It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Amplify, the company owned by Rupert Murdoch, won a $12.5 million contract to develop formative assessments for Common Core tests. The award was made by the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, one of two groups funded by the Obama administration to create national tests, administered online. Joel Klein runs Murdoch’s Amplify division.
When Murdoch purchased Wireless Generation in the fall of 2010, he said:
“When it comes to K through 12 education, we see a $500 billion sector in the U.S. alone that is waiting desperately to be transformed by big breakthroughs that extend the reach of great teaching,” said News Corporation Chairman and CEO, Rupert Murdoch. “Wireless Generation is at the forefront of individualized, technology-based learning that is poised to revolutionize public education for a new generation of students.”
In this one instance, I have to say, you're sounding a bit closer to what I hate so much on the left
Holder started talking about a bill to broadly expand the exception to Miranda a few months later. Nothing came of that idea, but in October of 2010, Holder’s Justice Department took it upon itself to widen the exception to Miranda beyond the Supreme Court’s 1984 ruling. “Agents should ask any and all questions that are reasonably prompted by an immediate concern for the safety of the public or the arresting agents,” stated a DoJ memo to the FBI that wasn’t disclosed at the time.
Graham's tweets quickly created a firestorm of outrage among various Democrats, progressives, liberals and the like. They insisted that such actions would be radical and menacing, a serious threat to core Constitutional protections. I certainly shared those sentiments: the general concept that long-standing rights should be eroded in the name of Terrorism is indeed odious, and the specific attempt to abridge core constitutional liberties on US soil under that banner is self-evidently dangerous.
But while I shared the reaction of these Democrats to Graham's decrees, it nonetheless really baffled me, as I quickly noted. This was true for several reasons. First, the Obama administration has already rolled back Miranda rights for terrorism suspects captured on US soil. It did so two years ago with almost no controversy or even notice, including from many of those who so vocally condemned Graham's Miranda tweets yesterday. In May, 2010, the New York Times' Charlie Savage - under the headline "Holder Backs a Miranda Limit for Terror Suspects" - reported that "the Obama administration said Sunday it would seek a law allowing investigators to interrogate terrorism suspects without informing them of their rights." Instead of going to Congress, the Obama DOJ, in March 2011, simply adopted their own rules that vested themselves with this power, as reported back then by Salon's Justin Elliott ("Obama rolls back Miranda rights"), the Wall Street Journal ("Rights Are Curtailed for Terror Suspects"), the New York Times ("Delayed Miranda Warning Ordered for Terror Suspects"), and myself ("Miranda is Obama's latest victim").
Where, how and why did abortion ever come into this? I didn't mention it ..altho I thought about it.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
I think we'll just agree to disagree on this entirely. This isn't worth making enemies over ..and you're right back to partisan "they did, we didn't" or "They did worse".... I can't remain all that nice with that after the effort into the above posts to fight against precisely that mindset.
Agreed to disagree it is then. Fair enough.
But at least you are consistent in being hateful and judgmental
That attitude is why this country is stagnating on it's slow, smelly swirl down the toilet
It's also why I have no reason to attempt to discuss anything at all any further with you.
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by wildtimes
I can give you a breakdown of the Cloward/Piven strategy of overwhelming the system with demands on government services, if you don't understand what I am talking about. You can find the breakdown and history of it in Richard Poe's book, "The Shadow Party."
All you have to do is look at the Tea Party darlings and their actions. Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann... These are all people who scare the hell out of me and as previously stated I see them as fascists and hypocrites. Wolves in sheeps clothing who have hypnotized the masses and hijacked the growing tide of people who are angry and upset at what they see around them in an attempt to steer them in he wrong direction.
Originally posted by charles1952
Wait just a minute while I surround myself with asbestos. Ok, I'm ready. Gingrich has a pretty good case, I may be convinced.
There are two exceptions to the Miranda requirements, which are recognized by the Supreme Court. One, if the bad guy just starts talking freely on his own, without questioning or coercion. As an example, after a long foot chase, the bad guy gets caught and says "Man, if I knew I was going to have to run so far, I'd never have snatched that purse." He's out of luck, that can be used even without Miranda warnings.
The second exception is the public safety exception. And here, from the vast legal expertise of Wiki, comes the following:
There is also a "public safety" exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before questioning: for example, if the defendant is in possession of information regarding the location of an unattended gun or there are other similar exigent circumstances which require protection of the public, the defendant may be questioned without warning and his responses, though incriminating, will be admissible in evidence (see New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984)). In 2009 the California Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Richard Allen Davis, finding that the public safety exception applied despite the fact that 64 days had passed from the disappearance of the girl later found to be murdered.
I think you could easily argue that the fact there were other members of the cell loose, and that their next target seemed to be New York City, makes the public safety exception certainly plausible here.
Besides all that, the government might have decided that if they didn't give him Miranda, they could still make the case on the other evidence, and they still had a chance to get terrorist information from him.
The judge who decided to step in, wrongfully took that choice from them.
So, way to go, Newt! But I'm glad you're not our President.
Originally posted by Thecakeislie
Yes Gingrich it's a terrible mistake to have LAW in this nation and not just rule by decree. My God, and thank God you didn't get elected you tyrant scum.