Answer:
President Bush announced the end of major combat operations, not that the war was over.
Explanation:
Neither President officially said the war was over. And the administration in a bit of cockiness did make a variety of statements about how the war was over (the "mission accomplished" banner, a speech by Rumsfeld, etc.). The Bush administration did not anticipate or plan for any kind of real insurgency and at the time of the invasion, there was no al-Qaeda presence in Iraq so the continued fighting came as a major surprise.
President Obama announced the end of US combat involvement in Iraq. Technically that was true--the SOFA (US status of forces agreement) had expired and the only elements we were allowed to have in Iraq at that point were trainers, security (for US personnel and our embassy) and support (for instance, the Iraqi air force was almost non-existent). But no authorized combat units.
the Mayans devolved a hierarchical government ruled by kings and priest, they lived in independent city states consisting of rural communities and large urban ceremonial centers, there were no standing armies, but warfare played an important role in religion, power and prestige.
The Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)<span> required (for the first time) that someone accused of a crime be </span>informed<span> of his or her constitutional rights prior to interrogation. This protected the rights of the accused, or the defendant, in two new ways: 1) It educated the person about relevant constitutional rights; and 2) It inhibited law enforcement officials from infringing those rights by applying the Exclusionary Rule to any testimony/incriminating statements the defendant made unless he intentionally waived his rights. </span>
<span>The Exclusionary Rule prohibits evidence or testimony obtained illegally or in violation of the constitution from being used against the defendant in court. </span>
<span>The </span>Miranda<span> ruling has been revised somewhat by subsequent Supreme Court decisions. On June 1, 2010, the Roberts' Court released the opinion for </span>Berghuis v. Thompkins,<span> 08-1470 (2010), which held a defendant must </span>invoke<span> his right to remain silent (by stating he wants to remain silent), rather than </span>waive<span>it (by explicitly agreeing to answer questions before interrogation). </span>
