http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/us/25miranda-text.html?_r=0&pagewanted=print

"There may be exceptional cases in which, although all relevant public safety questions have been asked, agents nonetheless conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat, and that the government's interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation. [4] In these instances, agents should seek SAC approval to proceed with unwarned interrogation after the public safety questioning is concluded. Whenever feasible, the SAC will consult with FBI-HQ (including OGC) and Department of Justice attorneys before granting approval. Presentment of an arrestee may not be delayed simply to continue the interrogation, unless the defendant has timely waived prompt presentment."

I think I am beginning to like Cruz. I made the same argument he did in this video in a gun rights debate about 2 months ago. I would say that "great minds think alike" but I think he is smarter than I am, so I might offend him by bringing him down to my level. Suffice it to say I'll be watching his senatorial career (and beyond?) with great interest.

Doesn't even do him justice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz

Good post, Doug.

Grateful for a promising professional challenge.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100642178

From the article:

What do American businesses want from their college hires? According to a new survey, creative thinkers and better communicators—both of which are said to be in short supply.

The survey of CEOs by the Association of American Colleges and Universities found that 74 percent said they would recommend a 21st-century liberal education in order to create a more dynamic worker. The survey of 320 business leaders was conducted in January. Results were released last week.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/ricin_case_an_inside_look_at_capitol_polices_role_in_investigation-224151-1.html?ET=rollcall:e15512:105450a:&st=email&pos=eam

From the article:

The Capitol Police took the key first step: It asked Wicker’s office whether it had ever had any correspondences with a constituent who had the initials “KC.”

It turned out, the Washington office had heard multiple times from someone named Paul Kevin Curtis, who in each correspondence signed off with the line “This is KEVIN CURTIS and I approve this message.”

I'm glad you liked them, Guro.

But there is no due process constitutionally safeguarded at the college. The college is free to use  "a preponderance of the evidence." And, as I said, for the most part I agree with issues being presented.

BoR doesn't really have a place in the college judicial board type of hearing.

That said, I appreciate much of the author's points.

http://www.westernfreepress.com/2013/02/16/united-nations-data-show-america-has-high-gun-ownership-but-a-low-murder-rate/

From the article:

You’ll also notice that many of the countries with higher rates of gun ownership have lower rates of homicide. The correlation is not 100%, but there is more correlation with more gun ownership = fewer homicides and less gun ownership = more homicides than the reverse.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/04/stories-in-the-smoke-what-a-bomb-expert-sees.html

Dr. Adam B. Hall, a forensic chemist and former crime-scene analyst for the Massachusetts State Police, teaches at the Boston University School of Medicine, home to a highly regarded forensic-science program. He had just left campus on Monday, around 3 P.M., when ambulances screamed past him on Massachusetts Avenue, which connects the South End of the city with the Back Bay, where thousands of marathon runners were still making their way toward the finish line, at Copley Square. Hall figured the urgency was due to an unusually high number of fatigued or injured runners. Then along came a bomb-squad truck, an unmistakable sight for Hall, who has processed hundreds of crime scenes, most involving arson and explosives.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/294461-second-poison-letter-sent-to-white-house

From the article:

Authorities have intercepted a letter to the White House that tested positive for ricin poison, according to multiple media reports.

The Secret Service has acknowledged the letter addressed to President Obama contained a suspicious substance but has not stated it was ricin, a deadly poison.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112906/where-obama-staff-veterans-are-working-2013

From the article:

Of course, this being the Obama tribe—a group of people who promised the most ethical, transparent administration in history; who gave themselves migraines by refusing to hire lobbyists (except when they did); who, during the 2008 primaries, held up the influence-peddling ex-Clintonite Lanny Davis as a shorthand for everything wrong with Washington—there is more than a little anguish over all the newfound riches. “Axe [David Axelrod] thinks all of us are lobbyists,” says one Obama campaign adviser.  In conversations with other Obamans, several were willing to damn former colleagues as ethically suspect. (Naturally, they downplayed their own transgressions.)

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/terrorism/294375-boehners-hand-forced-on-benghazi

From the article:

Speaker John Boehner is trying to head off a GOP rebellion over his handling of the investigation into last year’s fatal attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, by releasing an interim report of evidence by his panel chairmen.

A very fine piece. Thanks for the read, Guro.

 

IBM executives head to Washington to press lawmakers on cybersecurity bill
By Jennifer Martinez
04/15/13
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/293715-ibm-launching-cispa-advocacy-tour


Nearly 200 senior IBM executives are flying into Washington to press for the passage of a controversial cybersecurity bill that will come up for a vote in the House this week.

The IBM executives will pound the pavement on Capitol Hill Monday and Tuesday, holding nearly 300 meetings with lawmakers and staff. Over the course of those two days, their mission is to convince lawmakers to back a bill that’s intended to make it easier for industry and government to share information about cyber threats with each other in real time.

“We’re going to put our shoe leather where our mouth is,” Chris Padilla, vice president of governmental affairs at IBM, told The Hill.

“The message we're going to give [lawmakers] is going to be a very simple, clear message: support the passage of CISPA,” he later added.

The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA, by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and ranking member Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), passed out of committee on an 18-2 vote last Wednesday and is expected to come to the floor for a vote as soon as mid-week.

While the bill enjoys strong backing from industry, privacy advocates warn the bill lacks sufficient protections for people’s information online. The White House issued a veto threat against the first iteration of CISPA last year, due in part to privacy concerns.

Despite the opposition, CISPA safely passed the House last year on a bipartisan vote—and IBM intends to make sure it does again this week.

The technology services company runs the information technology networks of major hospitals, banks and electric companies—key infrastructure that lawmakers and security officials warn are top targets for hostile actors to launch a cyberattack.

Big Blue is also the top recipient of U.S. patents and owns a trove of valuable intellectual property that would be enticing to probing hackers looking to siphon valuable proprietary information. A report published by computer security firm Mandiant this year concluded that an elite military unit of Chinese hackers has allegedly cracked into the computer systems of more than 100 U.S. companies and stolen intellectual property.

The company believes the best way to thwart a cyberattack is to encourage companies to share more data about malicious source code and other online threats with the government and their private-sector peers so they can take steps to address it, according to Padilla.

“It’s our experience that the most effective thing you can do when a cyberattack occurs is to share information quickly between government and industry and between industry actors in real time in order to find where the attack is coming from and to shut it down,” he said.

"The key really is when an attack happens—and they will happen—is detecting it, and shutting it down and preventing the loss of data as quickly as possible. That's a question of information and it's a question of speed," Padilla said. "And often, the government will have very timely and critical information that banks or telecommunications companies need to know that there is an attack. Other times, we detect it first and sharing [information] with the government could serve to warn others that there may be an attack."


But companies are currently hesitant to share information about cyber threats they spot on computer networks with the government because they fear it may put them at risk for being sued. CISPA would address that concern, Padilla said, by granting companies liability protection from lawsuits if they share threat information with the government, allowing firms to get the assistance and data they need faster.

If a cyberattack is launched against a key piece of infrastructure, “you don't want a bunch of lawyers sitting in a room arguing whether to tell the government,” he said. “You want there to be clear and established procedures. CISPA will help facilitate that.”

But the cyber information-sharing bill has rankled privacy advocates from Washington to Silicon Valley. One of their chief concerns with the bill is that it would allow companies to share threat information directly with the military, including the National Security Agency, without being required to take steps to remove personally identifiable information from that data. Privacy advocates warn that could lead to people's email and IP addresses, names, and other personal information being inadvertently passed on to the NSA without their knowledge.

The American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Democracy and Technology and Electronic Frontier Foundation argue that a civilian agency, namely the Homeland Security Department (DHS), should be the first recipient of cyber threat data from companies. DHS would then pass on that data with other government agencies and departments.

Privacy advocates argue that a civilian agency is subject to more oversight relative to the secretive spy agency.

Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) proposed a set of privacy-focused amendments during the markup of CISPA last week, which did not receive enough votes to be adopted into the bill. One of the amendments by Schakowsky would have ensured that DHS is the first recipient of threat data from companies and would relay that information to other agencies.

"I think if you're looking just to maximize efficiency and you don't care about anything else, then we should give the job to NSA. But we have a separation of civilian and military in this country when you're talking about domestic cyber information," Schiff said at a press conference after the House Intelligence panel's markup of CISPA. "If we wanted efficiency only, then we wouldn't have a Fourth Amendment." 

CISPA would “shift the control of the cyber program from civilian hands to a secretive military agency," said Greg Nojeim, senior counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology, last week. "It'll be very difficult for there to be any transparency or any accountability if that shift happens."

Padilla, however, says companies need to be able to share threat data directly with the NSA “because that’s where the expertise is.”

“It really is a simple matter. The expertise in the U.S. government on cybersecurity largely rests in one place, and that's the National Security Agency,” he said. “They tend to know the most, the soonest about cyber threats and I think, frankly, there is a certain amount of feeling in the business community that you should be able to work directly and share information directly with the agency that has the most expertise.”

He said that IBM is open to working with DHS and other civilian agencies on the company’s cybersecurity efforts, but it believes the NSA has the most expertise at this point.

“We don't have a bias. We just want to work with who's got the expertise,” Padilla said.

During their fly-in trip, the executives also plan to press lawmakers to pass comprehensive immigration reform, which would include measures aimed at raising the cap for H-1B visas for skilled workers and freeing up more green cards.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/04/the-green-death.html

From the article:

In 2005, Experiment Station researchers were unnerved to learn that a bacterial disease called citrus greening had arrived in Florida citrus groves. Citrus greening, also called huanglongbing or yellow dragon disease, is carried by an insect called the Asian citrus psyllid. It cannot, as yet, be cured; while infected trees may not show symptoms for months or years, they eventually begin to produce yellow foliage and misshapen, bitter fruit that drops prematurely to the ground. Researchers consider greening a mortal threat: it is so damaging to fruit crops that in 2003, the U.S. classified the bacteria that causes it as a bioterror tool.

But not drone surveillance.

Behavior? Like voting? Riding a bus? Working? Buying a gun? Bearing an arm? Starting a business?  I can't think of a single reason why any behavior should be protected.

I have expressed reluctance about answering the question for two days. I then answered it the best way that I know how, based on my understanding of the question, the cases and the Constitution. If, after not wanting to answer to doing that very thing you still feel I am ducking the question, I have nothing left to offer the conversation. I wish you all well in finding truth in this question.

I will look forward to the next question, I guess.

Congratulations, Joe. Woof!

No. A fundamental right and a right are not the same thing. Hence the difference between strict scrutiny and heightened scrutiny. And, as I have already said, I think: A) were I a justice, this is what I would use and B) this is the level I expect that the Court will use.

This is helpful, thank you. I disagree, in that the Constitution provisions, including the ones I've mentioned throughout should be beyond the scope of majoritarian rules. See, as another example, the Second Amendment protections no matter the public opinion.

"...depending on what caselaw develops." I thought you said that there was established case law. There is real discussion about the applicability of Kyllo because of the idea that in 2001, the technology in question wasn't common. This seemed to be an issue with Scalia in the opinion of the court. I posted a CRS report on this question a while back.

Again, I ask... why are you three all libertarian when it suits your other views, but all over state repression when you disagree with an action?

Why would a right depend on a vote of the people?

Why don't you see the logic that religious freedoms are also for those who have religious views and practices that you don't share?

As for polygamy, I appreciate the offer to answer a question I was obviously relunctant to answer. The question before the Court is gay marriage. that's it. Only gay marriage. Therefore, according to the rules/normes/mores of the Court, the only question that should be answered is about gay marriage. Why did Sotomayor ask. I suspect it had not to do to allay her fears, but either Kennedy's or Roberts's.

I think that the polygamy question is the last gasps of a conservative minority of this country to change the question in the hopes of scaring people about the spectre of the demise of the country. It has nothing to do with the question before the Court.

GM, I was answering question that Doug asked me about how my vote would go down if I were on the Court. When the polygamy case to the court, let's discuss it. Next time I am asked a question by a SCOTUS justice, I'll address it. Ted Olson is smarter than I, what can I say?

When do I get your answers to my questions?

GM and I agree here. And I don't know, either. I'll ask around, though. Excellent question, Crafty.

Crafty, do you know why hot links are being made without posters' intent? "Surveillance" doesn't lead to anything I posted.

What you miss, GM, is that with new technology comes new questions. As with wire tapping, aircraft surveillance, heat detection devices and the like, there is not a standing precedent exactly for this technology. This means that there exists a questions about whether the legal standards are, indeed, "applicable."

I don't address your question, GM, because it is not the question at hand. You have shifted the question, and I choose not to address it. And nevermind, of course, that you ignore my points.

It is a good post, Doug. But it ignores the equal protection and contract clauses, which requires states to recognize contracts made in other states. DOMA does violate that.

Marc, I know this is no surprise, but I disagree with you, for all of the points I made earlier about what IS in the Constitution. And, as religion IS in the Constitution, I would have an issue if an "all out war" on religion erupted. But, by the same token that CK brings up in his article, why shouldn't a Quaker, or Episcopalian same sex couple NOT be recognized?

No, GM, it is you who do this. The question is about gay marriage. Not pologamy. But, you brought it up. It is you who bring up "chaff." Is it because there is no discernable constitutional provision to ban gay marriage, so you hope to complicate the issue?

Incidentally, why do you want small government and a lack of a nanny state except in policy spaces you disagree with? If there was a national ban on soda, or guns or... well, nearly everything else, you would be talking dictatorship. Why homosexual marriage?

OK, let's try this again, even though we've this already:

1, states already allow incest. Do you know how many states allow first cousins to marry? Do you want to overturn those laws, GM, even though they are between a man and a woman?
2, states allow girls to marry men, when those females are not yet legal of legal voting, drinking, etc. age. Do you want to overturn those laws, GM, even though at least one of the marriage partners is still a minor?
3, how much of using a dictionary to define marriage is circular logic? Could it be that the dictionary definition has changed to define marriage as a man/woman because the state defines as such?
4, there are plenty of biblical marriages which are not a man and a woman. Or marriage laws/rules that we now hold be anachronistic.
5, since you are into logic: since Mormons believe in pologamy, and since Mormons are Christian, polygamy is Christian.

Only if your logic is to contract out incest, GM.

Is the meaning of the words "to marry" in the Constitution?

Original intent is onlt one way to interprete the Constitution. Another, and one that is generally considered "conservative" is meaning of the words.

Since there is a clause that says: "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws it is pretty easy to see that some people are equally protected when denied the right to marry.

And there is this: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

And this: "No State shall enter into any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts."

And, there is a long-standing understanding of the dichotomy of belief and action. Assuming the SCOTUS strikes DOMA, you (broadly defined) can believe that marriage means a man and woman. It just won't be supported legally. There were (are?) plenty of people who felt that marriage between different races is unbiblical (or similar). That does not mean that the belief is A), true or B) legally enforceable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/aggressive-talk-from-north-korea-concerns-us-leaders/2013/03/29/85dec134-989c-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_story.html?hpid=z1

From the article:

Behind the sudden decision to strengthen mainland American defenses against North Korean missiles is a fear that Pyongyang’s biggest benefactor, China, may no longer be able to act as a guarantor of baseline stability on the Korean Peninsula.

In the past month, North Korea has ignored Chinese warnings by threatening a nuclear strike on the United States and renouncing the 60-year armistice with South Korea. The rhetorical escalation followed advances in missile technology and a nuclear weapons test that China had opposed.

http://nationalinterest.org/article/congressional-abdication-8138

From the article:

Importantly and often forgotten these days, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution was also carefully drawn to give Congress, not the president, certain powers over the structure and use of the military. True, the president would act as commander in chief, but only in the sense that he would be executing policies shepherded within the boundaries of legislative powers. In some cases his power is narrowed further by the requirement that he obtain the “Advice and Consent” of two-thirds of the Senate. Congress, not the president, would “raise and support Armies,” with the Constitution limiting appropriations for such armies to no more than two years. This was a clear signal that in our new country there would be no standing army to be sent off on foreign adventures at the whim of a pseudomonarch. The United States would not engage in unchecked, perpetual military campaigns.

http://www.aljazeera.com/weather/2013/03/201333091446488757.html

From the article:

How do you ‘lose’ a river? The answer is ‘quite easily’, apparently.  China has lost more than 25,000 of them in the last 30 years.

In a survey, released by the country’s Ministries of Water Resources and Statistics, the number of recorded rivers with catchment areas of over 100 square kilometres had fallen to just under 23,000 compared with a figure of 50,000 in the 1990s.

From Doug: "I can't disagree with your prediction.  Your vote would be with the 6?"

You can if you like. Many court watchers seem to be predicting the justices will DIG Prop 8 based on standing. So, from what I've read, anyway, I seem to be the minority there.

And, yes, it would.

Prop 8 goes down 6-3. Heightened scrutiny. Kennedy writes. RBG concurs, but only because heightened scrutiny belongs to her.

DOMA goes down 6-3. Some combination of equal protection, contract clause. Roberts writes.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/290977-boehner-no-excuse-for-youngs-wetbacks-comment

From the article:

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said there was "no excuse" for the comment, in which Young described Latino workers on his family farm as "wetbacks" in a radio interview Thursday.

Top news: North Korea severed its only line of communication with the South Korean military on Wednesday, saying that north-south military communication is unnecessary when "a war may break out at any moment." The announcement, carried by the official news agency, comes only one day after Pyongyang ordered its rocket and artillery units to be combat ready, targeting U.S. bases on the mainland, Hawaii, and Guam.
North Korea previously cut off communications with the Red Cross and the U.S. military over the international response to its third nuclear test in February. According to the New York Times, however, the joint industrial park at Kaesong remains open, with workers and trucks continuing to cross the border.
"There do not exist any dialogue channel and communications means between the DPRK and the U.S. and between the north and the south," said the statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency. "Not words but only arms will work on the U.S. and the South Korean puppet forces."
North Korea last severed all military communication in 2009, when the United States and South Korea conducted joint military drills.
United Nations: The final draft of an U.N. arms trade treaty was sent to member governments Wednesday, bringing the goal of an international treaty regulating conventional weapons sales one step closer to fruition. According to analysts, however, several countries may still block approval by consensus, in which case negotiators would most likely seek two-thirds majority approval in the General Assembly next week.