[civil liberties] bombing suspect not to be mirandized

[silverwhisper]

courtesy of an acquaintance elsewhere...

short version: dzhokhar tsarnaev, the surviving suspect in the boston bombing earlier this week, will not be read his miranda protections. long version here.

commentary: the FBI is citing the public safety exception for no apparent reason whatsoever. sadly, the exception has been broadened and the article does a nice job of addressing how.

but that's beside the point. this is utterly indefensible. while it's tragic 3 people are dead and so many were injured, this is a right. it's not supposed to be conditional.

ed

 

[NippleMuncher]

In case you hadn't noticed, all any "authority" has to do is mention the forbidden "T" word and your rights cease to exist. You are not subject to miranda rights, legal counsel, or any other amenities of the law. Furthermore, you can be held indefinitely, without the aforementioned rights, charges, or any other formalities.

 

[silverwhisper]

i've noticed. doesn't mean i gotta like it.

i now feel like i need a shower.

ed

 

[Lord Pmann]

Terrorism is considered an act of war, not a crime. They are held to different standards.

Not saying I agree or disagree. But you're not comparing apples and oranges when you are talking acts of terror.

This is possibly some residual of the piece of shit Patriot Act?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Terrorism is considered an act of war, not a crime. They are held to different standards.

Not saying I agree or disagree. But you're not comparing apples and oranges when you are talking acts of terror.

This is possibly some residual of the piece of shit Patriot Act?

No. Bombing churches and the Olympics and Chicago drugstores was not war, it was ungloved terrorism. The Beltway snipers were terrorists. The KKK are terrorists.

 

[fgarvb1]

I agree that it's policy and their tough luck and all but still.

They had green cards ...are they citizens of the USA?

And how might that play into it?

 

[silverwhisper]

rainshine queried:
has this not been in place since 9/11?

the enemy combatant bullshit dreamt up by the moron, w, doesn't apply. so no.

pmann quoth:
terrorism is considered an act of war, not a crime. they are held to different standards.

not saying i agree or disagree. but you're not comparing apples and oranges when you are talking acts of terror.

this is possibly some residual of the piece of shit patriot act?

so you subscribe to the notion that an unsubstantiated assertion by the government is sufficient to deprive the target of any protections of civil liberties?

further: it is a criminal case, which is why we're talking about miranda rights.

fgarvb1 quoth:
i agree that it's policy and their tough luck and all but still.

they had green cards ...are they citizens of the USA?

and how might that play into it?

they're on US soil, which means that the boundaries within which the US government must operate must apply to him.

ed

 

[bailadora]

so you subscribe to the notion that an unsubstantiated assertion by the government is sufficient to deprive the target of any protections of civil liberties?

I'm not saying I agree, but I'm wondering why you're so surprised by this, Ed. Not the first time it's happened, and I doubt it will be the last.

A few months back, I was watching a series on the History Channel re: the American Presidents. Turns out during the Civil War, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus many, many times. And if any newspapers dared to criticize his actions, the papers where shut down and the journalists, editors and owners were thrown in the clink. I was shocked, considering Lincoln has long been perceived a champion of civil liberties.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Lincoln was a devil. He authorized that blacks be sold into slavery down in Central America, and authorized the slaughter of slaves who refused to leave their masters. Union cavalry often treated slaves as livestock, and killed them along with cattle and mules and pigs.

 

[MatthewVett]

Maybe you should read this first: http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/20/tsarnaev-and-miranda-rights/

You don't have to be read your Miranda rights at all, it just means that anything you say after arrest can't be held against you in a court of law.

 

[silverwhisper]

bailadora queried:
i'm not saying i agree, but i'm wondering why you're so surprised by this, ed. not the first time it's happened, and i doubt it will be the last.

i don't accept the excuse "it's happened before therefore it's morally a-OK".

bailadora queried:
a few months back, i was watching a series on the history channel re: the american presidents. turns out during the civil war, lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus many, many times. and if any newspapers dared to criticize his actions, the papers where shut down and the journalists, editors and owners were thrown in the clink. i was shocked, considering lincoln has long been perceived a champion of civil liberties.

congress has not declared war since 1941. if that ever happens again--and let's face it, that seems highly improbable--i'll accept the situations as being comparable.

so we are at peace. this makes the abridgement of a lawful resident's civil liberties profoundly troubling and makes it that much easier for your or my own civil liberties to be withheld at government whim.

yes, it's happened before. that's why it's absolutely critical that people speak out against it.

matthew quoth:
maybe you should read this first: http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/20/tsarnaev-and-miranda-rights/
you don't have to be read your miranda rights at all, it just means that anything you say after arrest can't be held against you in a court of law.

i'm actually quite familiar with what the miranda rights are and what they mean. admittedly, the reading of your miranda rights isn't hugely important. but it's a right to which you are entitled. abridging any right is not something i consider acceptable, let alone negotiable.

ed

 

[bailadora]

congress has not declared war since 1941. if that ever happens again--and let's face it, that seems highly improbable--i'll accept the situations as being comparable.

ed

My point is that the argument for "justifiable" suspension of civil liberties seems to be the same: a perceived threat to national security. There's question of whether or not these guys were acting on their own or were part of a larger group. And if part of a larger group, are more attacks coming?

Amazing what rights people are willing to give up (or have taken from others) when they allow fear to rule.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Miranda doesn't matter in this case. He's caught in the coils of the system. No judge will ever cut him loose. He's like the Fort Hood terrorist, and the al Qaeda boys at Guantanamo, he'll never go to trial or be free. He'll likely spend a long life in solitary confinement, once he gives up his connections.

They'll learn who his friends are, and quietly dispose of them.

 

[Lord Pmann]

so you subscribe to the notion that an unsubstantiated assertion by the government is sufficient to deprive the target of any protections of civil liberties?

further: it is a criminal case, which is why we're talking about miranda rights.


they're on US soil, which means that the boundaries within which the US government must operate must apply to him.

ed

I didn't say I agree. In fact, I don't agree. At all.

I was making a point about the original statement. My point is, if it is considered an act of terrorism, then different rules apply. Same with enemy combatants. If terrorists are caught, they are not protected under the rights of the rules of war, as they are not part of a legitimate military. I don't have to agree or disagree, that is just the truth of it.

But just because someone is on US soul, to my knowledge, doesn't mean that they are immediately given the rights that you mention. I could be wrong, but I don't think terrorists have to be given those rights.

 

[unregistered]

 

[NightL]

to anyone and no one in particular

This - along with ALL the deaths stemming from the allegations (and that is all they were) of weapons of mass destruction and the actions taken thereafter to this very day, the suicide bombers who took a horrendous toll in another country on that very day of the Boston bombings, the countless random shootings of children in schools, shoppers in malls, office workers, earthquake in China, the accidental drowning of 50 - 60 while attempting to reach a land they hoped will be their new home, free of past persecution. Oh - not forgetting a not so small incident in Texas that I have heard speculated could have even been caused by clever evil intent people hacking into the plant's computer system - please don't turn this into the General Board...

We all try, in our small individual ways, to make sense of this nonsense around us. Be careful not to turn on the very people who we have valued and respected for their opinions countless times here at How To...

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

5 dead, many injured, several with amputations. Millions wasted capturing this creature.

Those who sympathize with this monster have odd values. And not one word of sympathy for the victims. Odd indeed.

 

[Lord Pmann]

I used to have a much harsher view of things like this. I would have lacked any sympathy for anyone like this. While I sometimes really struggle to sympathize with him or anyone that commits these acts, I do have some kind of heart towards them. However, I remember a one point this was a son, a brother, a friend, etc. Something happened in this kid's life that caused him to make such horrible decisions. These are his decisions for which he should be held responsible. However, that doesn't mean that, at some point, he was a decent person. I've met and worked with tens of thousands of prisoners over my life. From rapists, pedophiles, murders, hookers, drug lords, whatever. I've worked with them all. But I'll say that in all of them, at some point, there was a decent human being. Some may disagree. But I've not met the person yet who one day just decided to turn into a terrible person.

I would say the sympathy for the victims is understood.

Personally, I don't think he will be tortured. Perhaps if he was captured in another country, yes. But I think being held inside the US, with all eyes on the case, the likelihood is nil. Perhaps I am naive.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

He's an animal in a human form. And those who agonize over him are fools.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Cathleen]

This response will be a bit disjointed, a stream of consciousness, and I'll probably not post to the thread again for a bit of time.

Firstly, I'm a little too close to the situation to be unbiased. However, at THIS moment, public safety IS STILL A FACTOR! They are still pulling bombs, IEDs, homemade hand grenades, from the residence of 'black hat'.

Now, to think these two did not have help is naive. 'white hat' (ugh, the irony), was turned by his brother, I have no doubt on that. But turn he did, and this is a smart kid. The high school he graduated from and received a scholarship from, is an excellent school. The college he was attending (my alma matar) is an excellent school but it's been reported he was flunking out this semester. Little wonder since his mind was occupied elsewhere. He acted willingly. He placed a bomb next to an 8 year old kid, who was blown apart, his little sister lost a leg and his mother is fighting for her life from brain injury. He acted willingly.

As for not Mirandizing his yet, it's moot right now since he's not clear headed. I don't care if they do because they have evidence of their acts/crimes, they have the man they car-jacked to whom they admitted 'we did the bombing and we killed a cop', so I don't care at the moment.

I think he will be Mirandized, and I think he'll talk too. What he says, who knows? This kid is in bad shape right now, there's no need to torture him but like JtohisPB, I might be naive on that issue.

And lastly, to ed, 4 innocent people are dead, not 3. The carnage is incredible and my heart goes out to the survivors and the families that lost loved ones.

The struggles in Texas, China, and the recent flooding in the lower Midwest are not to be forgotten. It's been a horrible week for millions and I only hope my continued prayers are a little helpful.

(My hands are shaking so forgive grammar etc, it's just way too close to home.)

 

[silverwhisper]

bail quoth:
my point is that the argument for "justifiable" suspension of civil liberties seems to be the same: a perceived threat to national security. there's question of whether or not these guys were acting on their own or were part of a larger group. and if part of a larger group, are more attacks coming?

amazing what rights people are willing to give up (or have taken from others) when they allow fear to rule.

see, to me there's a difference in that during a time of war, government does not behave in the same way. this is something that we all understand on some level: we recognize that during a time of war, curfews or other temporary curtailments in civil liberties are going to happen and as a rule, we tend to be more forgiving. it's why i made mention of that in my response to j.

there's a great quote by franklin:

benjamin franklin quoth:
“those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

j quoth:
i completely concur with your statement above, ed. that said, i'm really trying to understand the reasoning behind not mirandizing him. it seems to me that they are not offering him the right to an attorney or the right to remain silent because, in the interest of greater public safety, they are not allowing him to remain silent. and, that they must be seeking information about other involved persons or location of bomb materials, etc. but, in the absence of torture, how can they force him to talk? not telling someone that he has the right to remain silent won't necessarily result in him willingly answering questions asked. in fact, i would suspect that this individual has absolutely zero interest in cooperating with law enforcement officials.

plus, if they ask a question like, "did you set off the explosion?" and he answers yes, wouldn't that then be inadmissable in court because he was not read his miranda rights?

strictly speaking, not mirandizing <> not providing those protections, as the link by matt demonstrates. AG holder apparently is asserting that any information gathered sans miranda would be admissible.

i'm reasonably certain that a good interrogator--and let's face it, the FBI is gonna put one of their best on this--can make a 19 year old kid fold like a cheap umbrella. think about how flustered you got when you were 19 vs now.

pmann quoth:
i didn't say i agree. in fact, i don't agree. at all.

i beg your pardon, good sir. my apologies.

pmann quoth:
i was making a point about the original statement. my point is, if it is considered an act of terrorism, then different rules apply. same with enemy combatants. if terrorists are caught, they are not protected under the rights of the rules of war, as they are not part of a legitimate military. i don't have to agree or disagree, that is just the truth of it.

but just because someone is on US soul, to my knowledge, doesn't mean that they are immediately given the rights that you mention. i could be wrong, but i don't think terrorists have to be given those rights.

considering that it's news that he won't be mirandized and that it's the FBI doing the interrogations, it appears--if admittedly circumstantially--that this will be treated as a criminal case. but you're right, enemy combatants are not afforded those same rights--as you said, it's treated as military or espionage action, not criminal.

nightl; quoth:
this - along with all the deaths stemming from the allegations (and that is all they were) of weapons of mass destruction and the actions taken thereafter to this very day, the suicide bombers who took a horrendous toll in another country on that very day of the boston bombings, the countless random shootings of children in schools, shoppers in malls, office workers, earthquake in china, the accidental drowning of 50 - 60 while attempting to reach a land they hoped will be their new home, free of past persecution. oh - not forgetting a not so small incident in texas that i have heard speculated could have even been caused by clever evil intent people hacking into the plant's computer system - please don't turn this into the general board...

we all try, in our small individual ways, to make sense of this nonsense around us. be careful not to turn on the very people who we have valued and respected for their opinions countless times here at how to...

point taken, nightl. fair reminder.

pmann quoth:
i used to have a much harsher view of things like this. i would have lacked any sympathy for anyone like this. while i sometimes really struggle to sympathize with him or anyone that commits these acts, i do have some kind of heart towards them. however, i remember a one point this was a son, a brother, a friend, etc. something happened in this kid's life that caused him to make such horrible decisions. these are his decisions for which he should be held responsible. however, that doesn't mean that, at some point, he was a decent person. i've met and worked with tens of thousands of prisoners over my life. from rapists, pedophiles, murders, hookers, drug lords, whatever. i've worked with them all. but i'll say that in all of them, at some point, there was a decent human being. some may disagree. but i've not met the person yet who one day just decided to turn into a terrible person.

i would say the sympathy for the victims is understood.

amen. you are a better man than i--for me, there are some things that are absolutely unforgivable.

pmann quoth:
personally, i don't think he will be tortured. perhaps if he was captured in another country, yes. but i think being held inside the US, with all eyes on the case, the likelihood is nil. perhaps i am naive.

i fervently believe that belief and hope are absolutely critical in maintaining one's humanity.

pmann quoth:
do you honestly think they won't torture him during his interrogation? (serious question not smart arse, by the way)

i'm with pmann on this: perhaps i am naive to think so but honestly, i want to believe nobody's going to run the risk of mistrial in a case like this.

funny thing. for a while i worked as a recruiter. and as one, do you know what i learned about people? i learned that generally speaking, people are as a whole deserving of the benefit of the doubt.

just saying.

edited to add: cate, i must've been looking at old info, the last news story i saw before posting the OP said 3.

ed

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

JBJ, there are multiple mentions of victims in this thread. You seem hell-bent on ticking people off and name calling in every thread in which you post. This thread's title indicates it is about the suspect and it is mostly an open and non-judgmental discussion for those if us seeking to understand and eager to read others' opinions on the topic.

Pmann, your post rings very true to me. I work with young children and often wonder if I'm alert for clues and ready to reach out to the right kid at the right time. I truly believe that all people start out good. If that makes me naive, then so be it.

People are pissed off with me cuz I touched a nerve about the victims. I do know what this thread is about: Our angst for the boy. And its despicable.