It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kiss freedom goodbye, the Supreme Court has screwed you again

page: 1
10

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Speaking of silence: Court weakens Miranda rights, rules silence is no protection against self-incrimination




It sounds for all the world like the irascible Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland: “If you want to remain silent, you must speak up!” Sadly, it's the considered opinion of five real-life men in black robes — a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court's nine justices — making their latest ruling on a suspect's Miranda rights, the most famous warning in American jurisprudence.

As usually delivered, it goes: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?” Until last week, it was up to the government to demonstrate that a suspect had understood that warning and had knowingly waived his right against self-incrimination. Often, a suspect signed a form to that effect, but it was not required.

With this latest decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority that a suspect must now invoke the right to remain silent “unambiguously” and police are not required to obtain a written waiver before questioning him. In other words, to remain silent, as is a suspect's right, it is no longer enough to remain silent. The burden is now on the prisoner — not only to speak up, but to do so with absolute clarity.

That's just not right: It weakens the safeguards of Miranda and puts an unfair burden on the suspect. As recently appointed Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her spirited minority opinion, this decision “turns Miranda upside down,” not only because it requires a suspect to speak to invoke the right to silence, but because “at the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so.”

In the case on which this decision was based, Berghuis v. Thompkins, Van Chester Thompkins was charged with murder, was read his rights and refused to sign a form saying he understood those rights. Interrogated for almost three hours, he largely remained silent, until he was asked a self-incriminating question to which he answered “Yes” and was convicted largely on the strength of that one word.

On appeal, his conviction was upheld, but was later reversed by another appeals court that ruled the “Yes” should not have been allowed because, by remaining silent for so long, he had implicitly invoked his Miranda rights. The Supreme Court reversed that decision.

This raises more questions than it answers: Wouldn't it be simpler for the court to clarify exactly what a suspect must do or say to “unambiguously” invoke Miranda rights? Couldn't police officers ask outright, as Sotomayor suggested, “Do you want to talk to us?” And wouldn't it be helpful to know how long a silent suspect can be questioned before it becomes coercion? (Two hours and 45 minutes seems an unconscionably long time to continue what one detective called a “monologue” in the Thompkins interrogation.)

The inescapable conclusion is that these five justices — the reliably conservative bloc of Kennedy, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas — had no intention of clarifying Miranda, but preferred to give as much leeway as possible to law enforcement officers over the rights of individuals.

“Off with their heads!” indeed.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This is just a small part of the agenda being pushed forward by TPTB to dismantle our civil liberties and make it easier for them to imprison you for profit or some other absurd reason. This is ridiculous. So, basically what this means is that police officers are now allowed coerce suspects. The burden of proof is now on the suspect to prove that he didn't waive his right to remain silent. It would be utterly impossible to prove that, especially seeing how their is no clear definition of what constitutes your intent to remain silent.

Well fellas, this is just one more nail in the coffin of freedom and liberty. Hug and kiss your kids as you put them to bed tonight because there will be a lot of apologizing later for failing to preserve liberty for their generation. Our generation and the generations directly before ours, has completely failed at the responsibility handed down to us by our founding fathers and all those who have died and sacrificed for the "American dream", or what was once considered the "American dream".

This Supreme Court has made a mockery out of freedom, justice and the American way of life. No use in arming yourselves with the few hunting rifles you may or may not be allowed to own because soon drones will be flying over your (the bank's) home, ready to fire a missile through your child's bedroom window if you don't comply with the inevitable weapons ban, thanks to Elena Kagan.

--airspoon




posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Errmmmm...calm yourself.

This is a tempest in a teapot, well exagerrated. Oh and...it's kinda old news, by now? (Unless some new turn of events occured? In your article?)

I found at least four other threads on this already (and that was just by searching for "supreme court"...)

Example: (Two weeks ago....)

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Yes, Please!
REMAIN CALM.
Nothing to worry about here.

As long as you stay inside your homes
watching American idol,
you have nothing to worry about.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   
looks like a warm up for this:

ratification by the senate is coming down the pipe soon on this

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
www.huffingtonpost.com...


As should be clear from the vagueness of the definitions, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act could easily be abused to define any group that is pressuring the political system as "terrorist," ranging from polygamists, to second amendment rights supporters, anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, and peace demonstrators. In reality, of course, it will be primarily directed against Muslims and Muslim organizations. Given that, there is the question of who will select which groups will be investigated by the roving commissions. There is no evidence to suggest that there will be any transparent or objective screening process. Through their proven access both to the media and to Congress, the agenda will undoubtedly be shaped by the usual players including David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, Steve Emerson, and Frank Gaffney who see a terrorist hiding under every rock, particularly if the rock is concealing a Muslim. They and their associates will undoubtedly find plenty of terrorists and radical groups to investigate. Many of the suspects will inevitably be "anti-American" professors at various universities and also groups of Palestinians organized against the Israeli occupation, but it will be easily to use the commission formula to sweep them all in for examination.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


You kissed your freedoms goodbye the very second you agreed to refer to your freedom as "civil liberties", which is just euphemism for "civil rights", which itself is just another way of saying "legal rights":


Legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature (or unenumerated but implied from enumerated rights), and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs.


These so called "legal rights", "civil rights", or "civil liberties", stand in stark contrast to natural rights, or inalienable rights:


natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative.


www.answers.com...

The so called "Miranda Rights" were nothing more than judge made law, and both the 4th and 5th Amendments, those being inalienable rights, still stand regardless of what the SCOTUS has to say about Miranda Rights. They created Miranda Rights and as it is with any legal right, they have the authority to take it away. What the SCOTUS, POTUS, or Congress does not have the authority to do is take away your inalienable rights, and the same goes for every state that exists by constitution recognizing the existence of inalienable rights.

The failure to preserve liberty lies squarely with the people, as far too many of them have willingly accepted this notion of "civil liberties" and looked to a federal government for protection of rights that can only best be protected by each individual who recognizes they have inalienable rights. Of course each and ever individual must assert their rights if they expect to keep them! It is not the job of the government to keep the people from going into error, it is the job of the people to keep the government from going into error and as long as the majority of people keep believing all they have to do is vote and this will keep the government from going into error, then indeed we should all kiss our freedom good-bye.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


When I referred to "civil liberties", I meant just that. If I were to refer to natural or unalienable rights, I would have done so. In speaking of civil liberties, I was referring to what the "state" is trying to dismantle, which is your legal rights. After all, they can't dismantle your unalienable or natural liberties, they can only oppress them.

--airspoon



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:13 AM
link   
What you didn't know the Supreme Court justices are a bunch of NWO corporate shills? The Republic is dormant what we have is a de facto rogue corporate military pseudo democracy/oligarchy



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:17 AM
link   
I think under the PATRIOT Act, people arrested under that did not have the right to remain silent. (correct me if I'm wrong here) Under this new ruling, the arrested person can still refuse to speak, they just have to make it clear that's what they are doing. However, what if they change their minds? A prisoner might decide to start, or stop, speaking at some point; how would that affect things under this ruling? It seems really stupid to me, and I think the Miranda rights were pretty darned good, so why did they go and mess with it?



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Acknowledging that you understand your rights, and then refusing questions, isn't violating your rights. If in custody, but before being questioned, the Police HAVE to read you your Miranda Rights. A simple "yes" or "no" isn’t incriminating yourself.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by monkeySEEmonkeyDO]

[edit on 15-6-2010 by monkeySEEmonkeyDO]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Let them dismantle these so called "civil liberties" then! What good are they? This pathetic abdication of inherent political power that resides in each and everyone of us is what is dismantling our rights, don't kid yourself.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:37 AM
link   
This is all well and good conspiracy fodder, but did the perp lawyer up during the interrogation? That's usually the signal to the cops that they are done with their interrogation and they can go home and kick the dog. Until then, he's fair game.

Forgot to add: If he did ask for a lawyer, then the cops were wrong in grilling him any further and the answer should not be admissable, but since it convicted him, I am guessing he did not ask for one.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by AwakeinNM]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by monkeySEEmonkeyDO
Acknowledging that you understand your rights, and then refusing questions, isn't violating your rights. If in custody, but before being questioned, the Police HAVE to read you your Miranda Rights. A simple "yes" or "no" isn’t incriminating yourself.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by monkeySEEmonkeyDO]

[edit on 15-6-2010 by monkeySEEmonkeyDO]


Well, it's apparently not that simple anymore. If the police coerce you into saying something, then the burden of proof is on you to prove that you invoked your rights to remain silent. For instance, say you get taken into custody by the police, if they start to question you and you say that you are invoking your right to remain silent, if they now persist and you accidently say something out of emotion or for whatever reason, the burden of proof would be on you to prove that you invoked your right to remain silent, which is almost impossible. Of course the police are going to figure this out real quick and use it against us. That's what they do.

--airspoon



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


That's no longer the case. There is no clear and defined measure to suggest that you invoked your rights. The burden of proof that you were clear in invoking your rights is on you. If the cops try to say, "well him asking for a lawyer wasn't clear because of the way he asked it". You would then have to prove that it was clear. How would one go about doing that?

--airspoon



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


That's no longer the case. There is no clear and defined measure to suggest that you invoked your rights. The burden of proof that you were clear in invoking your rights is on you. If the cops try to say, "well him asking for a lawyer wasn't clear because of the way he asked it". You would then have to prove that it was clear. How would one go about doing that?

--airspoon


Regardless, it's been a long time since a defendant has been considered "innocent until proven guilty" by the cops or the DAs of this country, so the SCOTUS decision is almost irrelevant, don't you think?

They just need to get their perp and make the headline.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


That's not what they do. They will only read off your Miranda Rights, and ask if you understand them. Just say "yes" but refuse to answer any questions without a lawyer. That's it.

The ONLY way the police can get around this, is if you say something to them w/o being asked. For example... if you're arrested, sitting in back of the police car, and start confessing to the crime without ever being told your Miranda Rights, then the cops CAN use your confession in court b/c the Miranda Rights ONLY work if your arrested AND being interrogated. Sitting in the cop car w/o questioning is not an interrogation.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by monkeySEEmonkeyDO
 


I know that... but this latest Supreme Court ruling changes this now. Because of this brand new Supreme Court ruling, the burden of proof is on the suspect, whether he invoked his right to remain silent. This basically means that the cops have the right to badger and coerce you into saying something. Even if you clearly state that you wish to remain silent, it would be up to you to prove it, which would be impossible since you won't be allowed to record your conversation. Even if you were allowed to record, it would basically be up to a judge on whether you stated it clearly or not, since their is no clear standard on what is invoking your right to remain silent in a clear manner.

I know what it USED to be like... but because of this spanking brand new SCOTUS ruling, it isn't like that anymore.

--airspoon



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Boy the title to your thread couldn't be more appropriate, and you sure seem hell bent on making sure it is true, regardless of the facts. Coercion is a crime and not a single LEO in this country has been given any legal authority to coerce another person. Further, no one can accidentally speak out after asserting their right to remain silent. Once the right to remain silent has been asserted, it is incumbent upon the person asserting that right to do exactly that and remain silent.

All this burden of proof nonsense you keep spouting is just nonsense. If a person has remained silent there is no need to prove they have remained silent, and any assertions by an LEO that this person did not remain silent is just here say. Failing a signed confession, or an audio or video tape showing that person speaking, there is no burden of proof regarding the right to remain silent. One does not need to prove they have this right, and if they have remained silent then there is no burden of proof for that person, and the burden of proof remains where it belongs, with the court party making the assertion. This is a fact of law.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by airspoon
There is no clear and defined measure to suggest that you invoked your rights.


Sure there is.... remain silent!

If you say nothing, you are invoking your rights to remain silent. The police will have nothing to use against you in court because you have said nothing.

Exercising your right to remain silent and informing the police that you are exercising your right to remain silent means nothing if you open your mouth and say something.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by airspoon
 


Boy the title to your thread couldn't be more appropriate, and you sure seem hell bent on making sure it is true, regardless of the facts. Coercion is a crime and not a single LEO in this country has been given any legal authority to coerce another person. Further, no one can accidentally speak out after asserting their right to remain silent. Once the right to remain silent has been asserted, it is incumbent upon the person asserting that right to do exactly that and remain silent.

All this burden of proof nonsense you keep spouting is just nonsense. If a person has remained silent there is no need to prove they have remained silent, and any assertions by an LEO that this person did not remain silent is just here say. Failing a signed confession, or an audio or video tape showing that person speaking, there is no burden of proof regarding the right to remain silent. One does not need to prove they have this right, and if they have remained silent then there is no burden of proof for that person, and the burden of proof remains where it belongs, with the court party making the assertion. This is a fact of law.



“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” --Martin Luther King Jr.

Sure, no LEO in this country has been given legal authority for coercion but that doesn't mean that they didn't get the green light from this SCOTUS ruling. It is now the burden of the suspect to prove that the LEO didn't ignore his right to remain silent. How on earth would a suspect do that, especially when it is the LE entity that controls the recording and reports? Your assuming that LEOs play by the rules, when we all know that many, if not most, do whatever it takes to get a conviction.

Even if a suspect makes it clear that he is invoking his right to remain silent, it may not be clear according to the court/LEO, since there is no clear guideline on what is or isn't invoking your right. A simple "I wish to remain silent" may not suffice. We all know (most of us anyway) that both police depts. and the justice system/courts are corrupt, making any appeals based on a bad decision by a court, highly unlikely. This is not about technicalities, it is about reality. Just because LEOs don't have a legal authority to do something, doesn't mean that they won't.

“Every path has its puddle”

Furthermore, about my title, if you think that freedom and liberty in this country isn't under assault, then you don't have your eyes open. That or your definition of liberty/freedom is skewed. The title of this thread expresses what many liberty loving Americans are experiencing and seeing with their very own eyes and this new SCOTUS ruling is a factor in that degradation. The facts are clear, this new SCOTUS ruling is an assault on our Miranda rights and Miranda rights were instituted for our freedom and liberty. You seem to not even comprehend the facts, much less guide your argument by them. You couldn't even discern between "civil liberties" and natural liberties in a legal sense, hence your post up up top.

If you don't understand something, "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt". --Mark Twain



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   
This subject has already been discussed on ATS, as previously mentioned.

Please add to the conversation on www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thread closed.

TheRedneck
ATS Forum Moderator



new topics




 
10

log in

join