more than 200.

He also said Dzhokhar Tsarnaev could possibly still be questioned for national intelligence purposes for information that could be kept separate from the criminal case.

Mukasey said if those interviews occurred, Tsarnaev wouldn’t have any right to have a lawyer present during the questioning. If Tsarneav filed a habeas corpus petition against such interviews, the challenge could reach the Supreme Court, Mukasey explained, but he thinks the ability to question Tsarnaev separately for intelligence purposes would be upheld.

“The only thing the Fifth Amendment protects you against is being a witness against yourself. That means in a criminal trial,” Mukasey said. “It doesn’t protect you against disclosing national intelligence information.”

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev stopped speaking to FBI interrogators after he was read his Miranda rights and got an attorney.

But Mukasey told Fox News authorities still have “ample evidence” of the attack without Tsarnaev’s statements, citing photographs of the bombing scene and Tsarnaev’s confession to a carjacking after the bombings.

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News

Drone Warfare In America

By Floyd Brown

Republican Democrat SC Divide And Conquer  Fair And Balanced

In early March, Senator Rand Paul had America buzzing about drones. They were the highlight of his 13-hour filibuster against John Brennan, Barack Obama’s nominee to be director of the CIA. Paul’s intention was not to actually stop the nomination of Brennan – he knew the filibuster would fail. Instead, he wished to turn the nation’s attention to the use of drone-fired missiles to kill American citizens and others around the globe.

Paul repeatedly cited the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, part of our cherished Bill of Rights, saying: “The Fifth Amendment… should protect you from a president that might kill you with a drone.”

“You can’t be judge, jury and executioner all in one,” Paul warned.

Well, John Brennan tried to play that role when executing Americans at the behest of Barack Obama’s War on Terror strategy. Even George W. Bush put terrorists in Guantanamo Bay before bringing them to trial. Obama just dispensed with the trials and moved right to summary execution.

Sadly, Brennan was confirmed, and the missile-mounted drones continue to fly.

“Are you going to just drop a Hellfire missile on Jane Fonda?”

So are drones (or unmanned aircraft systems–UASs–as they are called by the military) useful? Sure – in war zones. They are good for spying on the enemy and targeting enemy forces and supplies.

But even in these situations, drones have scary consequences. By some accounts in the foreign press, secret drone attacks have killed an estimated 4,700 people – nearly one quarter have been civilians, and as many as 200 are reportedly children.

And worse yet, the Obama administration admitted to targeting Americans and foreign nationals (albeit those in terror groups).

They also claim the legal authority to kill U.S. citizens without a trial (even here in America) as long as the target is linked to a terrorist organization.

Look, I am not alone in being very suspicious of these powers. As government agencies increase the use of drone technology, opportunities for abuse grow exponentially, especially when the Obama administration reserves the right to kill Americans without due process.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder recently defended using lethal force against Americans in America, saying it would be considered legal and justified in an “extraordinary circumstance.”

“The President could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland,” Holder concluded.

10,000 New Drones By 2020

If the Obama administration’s life-extinguishing policy wasn’t enough, get this: A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) report anticipates 10,000 new civilian drones will be flying the skies of America by the year 2020.

Sound outlandish? It’s not. Since 2007, the FAA has issued 1,428 licenses to police, universities, and federal agencies to fly drones domestically.

This sounds like a perfect storm of threats to privacy and security. Imagine these drones spying on your business or even your teenage daughter as she sunbathes next to the backyard pool.

Sounding the Alarm Bells

In December 2011, The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) issued a report entitled “Protecting Privacy from Aerial Surveillance” that warned of the potential “mission …read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

Teens, with immunity, testify in Ohio rape trial

Three teenagers have testified that a 16-year-old girl who says she was sexually assaulted by two Ohio football players last summer was drunk and didn’t seem to know what was happening.

Mark Cole, Evan Westlake and Anthony Craig on Friday gave their accounts of what happened, including descriptions of the girl being digitally penetrated in a car and later on a basement floor.

The teens invoked their Fifth Amendment right against testifying for fear of self-incrimination as the rape trial in Steubenville entered its third day, but a judge granted them immunity from prosecution. Their testimony is a crucial part of the state’s evidence because the West Virginia girl says she doesn’t remember what happened.

The girl is expected to testify Saturday.

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News

Colorado movie theater shooting suspect was hospitalized, restrained

Colorado theater shooting suspect James Holmes was taken from jail to the psychiatric ward of a hospital in November because he was considered a danger to himself, and he was frequently held in restraints while hospitalized, according to a court document released Friday.

The document said Holmes was taken to Denver Health Medical Center on Nov. 15 because he was “in immediate need of a psychiatric evaluation.” It said he was held there for several days.

The document also described an earlier incident in which Holmes was hospitalized for “potential self-inflicted head injuries in his cell.” It did not say when that incident occurred.

The revelations heighten expectations that Holmes would plead not guilty by reason of insanity on Tuesday, his next scheduled court appearance.

Holmes’ lawyers said on Nov. 14 that he had been taken to a hospital but did not say why. It’s not clear if that was the same incident that the new document said occurred on Nov. 15 or the earlier incident.

The hospitalizations were disclosed in a motion by Holmes’ lawyers asking the judge to order investigators to preserve hospital surveillance video of the November incident.

Holmes faces multiple counts of murder and attempted murder in the July 20 shootings in the Denver suburb of Aurora. Twelve people were killed and 70 injured.

His mental health has been mentioned with increasing frequency in court documents and hearings, and last week, defense attorneys publicly acknowledged for the first time that they were considering an insanity plea.

That would have both benefits and risks for Holmes. If he were found not guilty by reason of insanity, he would avoid prison or execution. Even though he could be sent to the state mental hospital indefinitely, he might be released someday if doctors find he is no longer insane. But under Colorado law, an insanity plea means prosecutors would have access to potentially incriminating evidence such as mental health records.

If Holmes simply pleads not guilty, prosecutors would not have access to that evidence. But that plea would remove the possibility of being committed to the mental hospital.

Regardless of whether he pleads insanity, Holmes could get the death penalty or life in prison without the possibility of parole if he were convicted.

Prosecutors have not said if they will seek the death penalty. They must declare their intentions within 60 days of the day Holmes enters his plea.

Last week, Holmes’ lawyers asked the judge hearing the case, William Sylvester, to declare a state law on the insanity plea unconstitutional, saying it violated his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. They also said they could not give Holmes effective advice on how to plead because of questions they had about the insanity law.

In a ruling released Friday, Sylvester refused to declare the law unconstitutional, saying appeals courts already have upheld it.

He also said he would not address “hypothetical” questions raised by the defense.

Sylvester granted one defense request, for a written explanation of the consequences of pleading not guilty by reason of insanity.

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News

Disarming America’s Heroes

By Michael Connelly

Fallujah Iraq Dec 8 2004 1 Disarming Americas Heroes

How would you feel if you received a letter from the U.S. Government informing you that because of a physical or mental condition that the government says you have, it is proposing to rule that you are incompetent to handle your own financial affairs? Suppose that letter also stated that the government is going to appoint a stranger to handle your affairs for you at your expense? That would certainly be scary enough but it gets worse.

What if that letter also stated: “A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”?

That makes is sound like something right from a documentary on a tyrannical dictatorship somewhere in the world. Yet, as I write this I have a copy of such a letter right in front of me. It is being sent by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of America’s heroes. In my capacity as Executive Director of the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) I have been contacted by some of these veterans and the stories I am getting are appalling.

The letter provides no specifics on the reasons for the proposed finding of incompetency; just that is based on a determination by someone in the VA. In every state in the United States no one can be declared incompetent to administer their own affairs without due process of law and that usually requires a judicial hearing with evidence being offered to prove to a judge that the person is indeed incompetent. This is a requirement of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that states that no person shall “…be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…”.

Obviously, the Department of Veterans Affairs can’t be bothered by such impediments as the Constitution, particularly since they are clearly pushing to fulfill one of Obama’s main goals, the disarming of the American people. Janet Napolitano has already warned law enforcement that some of the most dangerous among us are America’s heroes, our veterans, and now according to this letter from the VA they can be prohibited from buying or even possessing a firearm because of a physical or mental disability.

Think about it, the men and women who have laid their lives on the line to defend us and our Constitution are now having their own Constitutional rights denied. There are no clear criteria for the VA to declare a veteran incompetent. It can be the loss of a limb in combat, a head injury, a diagnosis of PTSD, or even a soldier just telling someone at the VA that he or she is depressed over the loss of a buddy in combat. In none of these situations has the person been found to be a danger to themselves or others. If that was …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism

APNewsBreak: Feds indict 4 in salmonella outbreak

A federal grand jury indicted four employees of a peanut company linked to a 2009 salmonella outbreak that killed nine people and sickened hundreds.

The indictment was unsealed Wednesday in federal court in Georgia and charges four employees with Virginia-based Peanut Corp. of America. The charges include conspiracy, wire fraud, obstruction of justice and others related to contaminated or misbranded food.

Named in the indictment were company owner Stewart Parnell, his brother and company vice president Michael Parnell, Georgia plant manager Samuel Lightsey and Georgia plant quality assurance manager Mary Wilkerson.

The recall of Peanut Corp.’s peanut products was one of the largest in history. FDA inspectors found remarkably bad conditions inside Parnell’s processing plant in Blakely, Ga., including mold and roaches.

The indictment accused the Parnells and Lightsey of conspiring to defraud customers and obtain money through false and fraudulent pretenses. Wilkerson was charged with obstruction of justice.

The U.S. attorney’s office declined to comment until after a news conference later Thursday.

The indictment alleged the conspiracy lasted from about June 2003 through February 2009. The indictment said peanut products were shipped after it tested positive for salmonella, and the company failed to inform customers.

Stewart Parnell, who invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid testifying before Congress in February 2009, once directed employees to “turn them loose” after samples of peanuts had tested positive for salmonella and then were cleared in a second test, according to e-mails uncovered at the time by congressional investigators.

The indictment cited emails sent between defendants talking about the contamination in the product.

A federal judge in 2010 approved a $12 million insurance settlement for more than 100 salmonella victims.

Even President Barack Obama expressed concern at the height of the product recalls, noting that his daughter Sasha eats peanut butter for lunch as often as three times a week.

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News

The Pension Fund That Ate California

By BronxKnight

After spending years dogged by unpaid debts, California labor leader Charles Valdes filed for bankruptcy in the 1990s—twice. At the same time, he held one of the most influential positions in the American financial system: chair of the investment committee for the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, or CalPERS, the nation’s largest pension fund for government workers. Valdes left the board in 2010 and now faces scrutiny for accepting gifts from another former board member, Alfred Villalobos—who, the state alleges, spent tens of thousands of dollars trying to influence how the fund invested its assets. Questioned by investigators about his dealings with Villalobos, Valdes invoked the Fifth Amendment 126 times….

Source:
CityJ

Source URL:
http://www.city-journal.org/2013/23_1_calpers.html

Date:
Winter 2013, Vol. 23. No. 1.

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at History News Network – George Mason University