Tsarnaev questioned for 16 hours before he was read Miranda rights

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (FBI handout)Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, suspected of bombing the Boston Marathon with his older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was questioned for 16 hours by authorities before being read his Miranda rights, the AP reports today.

Tsarnaev, a 19-year-old college student, confessed his role in the crime during the questioning in his hospital room, but that confession may not be admissible in court. Once he was advised of his right to seek counsel and remain silent by a representative from the U.S. Attorney's office, the suspect stopped talking.

Police are allowed to question suspects without first Mirandizing them, but then their statements are not admissible in court. If police ask questions that seek to uncover future threats to the public, something called the "public safety exception" provides a loophole to this rule.

So, in Tsarnaev's case, if they had asked him if he knew of any planned attacks, or whether there were any bombs planted around Boston, his answers would theoretically be okay to use in a case against him. Authorities questioned both the Christmas Day "underwear bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab—for 50 minutes—and the attempted Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad without first reading them their Miranda rights using the public safety exception.

Some Republicans, led by Sen. Lindsey Graham, have argued that Tsarnaev should be treated as an enemy combatant and detained indefinitely so he can be questioned without a lawyer. Since Tsarnaev is a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil—and because authorities have not connected him to a larger terror network—holding him as an enemy combatant most likely would be illegal.

Even if Tsarnaev's reported confession is not allowed to be used in the courtroom, authorities told the AP that the Tsarnaevs told a witness—a man whose car they carjacked—that they were responsible for the bombing. Law enforcement has also uncovered physical evidence from the scene that they think tie the Tsarnaevs to the bombings.

View the original article here

After court, gay rights spotlight shifts back to Obama

By Jeff Mason

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama may have made a slow start on gay rights issues, but by the end of his first term his record was such that a news magazine dubbed him the nation's "first gay president." Now activists want more.

Fresh from historic Supreme Court arguments over same-sex unions, advocates want Obama to use his executive powers to fight discrimination at businesses, schools, and military bases and stop waiting for action from a reluctant Congress.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule in June on big issues: the constitutional right to gay marriage and the right of gay married couples to federal benefits. Both are backed by Obama.

Now gay rights groups are pushing for additional measures they believe are key elements for cementing equality.

First on their wish list is an executive order from Obama barring federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, an act that could have sweeping impact.

"There is more that he can do," said Jon Davidson, legal director at Lambda Legal, a non-profit organization supporting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. "He has repeatedly said as president that it's people's job to push him to do more and more, so we intend to keep doing that."

So far, the president helped bring an end to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that prevented gays from serving openly in the military, signed hate crimes legislation into law, and mandated that nearly all U.S. hospitals give visitation rights to partners of LGBT patients.

Last year, in the middle of the presidential election, Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage, concluding an "evolution" of his views that took years.

While Obama's advisers tout his record on the issue, they make clear that an executive order on federal contractors soon is unlikely, arguing that it would carry far less weight than broader congressional action. Legislation called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) lacks enough votes to become law.

"We want to continue to advocate for legislation. We think that that's the most robust way to accomplish what we want to accomplish," White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett told Reuters in an interview.

"ENDA is a priority. Right now the votes aren't there, but that doesn't mean they won't be," she said.

However, congressional aides say they see little evidence that the White House - already consumed by gun control, immigration reform and budget issues - is pushing to win support for ENDA.

Political support for gay rights is certainly gathering momentum - a point conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts made in the March arguments when he told a lawyer defending same-sex marriage: "Political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case."

Apart from a few exceptions, however, Republican lawmakers have not been vocal supporters of gay rights. On Friday, the Republican National Committee reaffirmed its commitment to defining marriage as between a man and a woman and called on the Supreme Court to "uphold the sanctity of marriage."

A NEW FOCUS

After lobbying successfully for Obama to weigh in against Proposition 8, a California measure prohibiting same-sex marriage that is now before the Supreme Court, gay rights activists argue executive action is the best way to keep up the momentum.

"Now the priority for our community is definitely continued progress on getting that executive order out of the administration," said Fred Sainz, a spokesman for the gay-rights group Human Rights Campaign.

An order barring discrimination by federal contractors would apply to about 20 percent of the U.S. workforce, according to HRC. It would make it illegal for companies with U.S. government contracts to fire or avoid hiring employees based on sexual orientation and gender identity, just as it now is with race.

Federal action is necessary, activists say, because state laws are inconsistent. They say it is legal to fire someone for being gay in 29 states and for being transgender in 34 states.

Some activists are skeptical that Obama is backing away from executive action because he believes Congress will act. They think he is wary of upsetting the business community by forcing a new regulation on it.

"This Congress is not going to pass ENDA, and they know that," said one activist, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Republican Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois intend to introduce a bill on the issue, according to a Senate aide. However, a similar bill is stalled in committee in the House of Representatives, another aide said.

Obama's advisers believe he has proven his commitment to gay rights is more than lip service, and gay-rights advocates recognize that patience pays off.

Obama's actions, including his administration's decision to weigh in on Proposition 8 and decline to defend the Clinton-era federal Defense of Marriage Act before the Supreme Court, led Newsweek magazine to call him "The First Gay President" in a story on its cover last year.

"He said going in he wanted to do a lot, but I don't think anybody really was sure that he meant it. I put myself in that category, and I admit to being proven wrong," said Richard Socarides, a former senior adviser on gay issues to President Bill Clinton in the late 1990s.

Critics say it took a while to get there. Some Obama backers were frustrated that his "evolution" on gay marriage took so long, and some thought the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" did not get its momentum from the White House.

"He supported it, he signed it, but it's clear that they weren't pushing it," Socarides said.

Now gay rights activists are cautious. Pushing too hard for an executive order would seem ungrateful and could backfire.

POLITICAL PAYOFF

Activists believe Obama could send other signals - for example, by naming an openly gay member to his cabinet.

He could also grant spouses of gay military personnel equal access to commissaries, allow them to live on bases rent free and give them access to legal services such as preparation of wills.

Legislatively, Obama could push for measures to include LGBT students in public school anti-bullying programs.

And, activists say, he could maintain his support for the inclusion of same-sex couples under protections offered by immigration reform efforts making their way through Congress.

Politically, Obama's actions so far have boosted his standing with young voters, and politicians from both parties have noticed, leading to a wave of new, high profile declarations of support in the last few weeks alone.

Exit polls from the 2012 presidential election showed 5 percent of voters considered themselves gay, lesbian or bisexual, and 76 percent of them supported Obama.

Since endorsing gay marriage, Obama underscored the point by referring to it during his Inaugural Address on January 21, tying the push for gay rights to the broader civil-rights movement.

Polls have shown a rapid shift in public opinion on gay rights issues, but Jarrett said that while Obama recognizes his role in shaping public opinion, that was not what drives him.

"This isn't a matter of satisfying a constituency. It's a matter of doing what's right," she said.

(Additional reporting by Richard Cowan; Editing by Marilyn W. Thompson, Mary Milliken and David Brunnstrom)

View the original article here

Analysis: Supreme Court energizes gay rights even as it resists

By Joan Biskupic

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - After two days of Supreme Court arguments over same-sex marriage, the United States may be left with this irony: While the high court is not likely to alter the constitutional landscape for gays, the justices nevertheless have provided a rallying point for the gay-rights cause.

Three major legal outcomes appeared likely as the justices on Wednesday ended the second dramatic day of arguments in the most closely watched dispute of their current term:

* The court would not rule that gay people need special constitutional protection from discrimination.

* The court would not declare a nationwide right to same-sex marriage.

* At the same time, a majority would rule narrowly that the federal government must provide married same-sex couples the same benefits it gives their heterosexual counterparts.

Yet just as the nine black-robed justices made clear that they did not wish to play a leading role in the national conversation about same-sex marriage, they showed they could nonetheless raise its volume. Simply by agreeing to hear the two disputes - one over California's ban on same-sex marriage, the other over the federal law denying benefits to same-sex couples - the justices energized the debate.

Numerous public figures including former President Bill Clinton, who in 1996 signed the law forbidding same-sex couples from obtaining federal benefits, and prominent groups including the American Academy of Pediatrics in recent weeks came out vigorously in support of same-sex marriage and gay civil rights.

Individual members of Congress - Democrats and Republicans - suddenly voiced new support for gay marriage.

Perhaps most dramatically, Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, considered a possible future Republican presidential contender, earlier this month announced he was reversing his opposition to such same-sex marriage, citing the fact that his son two years earlier had told him he was gay.

Opponents of gay marriage have not witnessed any similar high-profile testimonials from people who were switching to their side. Recent opinion polls, taken in association with the Supreme Court's decision to take up the gay-marriage cases, have documented a surge in public support for same-sex unions.

The new cases also pushed the Obama administration to break new legal ground.

President Barack Obama had personally endorsed gay marriage but he had long asserted that same-sex marriage was a matter for the states to handle. At the last minute, however, his administration decided to enter the California dispute and argue that federal guarantees of constitutional equality forbid states from limiting marriage to heterosexuals.

The administration also contended that gays deserve extra constitutional protection from bias, as the Supreme Court has afforded women fighting sex discrimination.

Yet as much as the justices effectively propelled others to take a stand, they showed by their own comments and questions from the bench this week that they do not intend to be at the vanguard.

The lawyers who appeared on Tuesday and Wednesday were passionate in their presentations, yet none seemed to seize the justices and generate equal fervor.

To be sure, there were moments of excitement, including some sharp exchanges between lawyers and individual justices such as when Justice Elena Kagan challenged an attorney's assertion that government's overriding interest in marriage relates to procreation and childbearing.

'UNCHARTED WATERS'

There was also the suspense of what swing-vote Justice Anthony Kennedy might say. Kennedy sent conflicting messages at times, expressing concern about the children of gay parents who cannot marry but then suggesting the justices should be wise to stay out of "uncharted waters" on the issue.

There were moments of tedium, too, as the justices wrestled with procedural issues that could prevent them from deciding the merits of either case.

Such hurdles would likely prevent any decision on California's Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. A majority of the justices signaled they might not reach the merits, most likely because California state officials have declined to defend the law and Proposition 8 backers may lack "legal standing" in the case.

A court majority most certainly would not conclude - as the challengers to Proposition 8 argued on Tuesday - that all 50 U.S. states must allow same-sex marriage. Currently nine states permit such marriages, along with Washington, D.C.

Nothing that emerged in oral arguments on Wednesday over a provision of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) would suggest that the justices had any second thoughts about delving into the larger issues of gay marriage. In fact, their comments reinforced the notion that a majority on the generally conservative court is not ready to carve out new rights for gays.

The Obama administration and other challengers to DOMA had urged the court to declare that government rules tied to sexual orientation deserve "heightened" scrutiny, meaning that the government needs an exceedingly persuasive justification for the regulation.

If the court were to adopt such a level of constitutional protection for gays, as it has in the gender-discrimination context, bans on same-sex marriage would be legally undermined. But that proposition for tougher judicial scrutiny in gay-bias cases gained no traction at the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice John Roberts suggested that the national activity surrounding this week's cases might have demonstrated that gays are, in fact, a political force in no need of special protection.

"As far as I can tell, political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case," Roberts told lawyer Roberta Kaplan, who was representing a New York woman denied a federal estate-tax exemption because her spouse was another woman, not a man.

Roberts may have been referring to national figures including Portman whose endorsement of gay marriage coincided with the court's consideration of the matter.

In the same vein, a record number of "friend of the court" briefs were submitted in the paired cases, most favoring gay rights. In yet another unusual move, marking one of corporate America's most high-profile efforts on same-sex marriage, close to 300 businesses urged the court to strike down the DOMA restriction. (Thomson Reuters Corp, which owns Reuters, was among them.)

Outside the marble-columned Supreme Court building, demonstrators rallying for gay marriage dominated the scene.

So no matter how this court ultimately rules - a decision is expected by late June - it seems clear that the justices' mere involvement was a boost to the gay-rights cause, at least in the court of public opinion.

(Reporting by Joan Biskupic; Editing by Eric Effron and Will Dunham)

View the original article here

Gun rights backers vow court fight against new Colorado laws

By Keith Coffman

DENVER (Reuters) - Only a day after Colorado's governor signed laws setting limits on ammunition and imposing background checks, gun rights advocates have vowed to sue, some county sheriffs have declined to enforce the measures, and an ammunition magazine manufacturer is leaving the state.

The measures signed into law on Wednesday by Governor John Hickenlooper will ban ammunition magazines with more than 15 rounds, require universal background checks for gun buyers and force gun buyers to pay for their own background checks.

Colorado has seen two of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history, and the legislation represented an effort to prevent those types of killings. The measures were also passed during a national debate over firearms violence reignited by the December slayings of 20 children and six adults at a school in Connecticut.

The laws' passages are considered a victory for Democrats in a state where gun ownership is treasured.

The Denver-based libertarian group Independence Institute said it would file a lawsuit either in state or federal court against Colorado seeking to block the measures that are set to go into effect on July 1.

"We're going to court and the people in 2014 are going to have an opportunity to choose a new legislature and a new governor," said David Kopel, research director for the group.

In another challenge to gun-control measures enacted after the Connecticut school shootings, a National Rifle Association affiliate filed a lawsuit on Thursday charging that New York state's laws banning assault weapons and limiting the size of ammunition magazines violated the constitutional right to bear arms.

MANUFACTURER LEAVING

Ammunition magazine manufacturer Magpul, which has a plant in Erie, Colorado, threatened before the passage of the Colorado bill to leave the state and take away what its executives said were 200 direct jobs and 400 jobs at related companies in its supply chain.

On its Facebook page, Magpul said it would go through with the threat to move, and supporters posted comments inviting them to their own states such as Missouri and Nevada.

"Our transition to a new home will occur in a phased and orderly manner to allow us to continue to serve our customers during the move, as well as to allow an orderly transition for affected employees," the company's statement on Facebook said.

A representative for Magpul did not return calls.

Eric Brown, spokesman for the governor, said in an email that nothing in the bills signed by Hickenlooper would prevent Magpul from "manufacturing here and selling elsewhere."

Meanwhile, a number of county sheriffs in Colorado have said they cannot or will not enforce the new gun control laws, even as the governor's office has directed state officials to give law enforcement agencies technical guidance on how the magazine limits in particular should be interpreted and enforced.

"We expect sheriffs to follow all state laws to the best of their abilities," Brown said.

In July 2012, a gunman opened fire in a crowded theater at the opening night of the Batman movie "The Dark Knight Rises" in the Denver suburb of Aurora, killing 12 people and wounding 58 others.

Colorado was also the site of a 1999 massacre at Columbine High School, where two teenagers shot dead a teacher and 12 other students before committing suicide.

(This story corrects to show Magpul is an ammunition magazine manufacturer, not an ammunition manufacturer)

(Additional reporting by Joseph Ax in New York; Writing by Alex Dobuzinskis; Editing by Cynthia Johnston and Peter Cooney)

View the original article here

Gun rights backers vow court fight against new Colorado laws

By Keith Coffman

DENVER (Reuters) - Only a day after Colorado's governor signed laws setting limits on ammunition and imposing background checks, gun rights advocates have vowed to sue, some county sheriffs have declined to enforce the measures, and an ammunition manufacturer is leaving the state.

The measures signed into law on Wednesday by Governor John Hickenlooper will ban ammunition magazines with more than 15 rounds, require universal background checks for gun buyers and force gun buyers to pay for their own background checks.

Colorado has seen two of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history, and the legislation represented an effort to prevent those types of killings. The measures were also passed amid a national debate over firearm violence reignited by the December slayings of 20 children and six adults at a school in Connecticut.

The laws passages are considered a victory for Democrats in a state where gun ownership is treasured and debate has occurred in the wake of two mass shootings.

The Denver-based libertarian group Independence Institute said it would file a lawsuit either in state or federal court against Colorado seeking to block the measures that are set to go into effect on July 1.

"We're going to court and the people in 2014 are going to have an opportunity to choose a new legislature and a new governor," said David Kopel, research director for the group.

MANUFACTURER LEAVING

Ammunition manufacturer Magpul, which has a plant in Erie, Colorado, threatened before the passage of the bill to leave the state and take away what its executives said were 200 direct jobs and 400 jobs at related companies in its supply chain.

On its Facebook page, Magpul said it would go through with the threat to move, and supporters posted comments inviting them to their own states such as Missouri and Nevada.

"Our transition to a new home will occur in a phased and orderly manner to allow us to continue to serve our customers during the move, as well as to allow an orderly transition for affected employees," the company's statement on Facebook said.

A representative for Magpul did not return calls.

Eric Brown, spokesman for the governor, said in an email that nothing in the bills signed by Hickenlooper would prevent Magpul from "manufacturing here and selling elsewhere."

Meanwhile, a number of county sheriffs in Colorado have said they cannot or will not enforce the new gun control laws, even as the governor's office has directed state officials to give law enforcement agencies technical guidance on how the magazine limits in particular should be interpreted and enforced.

"We expect sheriffs to follow all state laws to the best of their abilities," Brown said.

In July 2012, a gunman opened fire in a crowded theater at the opening night of the Batman movie "The Dark Knight Rises" in the Denver suburb of Aurora, killing 12 people and wounding 58 others.

Colorado was also the site of a 1999 massacre at Columbine High School, where two teenagers shot dead a teacher and 12 other students before committing suicide.

(Writing by Alex Dobuzinskis; Editing by Cynthia Johnston and L Gevirtz)

View the original article here

South Dakota allows armed teachers, Georgia advances gun-carry rights

(Reuters) - South Dakota school districts could arm teachers under a bill introduced after the Connecticut school shooting rampage and signed into law on Friday, a day after Georgia lawmakers advanced legislation to end a ban on firearms in bars, churches and college classrooms.

The "school sentinels" law signed by South Dakota Governor Dennis Daugaard, a Republican, allows the state's 152 school districts to decide whether they want to arm teachers, other employees, hired security guards or volunteers.

School boards must get approval for their program from local law enforcement officials, and sentinels would have to pass a training program to carry weapons in the schools. District residents could put the issue to a voter referendum.

The law in South Dakota and the proposal in Georgia are two moves by state legislatures that aim to expand gun rights at a time when other state and federal leaders consider new limits following the December killing of 26 children and adults at an elementary school in Connecticut.

In Georgia, the Republican-led state House voted 117-56 on Thursday to advance the measure to restore gun carry rights that have been chipped away over the years, said one sponsor, state Representative John Meadows, a Republican.

The Georgia legislation also would allow licensed gun owners to take weapons inside some unsecured government buildings where they are currently banned, starting on July 1. They would still be outlawed from college dormitories and sporting events, Meadows said on Friday.

The bill does not specify or make any exemptions on the types of weapons and applies to all legal guns, Meadows said.

Democratic state Representative Karla Drenner, who opposed the measure, said it was part of a backlash against a national push to strengthen gun control laws after the Connecticut killings.

Drenner, an instructor at several colleges, said she was concerned about the impact on potential confrontations with angry students, recalling on Friday how a student once screamed at her for mispronouncing his name.

"If he had a gun, the outcome could have been much different," Drenner said.

Asked about Drenner's concerns, Meadows said, "She ought to be armed."

The measure next moves to the Georgia state Senate for consideration. Meadows predicted it would pass, based on the response he said he had received from senators.

Senate President Pro Tem David Shafer, a Republican, said in a statement on Friday the bill would be assigned to a Senate committee next week.

"The Senate passed strong pro-Second Amendment legislation of its own, and I am confident that we will reach agreement with the House," Shafer said.

Any measure advanced from the legislature would go to Republican Governor Nathan Deal for his signature.

On Friday, Deal spokesman Brian Robinson said the governor agreed with language in the proposal that would make it harder for the mentally ill to obtain licenses to carry concealed weapons. He declined to say whether Deal supports other parts of the proposal.

(Editing by Colleen Jenkins,; Jeffrey Benkoe and Dan Grebler)

View the original article here

Biden leads re-enactment of voting rights march

SELMA, Ala. (AP) — The vice president and black leaders commemorating a famous civil rights march on Sunday said efforts to diminish the impact of African-Americans' votes haven't stopped in the years since the 1965 Voting Rights Act added millions to Southern voter rolls.

More than 5,000 people followed Vice President Joe Biden and U.S. Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma's annual Bridge Crossing Jubilee.

The event commemorates the "Bloody Sunday" beating of voting rights marchers — including a young Lewis — by state troopers as they began a march to Montgomery in March 1965. The 50-mile march prompted Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act that struck down impediments to voting by African-Americans and ended all-white rule in the South.

Biden, the first sitting vice president to participate in the annual re-enactment, said nothing shaped his consciousness more than watching TV footage of the beatings. "We saw in stark relief the rank hatred, discrimination and violence that still existed in large parts of the nation," he said.

Biden said marchers "broke the back of the forces of evil," but that challenges to voting rights continue today with restrictions on early voting and voter registration drives and enactment of voter ID laws where no voter fraud has been shown.

"We will never give up or give in," Lewis told marchers.

Jesse Jackson said Sunday's event had a sense of urgency because the U.S. Supreme Court heard a request Wednesday by a mostly white Alabama county to strike down a key portion of the Voting Rights Act.

"We've had the right to vote 48 years, but they've never stopping trying to diminish the impact of the votes," Jackson said.

Referring to the Voting Rights act, the Rev. Al Sharpton said: "We are not here for a commemoration. We are here for a continuation."

The Supreme Court is weighing Shelby County's challenge to a portion of the law that requires states with a history of racial discrimination, mostly in the Deep South, to get approval from the Justice Department before implementing any changes in election laws. That includes everything from new voting districts to voter ID laws.

Attorneys for Shelby County argued that the pre-clearance requirement is outdated in a state where one-fourth of the Legislature is black. But Jackson predicted the South will return to gerrymandering and more at-large elections if the Supreme Court voids part of the law.

Attorney General Eric Holder, the defendant in Shelby County's suit, told marchers that the South is far different than it was in 1965 but is not yet at the point where the most important part of the voting rights act can be dismissed as unnecessary.

Martin Luther King III, whose father led the march when it resumed after Bloody Sunday, said, "We come here not to just celebrate and observe but to recommit."

One of the NAACP attorneys who argued the case, Debo Adegbile, said when Congress renewed the Voting Rights Act in 2006, it understood that the act makes sure minority inclusion is considered up front.

"It reminds us to think consciously about how we can include all our citizens in democracy. That is as important today as it was in 1965," he said.

Adegbile said the continued need for the law was shown in 2011 when undercover recordings from a bribery investigation at the Alabama Legislature included one white legislator referring to blacks as "aborigines" and other white legislators laughing.

"This was 2011. This was not 1965," he said.

View the original article here