Court Hears Arguments On Police Interrogations

In 2003, Michael Shatzer Sr. was serving a sentence at the Maryland Correctional Institution for sexually abusing a minor. When police asked him if he had ever sexually abused his son, Shatzer refused to answer and said he wanted to speak with a lawyer. In 2006, investigators returned, and Shatzer incriminated himself. In court, Shatzer’s attorney asked that the comments be stricken from the record on the grounds that police can not reopen questioning after a suspect requests counsel.

Today the Supreme Court took up the question of whether police can approach a suspect after he requests a lawyer. The 1981 Supreme Court precedent on police questioning holds that law enforcement officials are not allowed to badger a suspect into confessing by repeatedly asking if he wants to talk. The twist in the Shatzer case is that there was a two-and-a-half year delay from when police first questioned him to when he was later approached by investigators at a separate detention facility.

The bright-line rule established by the 1981 ruling is easily enforced: if there’s no lawyer, and if the suspect has not voluntarily said he wants to speak without a lawyer, and if the suspect has not been allowed to go home, the police cannot approach him to ask him about any crime. The rule is there to prevent suspects from incriminating themselves and to prevent police from badgering them into confessing.

Justice Antonin Scalia took issue with the argument made by Shatzer’s lawyer that coming back after two and a half years is “badgering,” and the lawyer seemed to admit that “badgering” isn’t the right term. Still, the lawyer argued, the police should not be allowed to approach the suspect, since any standard that allowed the police to approach after a certain amount of time would be hard to enforce. On the other hand, other justices pointed out that it would be hard for police to determine whether a suspect has ever before asked for a lawyer, even during questioning years earlier, before asking questions.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who will likely be the swing voter in the case, seemed concerned with the police’s argument that Shatzer’s “release” back into the prison population after his interrogation in 2003 eliminates the possibility of coercion by police. Justice Kennedy suggested that the prison warden could, for example, put some pressure on the suspect by putting him in a better or worse cell to encourage him to talk to police.

The Supreme Court will release its decision on the case later this year.

Pelosi on Water-boarding

By Kayleigh Harvey - Talk Radio News Service

Today on Capitol Hill Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi fielded questions on water-boarding and interrogation during her weekly press conference.

Asked about whether or not she raised objections during her time on the House Intelligence Committee during a briefing on interrogation methods, including water-boarding, Pelosi said, “It’s not appropriate for me to talk about what happens at briefings.”

“It’s very interesting that people are talking so freely, but I can say this...we were not and I repeat, we were not told that water-boarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used. What they did tell us was that they had some, the office of legislative council opinions that they could be used...further if and when they would be used they would brief Congress at that time,” said Pelosi.

Pelosi added, “Flat out they never briefed us this was happening. In fact they said they would, if and when they did....they can say whatever they want but the fact is they did not brief us in that regard.”

Pelosi said, “I have questioned the value of the briefings over and over and over again, we only know what they chose to tell us.”

In terms of investigations into the the people who made the decisions to use interrogation methods Pelosi said, “I have always been for a truth commission because I think that this is very important...I don’t think there should be total immunity, I think it should be a case by case basis.”

In closing Pelosi said, “Let me make this clear. These are not glory days for our country in terms of this enhanced interrogation and the rest, and in terms of how information is acquired in our country outside the law. It is clear now that, that has happened.”

Pelosi added, “As a member of the Intelligence Committee I thought I was being briefed, until I became a Senior member and then I realized that the members of the committee are not privy to a great deal of information and that simply is not right.” -

Subpoena will be issued to no-show Feith, former undersecretary of Defense for Policy

The House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties met to discuss the issuance of a subpoena to Douglas Feith, the former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy. Feith was scheduled to give witness at a hearing last Wednesday, but canceled his appearance four hours before its scheduled time. The hearing was for discussion of the Bush Administration’s role in authorizing the use of abusive interrogation policies.

Feith cited the presence of another witness at the hearing, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson as his reason for canceling. The Chairman of the Subcommittee, Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said that Feith’s absence was “an affront” to the committee and to the country. Nadler said that Feith had a central role in forming the abusive interrogation policies so his testimony is necessary to understanding the matter. Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) opposed the subpoena. He said that Feith deserved a second chance, rather than an immediate “sledgehammer of subpoena.” But, the committee voted nine to three in favor of the subpoena.