Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ron on April 20, 2013, 08:14:38 AM
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/miranda-rights-boston-bombing-suspect_n_3120333.html
Interesting and I suspect bad precedent to set.
-
No suspecting about it. It's a bad idea. I guess he's just lucky he's not in Gitmo. yet.
-
Oh, I don't like this one bit. So they don't read him his rights; if he is smart enough anyway to keep his mouth shut and ask for counsel, is counsel provided?
-
An anomymous source? And huff po? Hmmm another version of this already made the rounds and didn't do so well.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
-
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/20/17832252-whats-next-the-interrogation-of-the-boston-bombing-suspect?lite
The same story is being reported in a number of different news outlets. The NBC article states that no lawyer will be present, but does not answer the question if one is provided if the suspect demands one.
-
They are conditioning the public to accept this as normal.
Our rights are now conditional upon whether the government decides you are a danger or not.
He is a terrorist and nobody will want to defend his rights as a US citizen. Next time maybe it will be a kingpin of a Chicago gang, where gun murders are so high his rights are now forfeit for the common good. A couple few decades more of this and we may end up in a full blown police state.
This is what happens with the blurring of the lines between war/police action.
-
They are conditioning the public to accept this as normal.
Our rights are now conditional upon whether the government decides you are a danger or not
This is how you make people dangerous.
-
We tried this with internment, it didnt work. Treating them as criminals that they are is the best response to these acts.
-
The USAG said this on the news conference last night.
The thing is, not being read your rights doesn't mean they don't exist.
The concern is whether or not habeus corpus is denied.
Is this a concern, yup. The a$$hole perp in question IS a naturalized American citizen, so this is squishy, slippery slope ground, regardless of what he did.
The questioning is apparently being done by a "federal government HVT interrogation team"...which makes things even MORE interesting given his citizenship.
The real issue will become IF his brother was the mastermind, and IF this guy has no further contacts or information on other threats, THEN what happens....if he's still held without trial a la enemy combatants...THEN it becomes an even bigger issue, as with no further exigency, there really is no argument, specious or otherwise, for any suspension of rights.
Personally, I think they should have mirandized him right away, ESPECIALLY since the LEOs in the press conference said there was no more threat and the people of Boston can relax....no more immediate threat, no more exigency. Unfortunately, that means the screwed up by immediately after that saying due to public safety exigency, no Miranda. That means if he does get a trial, egg on face of USAG....so get ready for the spin on that one.
-
The USAG said this on the news conference last night.
The thing is, not being read your rights doesn't mean they don't exist.
The concern is whether or not habeus corpus is denied.
Is this a concern, yup. The a$$hole perp in question IS a naturalized American citizen, so this is squishy, slippery slope ground, regardless of what he did.
The questioning is apparently being done by a "federal government HVT interrogation team"...which makes things even MORE interesting given his citizenship.
The real issue will become IF his brother was the mastermind, and IF this guy has no further contacts or information on other threats, THEN what happens....if he's still held without trial a la enemy combatants...THEN it becomes an even bigger issue, as with no further exigency, there really is no argument, specious or otherwise, for any suspension of rights.
Personally, I think they should have mirandized him right away, ESPECIALLY since the LEOs in the press conference said there was no more threat and the people of Boston can relax....no more immediate threat, no more exigency. Unfortunately, that means the screwed up by immediately after that saying due to public safety exigency, no Miranda. That means if he does get a trial, egg on face of USAG....so get ready for the spin on that one.
I thought this was the one that didn't become a citizen. Older (deader) bro was the citizen. ???
Not that it makes a difference in the way we should treat him. Unless we decide to deport him back to Russia.
-
I believe the older brother was denied citizenship due to a domestic violence conviction. The younger brother should enjoy the same and every legal right as would someone who was born in Boston.
-
No, the live one is a citizen. The dead one wasn't, and for different reasons depending on who you ask.
Regardless, the prosecution should be entirely above reproach. This isn't setting a good precedent.
-
My bad, I had them reversed.
Apparently he became a citizen on Sep 11, 2012? (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/who-is-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-boston/64382/)
There's some irony there.
-
I believe the older brother was denied citizenship due to a domestic violence conviction. The younger brother should enjoy the same and every legal right as would someone who was born in Boston.
But... trrsm!
But, but... 9-11!
But, but, but.... mooslim!
-
Evidently it's from a 1984 case New York v. Quarles, not Miranda itself.
-
Evidently it's from a 1984 case New York v. Quarles, not Miranda itself.
And:
Under this exception, to be admissible in the government's direct case at a trial, the questioning must not be "actually compelled by police conduct which overcame his will to resist," and must be focused and limited, involving a situation "in which police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Quarles
So...an HVT interrogation team? And if public safety is publicly declared to be not a problem, in the same press conference...how does this apply?
Also, the difference between this dude and the other two Americans (lindh and Padilla) was Padilla was arrested when they thought he was parts a bigger group that was in the near term going to be doing a dirty bomb attack (and was held in military custody once declared an enemy combatant) and lindh was captured BY the military on foreign soil.
As much as I want this guy to fry for what he did, I don't like it when a citizen's rights are nullified by an official. Quarles seems to not apply--as above...but who knows
-
Uh, you are forgetting the part where the Patriot Act expanded the definition of terrorism to include domestic acts, so that the public safety exception would apply to domestic terrorism, not just crimes.
-
But... trrsm!
But, but... 9-11!
But, but, but.... mooslim!
Exactly. That why I say let MA try him for murder -- it's the simplest path to locking him up for 300 years. It'll be the shortest murder trial in history. The feds are gonna screw this up and make a martyr out of him.
-
Exactly. That why I say let MA try him for murder -- it's the simplest path to locking him up for 300 years. It'll be the shortest murder trial in history. The feds are gonna screw this up and make a martyr out of him.
Agree. Funny, they didn't go enemy combatant on the DC shooters. More fatalities then too IIRC.
This is how you make people dangerous.
Yeah, if you know you are going to disappear into the Gulag ...
-
Agree. Funny, they didn't go enemy combatant on the DC shooters. More fatalities then too IIRC.
Yeah, if you know you are going to disappear into the Gulag ...
Hassan too.
-
Not being that familiar with your legal system, but what are the chances that this course of action by the authorities could help in a successful defence? Wouldnt everything he said pre-Miranda be inadmissable?
-
Not being that familiar with your legal system, but what are the chances that this course of action by the authorities could help in a successful defence? Wouldnt everything he said pre-Miranda be inadmissable?
Yeah, assuming he gets a trial.
They could just dump him at sea =|
-
US citizenship means something, or it doesn't. All the jawboning about treatment of foreign enemy combatants just became an unamusing sideline joke.
-
US citizenship means something, or it doesn't. All the jawboning about treatment of foreign enemy combatants just became an unamusing sideline joke.
Yeah, they're only going to do that to people on the other side of the world ... ;/
Even worse, it is the REPUBLICANS who are calling out for suspending the constitution in this instance :mad:
-
Yeah, they're only going to do that to people on the other side of the world ... ;/
Even worse, it is the REPUBLICANS who are calling out for suspending the constitution in this instance :mad:
McCain & Graham: "Civil liberties and due process are OK only when they're convenient." :mad:
-
I don't like the whole "enemy combatant" concept. To me, it's nothing but a convenient excuse to suspend habeus corpus and do an end run around the Constitution. If this kid is/was an "enemy combatant," precisely what enemy entity did he represent? He is an American citizen, who committed a mass murder and assault in the United States of America. He broke plenty of laws -- he's a common murderer and should be dealt with as such, not glorified like some sort of James Bond-like undercover agent or guerrilla warfare specialist. And he didn't engage in "combat" -- he set off a bomb.
Don't glorify him.
I wasn't happy about the concept when they polished it up to persecute John Walker Lindh ("the American Taliban"). If you recall, they called him an "enemy combatant," too. I followed that case fairly closely at the time, and me best understanding of the facts available to the public was that the kid never lifted a finger against the United States. He was in Afghanistan and allied with the Taliban, who were (like it or not) the recognized government of the country at the time. The United States didn't invade Afghanistan -- we supplied a bunch of thug warlords loosely cooperating as the so-called "Northern Alliance" to do the fighting for us. So the reality was that Lindh was assisting the then-government of Afghanistan to resist an internal insurrection. How that in any way makes him an "enemy combatant" against the United States I have never been able to figure out.
I'm rather simple-minded. If someone is wearing a uniform and representing another country while shooting at our soldiers, he's an enemy combatant. If someone sets off a bomb in an American city, he's a common criminal who should be dealt with by the criminal justice system.
-
I don't like the whole "enemy combatant" concept. To me, it's nothing but a convenient excuse to suspend habeus corpus and do an end run around the Constitution. If this kid is/was an "enemy combatant," precisely what enemy entity did he represent? He is an American citizen, who committed a mass murder and assault in the United States of America. He broke plenty of laws -- he's a common murderer and should be dealt with as such, not glorified like some sort of James Bond-like undercover agent or guerrilla warfare specialist. And he didn't engage in "combat" -- he set off a bomb.
Don't glorify him.
I wasn't happy about the concept when they polished it up to persecute John Walker Lindh ("the American Taliban"). If you recall, they called him an "enemy combatant," too. I followed that case fairly closely at the time, and me best understanding of the facts available to the public was that the kid never lifted a finger against the United States. He was in Afghanistan and allied with the Taliban, who were (like it or not) the recognized government of the country at the time. The United States didn't invade Afghanistan -- we supplied a bunch of thug warlords loosely cooperating as the so-called "Northern Alliance" to do the fighting for us. So the reality was that Lindh was assisting the then-government of Afghanistan to resist an internal insurrection. How that in any way makes him an "enemy combatant" against the United States I have never been able to figure out.
I'm rather simple-minded. If someone is wearing a uniform and representing another country while shooting at our soldiers, he's an enemy combatant. If someone sets off a bomb in an American city, he's a common criminal who should be dealt with by the criminal justice system.
But.....but.....but....freedom! 'Murica! USA! He's a terrist!
-
I don't like the whole "enemy combatant" concept. To me, it's nothing but a convenient excuse to suspend habeus corpus and do an end run around the Constitution. If this kid is/was an "enemy combatant," precisely what enemy entity did he represent? He is an American citizen, who committed a mass murder and assault in the United States of America. He broke plenty of laws -- he's a common murderer and should be dealt with as such, not glorified like some sort of James Bond-like undercover agent or guerrilla warfare specialist. And he didn't engage in "combat" -- he set off a bomb.
Don't glorify him.
I wasn't happy about the concept when they polished it up to persecute John Walker Lindh ("the American Taliban"). If you recall, they called him an "enemy combatant," too. I followed that case fairly closely at the time, and me best understanding of the facts available to the public was that the kid never lifted a finger against the United States. He was in Afghanistan and allied with the Taliban, who were (like it or not) the recognized government of the country at the time. The United States didn't invade Afghanistan -- we supplied a bunch of thug warlords loosely cooperating as the so-called "Northern Alliance" to do the fighting for us. So the reality was that Lindh was assisting the then-government of Afghanistan to resist an internal insurrection. How that in any way makes him an "enemy combatant" against the United States I have never been able to figure out.
I'm rather simple-minded. If someone is wearing a uniform and representing another country while shooting at our soldiers, he's an enemy combatant. If someone sets off a bomb in an American city, he's a common criminal who should be dealt with by the criminal justice system.
-
He's an American citizen. He should be read his Miranda Rights. I don't like the idea of American citizens located here being considered enemy combatants. If he was not a citizen, then I favor the best approach to keeping him locked up or executed.
-
His citizenship isn't an issue with regards the ruling they are using.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
-
I don't think Miranda does what some people think it does. Read the decision. It is a good read and besides being an important case, it details the history of what was allowable prior to that decision, which was pretty much anything.
For the most part, Miranda says that the prosecution may not use statements that were made involuntarily. Statements made this way could be excluded from the trial. It does not mean that the police have to universally read the suspect "their rights" like it happens on TV. It is certainly in their best interest to do so, but there are situations where it wouldn't be necessary:
1. They don't need the statements to get a conviction. It is possible that they have a ton of other evidence and they don't need a confession. They may just want other information for investigatory purposes, such as if they had help from other groups or individuals. If they don't plan on introducing the statements at trial, it doesn't matter if he got his Miranda warning. See Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003).
2. If the suspect knows what their rights are. This doesn't happen very often, but if the prosecution can show that the statements were made voluntarily, then it doesn't matter if he was read his rights. Granted, this becomes more difficult if they don't acknowledge it in some way, but statements made without a Miranda warning are not automatically thrown out 100% of the time.
-
Whether they read him his rights or not, don't those rights still exist? I don't care about inadmissibility of statements; they don't need a confession to get a slam-dunk conviction. But holding him without charges and with no access to an attorney kinda sounds to me like a denial of habeus corpus. It sets a *really* bad
president precedent.
-
Whether they read him his rights or not, don't those rights still exist? I don't care about inadmissibility of statements; they don't need a confession to get a slam-dunk conviction. But holding him without charges and with no access to an attorney kinda sounds to me like a denial of habeus corpus. It sets a *really* bad president precedent.
It is the denial of habeus corpus, same with what we did with Padilla and lindh. So the precedent has already been set.
-
don't you have to be conscious to be mirandized?
and to mount a legal defense including a writ?
as funny as the miranda nonsense the habeus corpus stuff should be a side splitter
-
But holding him without charges and with no access to an attorney kinda sounds to me like a denial of habeus corpus. It sets a *really* bad president precedent.
That is a whole different issue. I was just commenting on how this applies to Miranda and confessions.
There are supposed to be time constraints before the defendant must be presented to a judge, if they are trying him in federal court. See Corley v. United States (2009), and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-10441.pdf
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_5
-
whens clock start if the guys unconscious? he hasn't been charged yet has he?
-
The surviving suspect remained hospitalized and unable to speak with a gunshot wound to the throat.
He has the right to remain silent :lol:
-
Gotta say that I find this whole Miranda thing vaguly amusing. The press are making a huge deal out of the fact that he hasn't been read Miranda. Obviously, these people have been watching movies and not reading lawbooks. Miranda rights apply only when a person is being subjected to custodial interrogation. A failure to advise a subject of Mmiranda and obtain a waiver renders subsequent statements subject to suppression. No, it doesn't render the arrest invalid. No, it doesn't mean that the charges must be dismissed. No, it doesn't mean that he gets a walk for all of this. It only means that if he's interrogated, any answers may be inadmissible. What's it all mean? Too early to tell. Maybe the case is good enough that they don't plan to question him for evidentiary purposes. aybe they're considering options now since he's still critical with throat injuries, and they aren't getting answers now anyways. Relax for now guys, this isn't anything to worry about yet.
-
article says he might never talk again that the shot went in his mouth mighta been self inflicted
-
It is the denial of habeus corpus, same with what we did with Padilla and lindh. So the precedent has already been set.
Wasn't that precedent set at least as far back as the Civil War?
-
at least
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus_in_the_United_States
-
It's purposeless to Mirandize a man who's in no state to answer questions, or comprehend the Mirandizing.
-
So what happens if he wakes up and says "I want a laywer" and nothing else?
That's what concerns me. It's not the reading of the rights, it's what else are they going to deny him.
I don't like this at all.
I understand the need to find out if he has any valueble information, but I also don't like the idea of any Amercian Citizen being forced to talk without the option of someone looking out for that persons intrests.
-
Despite a serious throat wound preventing him from speaking, the surviving Boston Marathon bombing suspect is beginning to respond to questions from investigators, federal officials tell NBC News.
Nearly 48 hours after he was taken into custody following an intense gun battle and manhunt, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, was communicating with a special team of federal investigators at Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital. He was responding to questions mostly in writing because of the throat wound, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/21/17848814-badly-wounded-boston-marathon-bombing-suspect-responding-to-questions?lite
-
article says he might never talk again that the shot went in his mouth mighta been self inflicted
I thought that would happen. Any new news on this?
-
As a naturalized citizen, he does have rights - or is supposed to. It's not the same as bombing a US citizen who's actively helping the enemy overseas - this guy was caught HERE.
Even Timothy McVeigh had a lawyer - and in his case, justice was ultimately served.
Now I saw on TV they're thinking of charging him with use of a " . . . weapon of mass destruction."
I've always understood WMDs to be nuclear, chemical, or biological; so nukes and dirty bombs, poison gas, germ warfare, etc. would qualify as WMDs, whereas a common explosive would not. Don't like this expansion of the definition of WMD.
As to what this guy gets charged with . . . three counts of Murder 1 with special circumstances (if the provision is in MA law), MANY counts of attempted murder, aggravated assault, assault with a deadly weapon, possession of destructive devices, etc., probably even Treason if a connection with foreign terrorist organizations can be shown. Seems to be PLENTY of opportunity to legitimately hit him with half the penal code for what he did without any WMD nonsense. In general terms, they should just proceed the way they did with McVeigh.
-
I can't see the DOJ denying him counsel, throwing him in a cell as an enemy combatant, and denying him all of the rights enjoyed by a US citizen. The spotlight on this is too bright.
Or, maybe they will, and this will be the spark that blows the Patriot Act and all of that crap out of the water.
As an aside, there are strategic purposes for deliberately not informing a subject of Miranda when questioning the person. I've been involved in that type of situation before. It's a way of gathering information and protecting the source by guaranteeing that person what they say won't be used against him/her. The way it happened when I was involved, the whole affair was recorded on two tapes. Counsel was present. At the start, the person was handcuffed (one hand) to the chair...creates custody. No one mentions rights. At the end, a copy of the tape is given to the subject to show it was done in violation of Miranda. It's kind of a transactional immunity, when you need information from a criminal, and you're willing to overlook that person's crimes to go after something else.
-
This thread makes me feel good after what we saw in the early days of the "War on Terror", though I wonder how much of the change in opinion is due to the sitting president (he's not "our" guy after all):
So he [Padilla] had no rights. So what?
He forfeited them by taking up arms against the U.S. without donning the uniform of a foreign combatant. He wasn't covered under Geneva. He wasnt covered under civil law.
Too bad. Must suck to be him.
<div class="quoteheader">Quote from: RileyMc on September 12, 2007, 11:51:46 AM (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=8682.msg144296#msg144296)</div><div class="quote">I don't give a *expletive deleted* about Padilla. Wait until President Hillary {shudder} arrests the President of the NRA for some bogus terrorist conspiracy charge. Or the president of GOA. Or NRA members, for that matter. Think it's a stretch?
</div> (https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.armedpolitesociety.com%2FSmileys%2Fdefault%2Frolleyes.gif&hash=f3f0d473df6ac341a8cf13bf86e7aec4d82ee011) Yeah, I do.
If anyone else ever does what Padilla did, then I would expect (nay, demand) any future President to do to them what Bush did to Padilla.
<div class="quoteheader">Quote from: Hawkmoon on September 22, 2007, 06:45:45 PM (http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=8682.msg147626#msg147626)</div><div class="quote">They don't need any laws to know what's "torture" and what's not. </div>
Law is about written rules, not common sense or personal decisions. It is not unreasonable for the executive to ask the legislative to do their job and provide laws by which the government can function, especially when the legislative uses the vacuum to take political potshots at the executive.
<div class="quoteheader">Quote</div><div class="quote">All they have to do is apply the "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" principle. If the "interrogation technique" under consideration is one to which we would object if an American were subjected to it by a foreign military ... there's a good chance we probably should not be utilizing it ourselves.
</div>
The golden principle works very well for men in uniform. That is why things like the Geneva Convention are a good idea. There is parity. "We treat your uniformed regular soldiers the way you treat our uniformed regular soldiers."
But, terrorists dressed as civilians are not afforded the same protections, and cannot be. They do NOT play by the rules of civilized warfare, and thus are not protected by them either. <span style="text-decoration: underline;">We should never equate a terrorist to a uniformed GI, neither ethically nor technically</span>. Terrorists are NOT foreign military either.
If there is any parallel to be drawn, perhaps the closest is spies during the Cold War. If you get captured, you should expect torture to reveal the information you possess. Those are not rules for uniformed civilized warfare. The terrorists are lower than spies and saboteurs on the civility ladder. It is beyond ridiculous to think of them as POW's and afford them any privileges.
Not me! (https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.armedpolitesociety.com%2FSmileys%2Fdefault%2Fangel.gif&hash=7415bd8ce9706bb135b8d85e880ddb6631da3604)
<div class="quoteheader">Quote</div><div class="quote">Anyone want to wait until this reaches court before they issue the guilty verdict</div>
Send em to gitmo for some waterboarding, or hang em.
Trials and fairness are for regular criminals not bloodthirsty moronic terrorist who are not US citizens
I'm also happy to see that my own responses even then were more consistent with not witholding rights from others, especially US Citizens.
Chris
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57580640/boston-bombing-suspects-likely-planned-more-attacks-police-chief-says/
lil followup
-
Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis told "Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer that authorities found an arsenal of homemade explosives after Friday's gun battle between police and the two suspects.
"We have reason to believe, based upon the evidence that was found at that scene - the explosions, the explosive ordnance that was unexploded and the firepower that they had - that they were going to attack other individuals," Davis said. "That's my belief at this point."
So police found this "cache of weapons" at the scene of the shootout, ostensibly after they hijacked the SUV....
So before that they were just carrying this "cache" around with them on foot ???
I always thought a "cache" was a place where you, well - cache things, not something you carry around with you. ;/
Is the police chief just blowing off his mouth or is he really that dumb, or do I repeat myself?
-
Could be bad reporting. Doesn't say where they found the materials. Could be they searched the subjects house/houses after the shootout
-
Could be bad reporting. Doesn't say where they found the materials. Could be they searched the subjects house/houses after the shootout
That's a direct quote from the police chief.
-
That's a direct quote from the police chief.
Did the police chief say cache, or did the article?
Investigators believe that two brothers suspected in the Boston Marathon bombing were likely planning other attacks based on the cache of weapons uncovered, the city's police commissioner told CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday.
So, the article said "cache"
So, bad reporting
-
Maybe he said "arsenal" instead ...
Isn't that a building ???
They were carrying a building around on foot.
-
Uh.. the police chief quote doesn't say arsenal either, unless I'm missing it.
What, precisely, are you peeved about?
-
In any event, it is now being reported that the bad guy is not going to be charged as an enemy combatant. He is instead going to get his day in federal court.
-
In any event, it is now being reported that the bad guy is not going to be charged as an enemy combatant. He is instead going to get his day in federal court.
The only ones making noise about charging him as an enemy combatant were people like that idiot Graham and his buddies...which was immediately assumed to mean that's what was going to happen as a fact by everybody.
-
That idiot Graham and his buddies are US senators if you hadn't noticed =(