Monday, May 10, 2010

Monday fun-day

3 rounds for time:
400 meter run
21 ring dips
12 deadlifts @ 185lbs

My time was 10:04 rx'd. Felt good this morning!

On another topic, a short rant...

United States Attorney General Eric Holder said yesterday on NBC's Meet the Press that, according the AP,

...the Obama administration said on Sunday it wants to work with Congress on possible limitations of the constitutional rights afforded terrorism suspects - even for American citizens.

Attorney General Eric Holder said changes may be needed to allow law enforcement more time to question suspected terrorists before they are told about their Miranda rights to a lawyer and to remain silent under interrogation.

WTF? Interrogators already have what's called a "public safety exception" where they can question a suspect before "Mirand-izing" them if they believe that person has knowledge pertaining to an exigent public safety threat (see paragraphs 3, 4, & 5 which happen to be labeled as a, b, & c of the court's finding). A rule which by the way, was used in the case of the Times Square suspect!

Again, from the AP story:
John Brennan, President Barack Obama's top counterterrorism adviser, said that Shahzad was questioned for about four hours before he was read his rights. Shahzad waived his right to having a lawyer present in subsequent interrogation.

If you read the transcript, Holder says, referring to Shazad:

"He was given his Miranda warnings after the public safety exception questioning was finished, and he has talked to us and he continues to talk to us."

Question: But would you like interrogators to have more flexibility?

Holder: "I think we have to look at the rules that we have and look at the situation that we now confront. The public safety exception was really based on a robbery that occurred back in the '80s and something to do with a supermarket. We're now dealing with international terrorists, and I think that we have to think about perhaps modifying the rules that interrogators have and somehow coming up with something that is flexible and is more consistent with the threat that we now face."

So again, WTF?

As far as I'm concerned, there should be different rules and procedures for how we deal with terrorism suspects who are not US citizens.

That said, the Times Square suspect is an American citizen, and no matter how despicable an act he attempted, our constitution and the rulings of the US Supreme Court dictate how our criminal justice system treats him.

I'm amazed that the current - and rather liberal - administration is saying it's a good idea to strip an American citizen of their right to legal representation. Hell, I can't believe this is an "issue" at all.


  1. Better call up your Senators to express concern about Kagan...who has been suspiciously quiet on this issue despite law professors across the nation openly opposing further shredding the Consitution and ignoring civil rights.

    PS - glad to see y'all are running again!

  2. Hey stranger! I was glad to see some running in the workout today.

    Kagan's confirmation is going to be a circus since she has no judicial record and a lack of publication on a lot of different issues. I hope we'll see some lively questioning.

    I found this today, it's a law review article Kagan wrote about confirmation hearings. She calls out those nominees who dodge questions by claiming they may have to rule on certain issues, and therefore shouldn't have to answer. I'd like to see her live up to her own writing: