Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Angry Prenda Is Angry

Why The DOJ's Decision To Not Read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights Is A Terrible Idea

Stupidity

from the this-is-just-stupid dept

Mon, Apr 22nd 2013 03:15am -

On Friday, while he hunt for Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was still going on (and after his bother, the other main suspect, had already been killed), Senator Lindsey Graham took to Twitter to argue that the US government, if it captures him while he’s still alive, shouldn’t read Dzokhar his Miranda rights. As you hopefully already know, the Miranda rights are the famous “you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in court, and you have a right to an attorney” etc. The requirement for a statement along those lines (and the name of the “Miranda rights”) came from a 1960s case, Miranda v. Arizona, and has since been considered a core part of American due process for those being arrested. And this is a good thing.

When Graham made his statement, many got up in arms, and argued that Graham was unfamiliar with the Constitution. While I more or less agree with the basics of that, much of that anger probably should have been directed at the Obama administration, which officially created an exception to the Miranda rules (unilaterally, without court approval) a few years back (apparently in October of 2010, though news about it only came out in March 2011).

And, indeed, after Dzhokhar was apprehended, the DOJ said that it was not reading him his Miranda Rights because it was invoking a “public safety exception” with the argument being that they needed to get him to talk to make sure the public wasn’t in danger. As others have pointed out, this is a horrifically short sighted decision that can only backfire.

  1. Suspending basic rights and due process out of fear is exactly the kind of thing that people attacking the US want to see. Showing that we can’t live up to our most basic rights and principles in the face of a terrorist attack gives those who hate us that much more incentive to keep going. It’s not just a sign of weakness, but an encouragement for those who seek to undermine our society. In fact, it takes a step in that very direction by showing that the government is willing to throw out the rules and principles when it gets a little scared by a teenager.
  2. The slippery slope here is steep and extremely slick. There are no rules on when the DOJ can suddenly ignore Miranda. It gets to decide by itself. This is an organization with a long history of abusing its power, now allowed to wipe out one of the key protections for those they’re arresting, whenever it sees fit. The whole point of the ruling in Miranda is that it should not be up to law enforcement. A person’s rights are their rights.
  3. The part that really gets me: if anything, this opens up a really, really stupid line of defense for Dzokhar Tsarnaev if he ever faces a criminal trial. His lawyers will undoubtedly claim that the arrest and interrogation was unconstitutional due to the lack of (or delay in) Miranda rights. Why even open up that possibility of a defense for him?
  4. The guy has lived in the US for many years — chances are he actually knows the fact that he has the right to refuse to speak. So, we’re violating our principles, basic Constitutional due process, and opening up a massive opening for a defense, to avoid telling him something he likely already knows.

It’s been said before and it’ll be said again, but turning ourselves into a paranoid police state without basic rights means that those who attack us are winning. We should be better than that, and it’s a shame that our leaders have no problem confirming for the rest of the world that we’re not. What a shame.

Filed Under: , , ,

262 CommentsLeave a Comment
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Why The DOJ's Decision To Not Read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights Is A Terrible Idea”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
262 Comments
Rikuo (profile) says:

This article comes to mind after reading this.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57579239-83/guantanamo-legal-files-mysteriously-disappear-from-pcs/his other bit of news.

I do have one question though – why would the defense attorneys place their confidential files on computers belonging to the people who want to imprison their clients? That’s like suing Google and then continuing to use Google Docs to talk to your lawyer.

DOlz says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

The Constitution has been stretched since almost the beginning. Roads and canals were build with federal money by an interpretation of the Postal Clause, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_road. Of course there was also Thomas Jefferson’s expansion of the treaty clause because he really wanted to make the Louisiana Purchase.

However; the expansion of the government’s and particularly the President’s abuse of power against its citizens can firmly be laid at the feet of Abraham Lincoln. HIs suspension of Habeas corpus during the Civil War so he could round up military age men in Maryland because they might support the rebellion set a dangerous president. That it was not seriously challenge at the time (or to this day) and that had he lived he probably would not have been held accountable for his actions set us on the road we’re on today.

DOlz says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

From Article 1 which enumerates the House and Senate’s powers, Section 9 :

“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

If the House and Senate wanted to do this there would at least be theoretically a debate and chance to oppose it. By usurping this power the President can do it by fait accompli. There is a reason powers like this were not placed in the hands of one person, so yes Lincoln was in violation of the Constitution.

nasch says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

But you haven’t argued that he was legally in violation of the constitution, because you haven’t shown why these powers actually belong to congress — only given a reason why, in your view, they should belong to congress.

“From Article 1 which enumerates the House and Senate’s powers, Section 9 :”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

He has a point in general but on this specific issue he’s actually putting up a smoke screen. This was not a policy adopted under other administrations and it was not a result of a bad law passed by congress. This was a policy change made by Obama’s DOJ. The buck rightly stops with him on this issue.

Jay (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Again, the fact remains that our presidents have gotten more conservative over time thanks to the moneyed influence in our politics.

Democrats are corporate whores but Republicans are HORRIBLE. I mean, they tried to vote in Reagan a second time. Oh, I’m sorry, Mitt “I’m rich, Biatch!” Romney, the vulture capitalist that wanted to harvest companies and said anything to win.

If you had a better system that implemented third parties, I’m sure you would have a stronger democracy instead of the plutocracy that you see now.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

The exception has existed since 1984 when the supreme court ruled that in cases of public safety Miranda rights could be temporarily suspended.

The only thing Obamas admin did was push to expand the interpretation of that ruling. Not that that’s a good thing, but it didn’t start with his admin.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Quarles

JEDIDIAH says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Some Con Law Prof.

As a Con Law professor, Obama always had the option of taking the high road in this. He does not need to be a victim of the past trapped in the bad decisions of any other president.

It’s like the campaign slogan: Hope and Change.

Obama seems content to shred the constitution as much as the next fundie charlatain bubba.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Obama is the head man in charge of the Executive Branch which includes the DOJ.
If the DOJ is not enforcing Miranda Rights, Obama is to blame.

You might argue that others in the past made this possible.
But the choice to not enforce it today lays on Obamas lap, he could easily tell the DOJ to always use Miranda.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

… on Obamas lap, he could easily tell the DOJ to always use Miranda.

Miranda v Arizona (1966). Mr. Chief Justice Warren delivered the opinion of the Court:

Over the years the Federal Bureau of Investigation has compiled an exemplary record of effective law enforcement while advising any suspect or arrested person, at the outset of an interview, that he is not required to make a statement, that any statement may be used against him in court, that the individual may obtain the services of an attorney of his own choice and, more recently, that he has a right to free counsel if he is unable to pay. A letter received from the Solicitor General in response to a question from the Bench makes it clear that the present pattern of warnings and respect for the rights of the individual followed as a practice by the FBI is consistent with the procedure which we delineate today.

It states:

“At the oral argument of the above cause, Mr. Justice Fortas asked whether I could provide certain information as to the practices followed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I have directed these questions to the attention of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and am submitting herewith a statement of the questions and of the answers which we have received.

” `(1) When an individual is interviewed by agents of the Bureau, what warning is given to him?

” `The standard warning long given by Special Agents of the FBI to both suspects and persons under arrest is that the person has a right to say nothing and a right to counsel, and that any statement he does make may be used against him in court.?.?.?.

” `After passage of the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, which provides free counsel for Federal defendants unable to pay, we added to our instructions to Special Agents the requirement that any person who is under arrest for an offense under FBI jurisdiction, or whose arrest is contemplated following the interview, must also be advised of his right to free counsel if he is unable to pay, and the fact that such counsel will be assigned by the Judge. At the same time, we broadened the right to counsel warning to read counsel of his own choice, or anyone else with whom he might wish to speak.

” `(2) When is the warning given?

” `The FBI warning is given to a suspect at the very outset of the interview, as shown in the Westover case, cited above. The warning may be given to a person arrested as soon as practicable after the arrest, ?.?.?. but in any event it must precede the interview with the person for a confession or admission of his own guilt.

” `(3) What is the Bureau’s practice in the event that (a) the individual requests counsel and (b) counsel appears?

” `When the person who has been warned of his right to counsel decides that he wishes to consult with counsel before making a statement, the interview is terminated at that point,?.?.?. It may be continued, however, as to all matters other than the person’s own guilt or innocence. If he is indecisive in his request for counsel, there may be some question on whether he did or did not waive counsel. Situations of this kind must necessarily be left to the judgment of the interviewing Agent. For example, in Hiram v. U. S., 354 F. 2d 4 (1965), the Agent’s conclusion that the person arrested had waived his right to counsel was upheld by the courts.

” `A person being interviewed and desiring to consult counsel by telephone must be permitted to do so, ?.?.?. When counsel appears in person, he is permitted to confer with his client in private.

” `(4) What is the Bureau’s practice if the individual requests counsel, but cannot afford to retain an attorney?

” `If any person being interviewed after warning of counsel decides that he wishes to consult with counsel before proceeding further the interview is terminated, as shown above. FBI Agents do not pass judgment on the ability of the person to pay for counsel. They do, however, advise those who have been arrested for an offense under FBI jurisdiction, or whose arrest is contemplated following the interview, of a right to free counsel if they are unable to pay, and the availability of such counsel from the Judge.’ “

The practice of the FBI can readily be emulated by state and local enforcement agencies. The argument that the FBI deals with different crimes than are dealt with by state authorities does not mitigate the significance of the FBI experience.

(Emphasis added.)

Anonymous Coward says:

actually, small point- if the Miranda rights aren’t read, the interrogation does become illegal. Until he is read his rights, you can’t actually use anything they say in a court of law.(with a couple of exceptions- they basically amount to miranda rights being unnecessary if you haven’t been arrested and if you say something before they get the chance to read you your miranda rights, it is legal)

of course, this makes it even more stupid not to read him his rights.

Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Hi Mike, Hi Anonymous Coward,

It’s your good friend, xoxo Anonymous. You might remember me, but it’s been a while. I started out posting every time Mike M. said something stupid about patents and then tried to follow along as he branched out and said something stupid in other areas. It’s hard to keep up with all the stupid though, having a job and family and all that.

Anonymous Coward comes close to spotting the mistake in your analysis, but it comes down to your assumption that just because you have an opinion, it’s educated or worth posting. Guess again.

Miranda says that if you don’t read them their rights, you can’t use the statements that you collect while they’re in your custody. Well, what happens if you don’t need those statements for a conviction? What happens if the physical and other secondary evidence in your opinion supports a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt? Then you keep them in custody and interrogate them all you want for valuable intelligence.

Do you see how it’s a strategic decision? And not a mistake?

Did it ever occur to you that the attorneys that work for the government might actually understand these issues better than you? Did it ever occur to you that if someone disagrees with you, that it’s possible that you’re the one that’s wrong? I’d love to see an answer to those two questions but, in case you do the obvious thing and backpedal and say something like, “durrrr, freedom,” then my follow up question is, “If you’re so protective of freedom and Miranda, which doesn’t even appear in the Constitution, then where can I find your spirited defense of 2nd Amendment rights, post-Sandy Hook?”

As always I remain, xoxo Anonymous

Josh in CharlotteNC (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Miranda says that if you don’t read them their rights, you can’t use the statements that you collect while they’re in your custody. Well, what happens if you don’t need those statements for a conviction? What happens if the physical and other secondary evidence in your opinion supports a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt? Then you keep them in custody and interrogate them all you want for valuable intelligence.
Do you see how it’s a strategic decision? And not a mistake?

Even if you don’t need anything gained from the interrogation, why take the chance? Why not have the interrogation as an additional bit of evidence to use if you need it, just in case there is some minor problem with some other piece of evidence? Why give the defense attorney an opening? Even a bad attorney can make a point that if the government is willing to violate a suspect’s rights for one thing that same government might be willing to break procedures for other things, such as the handling of the physical evidence the rest of the case is depending on. Why take that chance? Where is the benefit?

Josh in CharlotteNC (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

They don’t need one word from him to convict him. Not one.

So what? You don’t have to be a prosecutor to understand how to build a case, and more evidence on your side – such as a legitimate confession from the suspect – is better than no confession.

His questioning centers entirely around why he did it, not if.

So, they’re looking for motive. I thought that was a key piece in building a case. It’s half of that “motive and opportunity” you hear all the time.

The arsenal at home, the statements admitting guilt to the carjacker, video evidence etc are all more than enough to obtain a conviction.

And not following proper procedure and reading a suspect his rights when it is so easy calls into question the conduct of the government in all other matters regarding the case. Do you want to wager on his attorney claiming that as enough for reasonable doubt? Again, why take that chance?

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

And not following proper procedure and
reading a suspect his rights when it is
so easy calls into question the conduct
of the government in all other matters
regarding the case.

It’s only ‘proper procedure’ if you want to introduce the defendant’s statements as evidence.

If you don’t have any intention of doing that, not only is not proper procedure, it’s not required AT ALL.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The benefit may be in knowing how to prevent future attacks…..they clearly know that he was brainwashed so they are going to grant him a bit of leeway and not use his motives against him in court. The fact still remains that he did participate but part of the full investigative reporting is writing down statements by the suspect so we can gain knowledge of possibly how he was influenced into his acts so that we can detox others from it if or when we see the signs.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Even a bad attorney can make a point that
if the government is willing to violate a
suspect’s rights

Not reading Miranda is not a violation of rights. The Miranda warning isn’t in itself a right. It’s a procedural requirement which advises the suspect of his actual rights.

And not reading Miranda isn’t a violation of anything if the government doesn’t plan on entering any of the defendant’s statements into evidence.

Any defense attorney that miscontrues it otherwise is subject to objection and sanction by the court.

Nick-B says:

Re: Re: Re:

Right! Except for one, teensy weeny fact: The government is claiming that they MUST not read him his rights because they are worried if they do, he will clam up and not say a thing and then they are worried they won’t have enough evidence to prosecute him.

He lives in this country, the absurd notion that simply not telling him that if he talks we then have ammo to use against him in a trial is stupid. The Miranda rights aren’t to tell a criminal he’s better off staying silent, it’s there to tell a criminal “Hey, we’re decent guys. If you don’t say anything, we won’t kill or torture you or use your silence later as an admission of guilt.”

I am on the side of believing that not reading this guy his rights just because we are very scared of him (which means the terrorism works) is the absolutely worst precedent to ever do. If we let this happen, then at any time the government can declare any of us a “public safety exception” and not read us our rights (though why that is necessary at this point…) if they are a bit scared of us.

THIS, unlike the NRA’s claim of losing out on giant-sized gun magazines, is the slippery slope of government encroachment that leads to fascism and (dare I invoke Godwins law here) what led to the rise of Nazism.

TheNutman69321 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

“If you’re so protective of freedom and Miranda, which doesn’t even appear in the Constitution, then where can I find your spirited defense of 2nd Amendment rights, post-Sandy Hook?”

There is nothing to defend. No one with any kind of power anywhere in the country ever even once suggested limiting 2nd amendment rights. Regardless of what your leaders and the NRA tell you and you just blindly follow the constitution does guarantee you to own any and all weapons ever made. It was written when the world had nothing but muskets, so until guns have been limited to one shot muskets no one is even coming close to infringing on your rights.

Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Nah, I’m not one to flame over spelling errors. I will, however, take you to task for bias.

Don’t take it personally — 99% of the people I meet “play favorites” with the Constitutional rights they personally approve of, while they happily sacrifice the ones they don’t like.

For example, let’s take your argument with respect to the 2nd Amendment and apply it to the 1st Amendment, almost word for word:

“Regardless of what your leaders and the [ACLU] tell you and you just blindly follow the constitution does guarantee you to own any and all [forms of speech]. It was written when the world had nothing but [printing presses], so until [the Internet/Television/Radio] have been limited to [300 hundred people that would have received your printed billets] no one is even coming close to infringing on your rights.”

Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, please give a principled defense for the difference, besides your preference for the one right and your abhorrence of the other.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

For example, let’s take your argument with respect
to the 2nd Amendment and apply it to the 1st
Amendment, almost word for word:

When it comes to cafeteria-style constitutional rights and the 2nd Amendment, I always like to throw out abortion as a good example.

The very people who are calling for ‘common sense’ restrictions on the the 2nd Amendment right to own a firearm are usually the very people who will recoil in horror at the idea of putting ‘common sense’ restrictions on the right to terminate a pregnancy. All the more ironic that the right to a firearm is actually in the Constitution and the right to abort a baby is not.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Strategic decision, and not a mistake. Uh huh.

So you are telling me that a 19 year old kid living in the US somehow hasn’t seen enough movies and episodes of CSI to recognise the phrase “You have the right to remain silent…” but has in fact even planned and executed a bombing without ever wondering what would happen if he actually got caught? Seriously? Somehow refusing to read him his rights will just… magically generate useful intelligence, because now he thinks he has to talk? This, is worth risking a conviction over? Call me crazy if you like, but to me this assumption seems naive to the extreme and really, really stupid.

More likely is that not reading his right is a way to dehumanise the accused, for people to distance themselves, as no one wants to be on the same level as someone with such a scary sounding foreign name.

But, since you seem interested in functional solutions, and perfectly willing to throw due process out the window, how about we just declare him an enemy combatant, ship him off to Guantanamo and simply torture him for a few years? Surely you’ll get all the intelligence you want, and it’ll do away with that pesky trial and law and stuff.

Land of the free and home of the brave, I think not. These days it’s liberty and justice for all, unless you’re like… scary or inconvenient.

Leaders of the free world my ass. For shame.

Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

If he already knows his rights, then why is he harmed by not receiving the warning? I’m going to hazard a guess that you’re not a Supreme Court justice.

Let’s be realistic – they’re going to hold him for “enhanced interrogation.” After they put him in a time machine, of course, because we know President Obama doesn’t do that sort of thing.

Do you hear me, drone operators? Obama clearly doesn’t do that sort of thing.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Well, what happens if you don’t need those
statements for a conviction? What happens if
the physical and other secondary evidence in
your opinion supports a conviction beyond a
reasonable doubt?

Happens all the time. Personally, I don’t arrest anyone until I have enough evidence to independently convict. By the time I’m putting the cuffs on you, what you do or do not say is largely irrelevant.

I can always tell when one of these guys thinks he’s got one over on me. The smug smile on his face as he proudly announces to his lawyer that “they ain’t got nothin’ on me ’cause he didn’t read me my Mirandas”, and then the way it slowly disappears when I explain to him that I didn’t have to read it to him because I have a shit-ton of physical evidence that will convict him ten times over and I don’t plan on entering anything he’s said into evidence against him. I always like to give defense counsel the opportunity to confirm for his client the veracity of my assertion, which they always grudgingly do.

IAmNotYourLawyer (profile) says:

Re: Re:

There is a public safety exception to the general inadmissibility of evidence derived from a pre-Miranda interrogation. So assuming that this situation falls within that exception, any statements and resulting evidence would be admissible at trial. Here are some parts of the Supreme Court case, New York v. Quarles – 467 U.S. 649 (1984).

[W]e do not believe that the doctrinal underpinnings of Miranda require that it be applied in all its rigor to a situation in which police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety. 467 U. S. 656

So long as the gun was concealed somewhere in the supermarket, with its actual whereabouts unknown, it obviously posed more than one danger to the public safety: an accomplice might make use of it, a customer or employee might later come upon it.

In such a situation, if the police are required to recite the familiar Miranda warnings before asking the whereabouts of the gun, suspects in Quarles’ position might well be deterred from responding. Procedural safeguards which deter a suspect from responding were deemed acceptable in Miranda in order to protect the Fifth Amendment privilege; when the primary social cost of those added protections is the possibility of fewer convictions, the Miranda majority was willing to bear that cost. Here, had Miranda warnings deterred Quarles from responding to Officer Kraft’s question about the whereabouts of the gun, the cost would have been something more than merely the failure to obtain evidence useful in convicting Quarles. Officer Kraft needed an answer to his question not simply to make his case against Quarles, but to insure that further danger to the public did not result from the concealment of the gun in a public area.

We conclude that the need for answers to questions in a situation posing a threat to the public safety outweighs the need for the prophylactic rule protecting the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination. 467 U. S. 657

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

We conclude that the need for answers to questions in a situation posing a threat to the public safety outweighs the need for the prophylactic rule protecting the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination. 467 U. S. 657

Witches are dangerous, therefore torture is acceptable as a means of obtaining a confession prior to burning them.

Bergman (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

The problem is that public safety exceptions apply to emergencies, but not trials. Applying that exception to find out if a terrorist planted additional bombs is exactly how it should be used…

Except that while anything you learn that way can be used to save lives, in the public interest, such confessions are INADMISSIBLE in court. If you have enough physical evidence to not need a confession, great. If your case comes down to needing that confession or the accused walks away a free man…then the exception means he walks.

IAmNotYourLawyer (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Not correct at all. The court ruled that due to the public safety exception, those pre-Miranda statements were admissible in court.

We hold that the Court of Appeals in this case erred in excluding the statement, “the gun is over there,” and the gun because of the officer’s failure to read respondent his Miranda rights before attempting to locate the weapon. Accordingly we hold that it also erred in excluding the subsequent statements as illegal fruits of a Miranda violation. 467 U.S. at 659-60.

That’s what make this an exception. The Miranda “rule” is (roughly) that pre-warning statements are inadmissible. The exception means that that those pre-warning statements would be admissible.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

The exception means that that those pre-warning statements would be admissible.

That’s the part I have a problem with. If they don’t want to Mirandize him, fine, but they should not be permitted to use any pre-warning statements in a trial. They should have to choose whether skipping the warning is worth losing the testimony; otherwise the incentive for abuse is way too strong.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

They should have to choose whether skipping
the warning is worth losing the testimony;
otherwise the incentive for abuse is way too
strong.

I’m personally in favor of the Miranda rule being eliminated entirely. It was a ridiculous decision when it was first issued and only gets more ridiculous with each further judicial ‘refinement’ of the rule.

The U.S. provides criminal defendants with more due process and substantive protections than any other society in the history of mankind. We bend over backward to give the accused every presumption of innocence and put high hurdles before the government to convict.

If you as a citizen can’t be bothered to educate yourself on the basics of what your rights are and what burden the government meet to convict you, then that’s on you. There ought to be some minimum personal responsibility on the part of the citizen and that’s where I’d draw the line.

nasch says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

If you as a citizen can’t be bothered to educate yourself on the basics of what your rights are and what burden the government meet to convict you, then that’s on you.

I get what you’re saying, and if we could trust law enforcement to follow the rules it would be fine. I think without the Miranda rules not only would some people not know what their rights are, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if police actually told people they do not have any right to remain silent.

Mike C. (profile) says:

Popehat roundup of relevant posts

You must have missed Ken White’s roundup of the discussion. With respect to the “public safety exception”, it appears that may have been around since 1984 according to this former public defender.

Ken’s roundup is worth checking out for further discussion of the topic.

tl;dr version: Yeah, probably a bad idea but far from “fatal” to any eventual case.

Zakida Paul (profile) says:

The US is becoming a very scary place, a place I have increasingly little desire to visit, because of their flagrant disregard for human and civil rights.

Everyone has the exact same rights as everyone else. It should not matter what they are alleged to have done. Whether it is murder, terrorism, rape, child abuse – everyone should be entitled to the same due process.

I will probably be shot down for saying that but it is how I feel. Those processes are there for a reason.

Digdug (profile) says:

Re: Re:

You are 100% correct Zakida. The moment we (public, govt., etc.) start making exceptions of that nature it goes downhill in a hurry.

A lot of people have forgotten the difference between having an opinion about a person’s actions and having facts about a person’s actions. I despise real world violence for example but I don’t automatically condemn every person who’s ever thrown a punch. You have to take things on a case by case basis, which is one of the many reasons due process exists.

Jay (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

So your theory is that neocons control the government right now and are making these decisions?

That “theory” is laid to bare in how the Senate is paralyzed unconstitutionally with no filibuster reforms, Congress does not represent people over corporations, and the Supreme Court is extremely conservative in their rulings.

I mean, it really doesn’t take a genius to figure out that Obama is conservative himself given how he wants to cut Social Security and goes along with most of the austerity posturing of the extreme right wing.

If you refuse to see that, it’s your choice. But it’s fairly obvious they’re doing things that people are opposed to regardless of if they have a D or R next to their party affiliation.

Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Let’s try again. Please turn off the Colbert Report and pay attention.

The Department of Justice isn’t part of the Senate. It’s part of the Executive. The Executive is controlled by the President. Are you trying to tell me that the President is a neo-con? Or that being a closet neo-con, he’s packed the DOJ with neo-cons?

In case you didn’t notice, 48% of the country didn’t vote for the President. What exactly is your theory here? That the 52% that support ObamaCare and abortion and Guantanamo are neo-cons, and they elected the neo-con president? Or the 48% percent that reject ObamaCare are neo-cons and they appointed a lousy candidate for the Presidency to trick people into voting for Obama?

Last point and then you can go back to parroting Jon Stewart’s idiocy — when someone disagrees with you, did you ever consider the possibility that you may not have thought these things through and you might be wrong?

xoxo, Anonymous

Jay (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“The Executive is controlled by the President. Are you trying to tell me that the President is a neo-con? Or that being a closet neo-con, he’s packed the DOJ with neo-cons?”

Look at his policies. He’s supported the conservative/neo-con positions almost whole heartedly.

“In case you didn’t notice, 48% of the country didn’t vote for the President.”

And? He’s “the lesser evil” but that doesn’t make him any less conservative. If he were not an authoritarian, he would have been more like Hugo Chavez in ensuring more democracy. If he were more like FDR and pragmatic, then he wouldn’t be criticized for his conservative positions on anything that has nothing to do with social policies.

“That the 52% that support ObamaCare and abortion and Guantanamo are neo-cons, and they elected the neo-con president? “

Nope. I’m asking you to actually look at his policies besides just the social ones. His policies of appointments are meant to appease the far right who has to appoint him with 60 votes.

His views on copyright are actually conservative positions meant to make Hollywood more conservative and mercantilist.

He wants to support CISPA and he’s signed the NDAA. He even repealed the insider trading legislation of last year.

In essence, he’s a corporatist. The Democrats en largesse are the corporatists of politics while the Republicans represent the rich more.

when someone disagrees with you, did you ever consider the possibility that you may not have thought these things through and you might be wrong?

Sure, I could be. But when it’s obvious that people have very limited views on policies and politics that greatly expand their knowledge, I look to educate them about what has been occurring.

No hard feelings if you don’t know. But it just seems that you want to go “But, but… Obama” when everyone’s criticizing him for his energy policies, his climate change reversal, and other positions that mark him as more conservative than progressive.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Wow you really have no clue what you are talking about do you?

1) Hugo Chavez insured Democracy Really? care to support that? Because i have been there and have many family and friends that well be more than happy to Punch the living shit out of you for even bringing that up… Chavez is an absolute dictator with secret police, summary executions for anyone not agreeing enough, and would make Stalin blink at some of the shit he has done (it was very common for police to ask ppl questions at random on the street based on the “TV” show Chavez had weekly, get the question wrong your going to jail at a minimum)

2) Next Bullshit you will pull is that Che Guevara is some great supporter of Democracy and not a butcher and madman.

Now I will be happy to agree that neither R nor D means shit anymore and they all have a select few they accept money from and represent… but Chavez didnt do a damn thing to support anything but Chavez and his buddies, and killed anyone who said different!

Jay (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

” Because i have been there and have many family and friends that well be more than happy to Punch the living shit out of you for even bringing that up… Chavez is an absolute dictator with secret police, summary executions for anyone not agreeing enough, and would make Stalin blink at some of the shit he has done (it was very common for police to ask ppl questions at random on the street based on the “TV” show Chavez had weekly, get the question wrong your going to jail at a minimum)?”

Chavez was elected repeatedly through large margins by fair elections that were overseen by international bodies. Either you’re lying to support a political point or you are parroting news to support your own ideological beliefs.

” Next Bullshit you will pull is that Che Guevara is some great supporter of Democracy and not a butcher and madman.?”

What does Che Guevara and his struggle in Cuba have to do with anything? Do you not know how much the CIA did to undermine him and Cuba during the 60s and 70s?

” Chavez didnt do a damn thing to support anything but Chavez and his buddies, and killed anyone who said different!”

Ah, so you believe the garbage from NYT & Washington Past that says he was a dictator while other news sites explain how he allowed the Carter foundationto observe the elections fairly and just ran with it.

Sorry, but you’ve been duped.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Chavez was elected repeatedly through large margins by fair elections that were overseen by international bodies.

From what I’ve heard (I’m no expert) he was fairly elected, but after that paid no mind to any democratic principles. Populist, yes, but not democratic. He was seemingly a contradiction in terms: a democratically elected dictator.

Jay (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

That isn’t true at all. He’s controversial because he was more of a Socialist Christian and he did a lot for the people:

Despite producing more than $300 billion of oil wealth between 1958 and 1998, the equivalent of 20 Marshall Plans, the majority of Venezuelans were living in shocking slums (McCaughan, M. The Battle of Venezuela, pp. 29-32). By the 1990s, quality of life indicators for ordinary Caracas residents were slightly below Port-Au-Prince, Haiti. Between 1970-1997, workers’ incomes declined by 50%, while poverty doubled between 1984-1991. There was widespread repression, with the previous 3 presidents all using censors and all suspending constitutional guarantees.

…

Given Venezuela’s population, that equates to around 9 million people (1/3 of the entire population) pulled out of poverty. Both the United Nations Development Project and the World Bank agree that unemployment dropped from over 11% to under 8%.

That’s a big issue. He’s helped revolutionize Latin America with Socialist theories that took away austerity measures and improved the lives of millions with the production of co-ops and nationalizing the oil for the people.

What people think of Socialism (a top down organization that tells people how to live their lives) ignores how much he allowed co-ops and people to begin to change their own lives for the better.

Also, the US wanted to destabalize the region as seen here.

Finally, if you want to see what he has to say about Socialism over Capitalism, you can look it up on Youtube

nasch says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

That isn’t true at all. He’s controversial because he was more of a Socialist Christian and he did a lot for the people:

I don’t disagree with anything you wrote, but it doesn’t address whether he was a tyrant. As I said, he was a populist/socialist tyrant, but from what I’ve heard a tyrant nonetheless. I could be wrong, but I’m not just making it up, I’ve heard this analysis from people who have researched and investigated his time in power.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

If he were not an authoritarian, he would
have been more like Hugo Chavez in ensuring
more democracy.

Oh, you mean he would have seized any media outlet that criticized him, like Chavez did?

Or do you mean he would have seized massive mounts of private property in a wholesale campaign of outright theft, like Chavez did?

Is that what you mean by ‘ensuring democracy’? (Oh, and I nearly did a spit-take when you said Chavez wasn’t an authoritarian. That was a true piece of comedy gold, right there.)

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Have any evidence of your claims?

http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/03/05/venezuela-chavez-s-authoritarian-legacy

Under Ch?vez, the government dramatically expanded its ability to control the content of the country?s broadcast and news media. It passed laws extending and toughening penalties for speech that ?offends? government officials, prohibiting the broadcast of messages that ?foment anxiety in the public,? and allowing for the arbitrary suspension of TV channels, radio stations, and websites.

The Ch?vez government sought to justify its media policies as necessary to ?democratize? the country?s airwaves. Yet instead of promoting pluralism, the government abused its regulatory authority to intimidate and censor its critics. It expanded the number of government-run TV channels from one to six, while taking aggressive steps to reduce the availability of media outlets that engage in critical programming.

In response to negative coverage, Ch?vez repeatedly threatened to remove private stations from the airwaves by blocking renewal of their broadcast licenses. In 2007, in an act of blatant political discrimination, his government prevented the country?s oldest private television channel, RCTV, from renewing its license and seized its broadcasting antennas. Three years later, it drove RCTV off cable TV as well by forcing the country?s cable providers to stop transmitting its programs.

The removal of RCTV left only one major channel, Globovisi?n, that continued to be critical of the president. The Ch?vez government repeatedly pursued administrative sanctions against Globovisi?n, which have kept the station in perpetual risk of suspension or closure. It also pressed criminal charges against the station?s president, a principal owner, and a guest commentator after they made public statements criticizing the government.

Embracing Abusive Governments

Ch?vez also rejected international efforts to promote human rights in other countries. In recent years, Venezuela consistently voted against UN General Assembly resolutions condemning abusive practices in North Korea, Burma, Iran, and Syria. Moreover, Ch?vez was a vocal supporter of Syria?s Bashar al-Assad, Libya?s Muammar Gaddafi, and Iran?s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, bestowing upon each of these leaders the ?Order of the Liberator,? Venezuela?s highest official honor.

Under Ch?vez, Venezuela?s closest ally was Cuba, the only country in Latin America that systematically represses virtually all forms of political dissent. Ch?vez identified Fidel Castro ? who headed Cuba?s repressive government until his health deteriorated in 2006 ? as his model and mentor.

Jay (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

Funny, I know that you like to blame Obama for everything and that article is laughable.

We’re supposed to believe that the press and the courts are packed thanks to Chavez? Are you kidding me?

He was an elected autocrat:

He ain’t ? wasn’t ? a dictator. As I said above, he was a hybrid, an elected autocrat. What that means is he won free (though not entirely fair) votes, year after year. He allowed the opposition to organise. There was a vocal privately owned media which railed against him, Fox-like. But he concentrated powers ? the courts, armed forces, state oil company, national assembly, all genuflected before the voice of the comandante. Over time he became more repressive: opponents and people he didn’t like were accused of corruption and banned from running for office, or jailed. Some fled. But he never became as repressive as some critics claimed. There were no gulags, no death squads, no terror. He was a bully, but not bloodthirsty.

Oh and you might want to check this out where the US had plans to overthrow Chavez that didn’t work.

Just recently, the loser wanted a coup but Chavez’ successor won fair and square. The same thing that Chavez did 11 times. Whether you liked him or not, Chavez is essentially the Venezuelan FDR with his popularity and he did go further to promote democracy than dampen it when his opponents worked to undermine him.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

Funny, I know that you like to blame Obama
for everything

Funny, you don’t know any such thing.

and that article is laughable.

You asked for proof. I provided it. You then proceeded to engage in ad hominems. What exactly is inaccurate in that article?

Do you deny that under Chavez, laws were passed penalizing speech that offended government officials, prohibited the broadcast of messages that “foment anxiety in the public,” and allowed for the arbitrary suspension of TV channels, radio stations, and websites?

Do you deny that Chavez intimidated and censored his critics?

Do you deny that Chavez created state-run media propaganda organs?

Do you deny that Chavez nationalized (fancy word for ‘stole’) massive amounts of private property?

Do you deny that Chavez threatened to remove private stations from the airwaves by blocking renewal of their broadcast licenses?

Do you deny that Chavez seized the broadcast facilities of stations which refused to stop being critical of him?

Do you deny that Chavez aligned himself with the most repressive governments on the planet and cozied up to psychopathic dictators on a regular basis?

If you deny any of these things, it’s now your turn to provide proof.

Jay (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

That article has no links to prove Chavez did anything to turn Venezuela into a dictatorship. It’s complaints from partisans about how he wouldn’t let certain people grow in their business with monopoie. There are no comments about how he allowed co-ops to form in various industries, merely complaint after whining complaint about how the press is suppressed and judges are stackedagainst business interests.

But woe betide that if you do a cost-benefit analysis and found out he did a lotmore good by helping people over profit motives that worked to undermine him constantly.

Let’s ignore how he blatantly told Obama that the drug war wasn’t working and pushed Latin America in a more Socialist direction.

Let’s ignore how he reduced poverty, created a more educated workforce, and helped show how unequal capitalism is by going in a direction that FDR was going.

Instead, one partisan article takes narrow focuses on two parts of Chavez’ legacy and decides that it applies to everything he did.

And to answer your questions, he didn’t penalize speech. He prevented the poor from losing their voice. That allowed more speech.

He exiled some people but he also allowed them to form their own political parties where they tried to ouster him with US backing.

America tries to bully people along with any other nation so I don’t really understand the point here. Yes, he did this, but at this point he allowed the people to decide if he needed to be taken out of office democratically. So obviously, they liked him in overwhelming numbers.

Allocation of private property to public resources is a tenant of Socialism. So it seems you’re bitter that he allowed the public to redistribute the wealth to help the nation prosper. That’s a narrow view, don’t you think?

Finally, the last two questions are repeats but America has laws similar to them like the Fairness Doctrine and the FCC who regulate the airwaves for hateful speech. You might not agree but that was their job before Reagan made up rules for monopolies to form in the broadcasting industry.

Oh, and America allowed the HSBC to launder money to Al’Qaeda and banks to do business with Iran.

Quit throwing stones when your own house is made of glass.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

And to answer your questions, he didn’t penalize speech. He
prevented the poor from losing their voice. That allowed more
speech.

LOL! The typical justification for a dictator’s suppression of dissent. “He’s just allowing more of the ‘good’ kind of speech. Yay!”

Allocation of private property to public resources is a tenant
of Socialism.

‘Allocation’. Another fancy word for stealing other people’s stuff. And trying to justify it by saying that stealing people’s stuff is a tenant of socialism doesn’t do your argument any favors.

So it seems you’re bitter that he allowed the public to redistribute
the wealth to help the nation prosper. That’s a narrow view, don’t
you think?

Yeah, I’m being so narrow-minded when I object to the government “allowing” some citizens to steal from others.

but America has laws similar to them like the Fairness Doctrine

Wrong. The Fairness Doctrine was repealed during the Reagan administration, and it was never constitutionally tested. If it had been, the Court would almost certainly have overturned it.

and the FCC who regulate the airwaves for hateful speech

No, they don’t. That would be unconstitutional. Hate speech is perfectly legal in America. The only thing things the FCC are legally empowered to prohibit are indecency and obscenity, and it can only prohibit those on the broadcast stations. When it comes to cable stations, premium channels, and the internet, they’re powerless to do even that much.

Jay (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re:

“He’s just allowing more of the ‘good’ kind of speech. Yay!”

Like I said, you’re partisan. You’re convinced of ignoring that issue when it’s another country but you’ll use it against one you don’t like. “Do as I say, not as I do”

I merely said that he’s allowed the country to do better than the US with the rules and policies he’s implemented and you want to throw that out of proportion.

” Another fancy word for stealing other people’s stuff. And trying to justify it by saying that stealing people’s stuff is a tenant of socialism doesn’t do your argument any favors.”

Nope. That’s like saying copyright means you’re engaging in theft. Excellent way to provide a Hollywood argument but you might want to look at what happens when “private property” is collected in the hands of a select few. Oh wait, no you don’t. The 1929 depression along with the 2007 recession are stark reminders.

” I’m being so narrow-minded when I object to the government “allowing” some citizens to steal from others.”

Thanks for admitting it when you don’t want to understand the booms and busts of the capitalist system.

” The Fairness Doctrine was repealed during the Reagan administration, and it was never constitutionally tested. If it had been, the Court would almost certainly have overturned it.”

Wrong. The Fairness Doctrine was practiced until the Reagan administration decided on the argument that companies needed to be bigger for the good of the rest of society which makes absolutely no sense. But obviously, you didn’t read much into the Powell Memo that was popular at the time in how to create a plutocratic republic.

“That would be unconstitutional. Hate speech is perfectly legal in America. The only thing things the FCC are legally empowered to prohibit are indecency and obscenity, and it can only prohibit those on the broadcast stations. When it comes to cable stations, premium channels, and the internet, they’re powerless to do even that much.”

They’ve gotten weaker over the years due to partisan battles but the FCC of the 70s had a lot more they could do to promote the public good. Nice try though.

Jay (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Re:

Well, great. If you think government repression for the ‘common good’ is so fantastic, go buy yourself a Rosetta Stone, learn Spanish, and go live under Chavez 2.0. Or Fidel. Or whatever socialist paradise floats your boat.

That has nothing to do with the argument presented so why don’t you actually respond about the topic at hand instead of veering off into rhetorical territory?

And I’ll stay in America as I see fit, thank you very much.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“But it’s fairly obvious they’re doing things that people are opposed to regardless of if they have a D or R next to their party affiliation.”

That’s because the difference between the 2 are subtle if not non-existent these days, unless you count the bible thumpers on the right as actual representatives of a political party.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

So the left wing in the oval office at the time had nothing to do with that law being passed?

Also, you do realize that the extreme far right are people who want less laws not more.

Big government——middle——no government

Today there is little difference between democrats and republicans, they are both responsible for smearing shit on the constitution and your rights.

If you think only big bad Rs are the problem, then YOU are part of the problem.

Jay (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The Socialists and Communists were decimated in the 40s while the Democrats became more corporate in the 70s.

The Republicans (ie conservatives) have been a huge problem with their libertarian, evangelical, and neocon ideas that have caused massive problems for the last century.

Yes, century. They tried austerity in the 20s and that changed us to a welfare state in the US. We got 40-50 years of a welfare state which changed into a private market since the 70s. Now we have eliminated the welfare state for private capitalism and conservatives have lead the way the entire time.

In other words, there IS no left wing in politics. The ones that want the laws right now are the corporations and the rich to support them over the needs of the nation. Honestly, who thinks it’s a good idea to destroy Miranda rights for terrorists when Norway didn’t have to?

Who thinks it’s a good idea to point fingers at Progressives (accept capitalism, want state capitalism) over looking at new economic systems which Socialists and Communists want?

You have to be really ignorant of the class struggle involved here where the rich have the state do their bidding while the poor are left to work hard at the expense of their own well being.

Zakida Paul (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“In other words, there IS no left wing in politics.”

I totally agree, left wing has disappeared from politics. Even parties traditionally referred to as left wing can no longer be given that label. That is why I was so incredulous with that poster as, in the 30 years I have been alive, I have not seen a single left wing government in the Western world.

Jay (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Actually, The Linde in Germany is pretty left wing. Their name literally means “The Left”

I just think they’re working on getting more involved and pushing back against the austerity measures of right wingers.

Here in the US, we have the Progressive Caucus in the Democrats and the Green Party should be challenging the Democrats more as a far left challenger (they still need work but it’s far better than being Socialist or Communist now)

Also, New Zealand has been pretty progressive. I mean, a judge had that balls to embarrass the FBI. Think about how Richard Dwyer was treated in the UK versus how Dotcom got rights upheld when he was at his worst.

I’m not calling you ignorant or anything. Just expanding the knowledge that I’ve collected on these issues as I work to make the world a better place. 🙂

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

“a judge had that balls to embarrass the FBI”

A judge following the rule of law causing someone to describe a country as progressive indicates how low standards are.

The NZ example is perhaps a terrible one given that the NZ government colluded with a US government agency to break multiple laws in an attempt to railroad a person living in NZ and despite this being common knowledge and the information to support it being widely available, said person, is still having to struggle against the vicarious and unsupportable extradition proceedings while the people who have committed major crimes are not currently facing any charges at all.

ChrisB (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

If there are no left wing parties, why are unions so powerful? Go check how much of your municipal budget goes to paying pensions, and how much underfunded those pensions are.

There are actually two axis for government, Left-Right, and Big-Small. Republicans are just as big governments as Democrats.

Governments shouldn’t be bailing out corporations; that is crony capitalism. States should be pro-market, not pro-business.

You act like you don’t know the 1%. Have you ever been to a doctor? Most rich people don’t lie in piles of money laughing. They try and build a product people want. And we pay them for it. If you don’t like the millions CEO’s receive, don’t buy their stuff, don’t bank at their banks, don’t eat at their restaurants, and don’t shop at their stores. This is more democracy than you’ll ever see in your lifetime.

Jay (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Unions have NOT BEEN powerful in the US since the 30s when they influenced FDR into a more progressive stance.

Further, private sector unions make up SEVEN PERCENT of the workforce. Seven. As in, they aren’t non-existent to for the majority of workers. What you’re actually referring to is the public sector unions that protect the police from being fired. You know, the ones that ignore how police officers raid pensions and give themselves high bonuses? How about discussing the police state has grown under the last three presidents?

No, it’s not the fault of the unions. It’s a carefully manufactured support for more authoritarianism.

Finally, if the rich were providing goods and services that people want, why do you support an ideology that looks to deprive people of choices and point fingers? They don’t. They look to monopolize markets to ensure that they continue to make money on the misery of others. Whether that’s copyright law where people with a financial interest in more copyright make the law, patents where the most patents wins, or destroying political opponents to win elections, the root cause of this is that people at the top look to destroy those below them to ensure their own dominance. That’s a dangerous position when people figure it out.

MAtt says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Unions still wield power. Look into the Local 34 at Yale.

I’m confused by the rest of your post. It sounds like you are complaining that the problem with a compound fracture is a tear in the skin. All of your ranting may well be problems we have; however, the solution has nothing to do with them. We have allowed our government to run on autopilot for way too long, to the point where their primary interest is staying in power.

Corporatism is just simple human nature: The CEOs and the congressmen are buddies, and a likely place for them to work when if they don’t get reelected. So of course they have their hands in each others’ pockets. I know this is a very anti-corporation place, but keep one thing in mind: Kraft can’t throw you in jail for not eating their Mac-n-Cheese.

We need to take an active interest in our government. Voting is the bare minimum; we were meant to do much more.

Jay (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

” Unions still wield power. Look into the Local 34 at Yale.”

Uh… Where. They don’t wield power on the national stage as you’ve just pointed out. Same with the AFL-CIO who has elected to support corporate interests over the people they are paid to protect.

” All of your ranting may well be problems we have; however, the solution has nothing to do with them.”

My “rant” wasn’t meant to try to solve anything. It was structured to raise awareness of how little power unions have had in society in the last half-century.

” Corporatism is just simple human nature: The CEOs and the congressmen are buddies, and a likely place for them to work when if they don’t get reelected.?”

Corporatism is not simple human nature. It comes from an undemocratic structure that allows a select few to make decisions over the many. Before, that was called feudalism. Now, we call it a board of directors in an enterprise.

If a BoD had to live with the decisions of their choices, I’m sure they would decide differently in how they interact with the public. As it stands, the needs of the few outweigh the many and we are seeing the end results of that.

” We need to take an active interest in our government. Voting is the bare minimum; we were meant to do much more.”

Interesting stance, bit I would argue that attacking the government is misguided. This is a result of thirty years of rule by the rich. If we can understand that, them we can work to change our economics and politics to a more egalitarian democracy.

Jay (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

Nope, you ignored what I said.

…private sector unions make up SEVEN PERCENT of the workforce. Seven. As in, they aren’t non-existent to for the majority of workers.

Here’s who the unions represent from the wiki page:

▪ Age 16?24: 5.0%
▪ 25?34: 10.7%
▪ 35?44: 13.4%
▪ 45?54: 16.0%
▪ 55?64: 16.6%
▪ 65 and over: 9.0%
▪ Women: 11.4%
▪ Men: 13.4%

So I maintain my position that they represent so few Americans as to be non-existent to them.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

Here’s who the unions represent…

How many people they represent is irrelevant. It only matters how influential they are with politicians.

In California, they fund the campaigns of virtually every politician from the governor on down to local mayors and city councils. They get these people elected, who then use their positions to pass laws favorable to the unions, to the extent of raising taxes for the sole purpose of handing the resulting revenue over to the public employee union goons. Not only do the unions run the state, but they have the ability to literally reach into my pocket and take my money from me whenever they like.

Jay (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

“. The public sector unions run California, top to bottom, which is even worse, because public sector unions do it with taxpayer money.”

btr, MY entire point is about unions on the national level. You’ve just self servingly limited the point that I raised which is about unions all over the country.

How many people they represent is irrelevant. It only matters how influential they are with politicians.

They aren’t. You know what would have happened if there were a strong union? West Texas does not like unions and it’s a great example of why regulations actually save lives.

I know you’re partisan but this is ridiculous. You have to read my words five ways from Sunday to come to a tortured point when I’ve argued something entirely different. I haven’t seen evidence of the AFL-CIO being able to gain more power because they don’t have it. The money for corporations to allow unions comes from the capitalists and they don’t want unions hence the 7% number. It’s great that you live in California, but I’m not talking about just one state. I’m talking about the entire country.

Congratulations on making a strawman argument but the bigger picture is with the nation hence my point still stands.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Actually, the biggest terrorist actor in the world has been the US since at least the 50’s, but it is certainly true to say that since 2001 it has expanded enormously its global terrorist activities coupled with the fact that it is no longer embarassed about many of them and instead of hiding such vile acts tends to proclaim them as righteous and just.

The Real Michael says:

Re: Miranda rights only matter if....

He’ll probably die before he can speak.

I’ve yet to see conclusive evidence that these two placed the bombs or hijacked the car and had a shootout while reportedly hurling bombs at the cops in pursuit. I’m not saying that they didn’t do it, simply that I don’t see any hard evidence. This is extremely dangerous in and of itself because this means that the media is acting in concert with the feds to judge, jury and execute these individuals absent any due process.

Logic please: If you’re a wanted terrorist, are you really going to give a confession to the person whose car you stole, much less let him live? Somehow they managed to evade a heavy security presence, plant bombs and evade capture at the marathon, but suddenly became extremely stupid after the fact? Doesn’t sit right with me.

Trails (profile) says:

Re: Re: Miranda rights only matter if....

Wow, that’s a bit tinfoil.

Certainly you haven’t seen enough evidence yet to prove guilt (no one has, ‘cept maybe the investigators), but did you expect them to rush over and present it for your review? There is a fair bit of evidence circulated by media (assuming media can be believed (not opinion, that’s crap, but the stuff they’re reporting as fact)) that certainly implicates these two.

If you’re a wanted terrorist, are you really going to give a confession to the person whose car you stole, much less let him live?

First off it would be a bit odd if that’s what the case was hanging off of, but it’s not. While the media certainly trumpeted that aspect of this whole affair, the carjacking and gunfight were probably what drove law enforcement to pursue these guys more than the offhand statement in and of itself. Additionally, the statement hasn’t even been reported (i.e. what they actually said, that I’ve seen at least), and I certainly don’t put it past two scared, impressionable morons to make self-incriminating, self-aggrandizing statements like that.

FM Hilton (profile) says:

We lost more than we gained

“We can toss out the rules anytime we want” so sayeth the Feds.

How about the ‘Siege of Boston’ for one? That they needed 9,000 cops and military to take down 1 lone person is truly terrifying and pathetic at the same time.

There are reports that there were house searches without a warrant, personal searches without a warrant, and an entire city was shut down for 1 stinking person, while the paramilitary troops complete with tanks, helicopters, search dogs, assault weapons and any other assortment of toys did their job.

Then the loss of our Constitutional rights for just one person who was half-dead at the time they captured him.

We must be so proud of ourselves. We just became our own enemy.

Anonymous Coward says:

The whole thing really boils down to this concept of crime and punishment and who can inflict punishment and for what. You have the right to free speech in China but then you must face the consequences (ie: be jailed) if you say something the government doesn’t like.

The purpose of the Miranda rights is to articulate that the prosecutor can not inflict punishment without the approval of another, balancing and neutral, party (a court). The government can inflict punishment on you if you choose to remain silent but only with the prior approval of a court. On the other hand the prosecutor can decide to press for fewer charges and less punishment if you choose to divulge useful information in the interest of public safety.

Where it gets tricky is when the prosecutor attempts to plea bargain people into confessing to crimes that they may have never done under the threat that if they don’t the prosecutor may punish them even more. For instance, say crime C > B > A. Say you only did A. The prosecutor may threaten to prosecute you with C if you don’t confess to B. If you do then confess to B what a court should then do is recognize what’s going on and ensure that you are only being punished for what the government can reasonably prove that you likely did (and sometimes they do that already). If it’s obvious to the court that the defendant is confessing to B only to avoid being prosecuted for C but the defendant likely only did A or that the prosecutor can’t even come close to proving B then the court should punish the defendant only for A (or even less as a punishment to the prosecutor? Then again, what kinda justice is that. A better solution could be to only punish the defendant for A and maybe fine the prosecutor for being unfair? Maybe the proceeds can go to some charity or to non-profit defense organizations like the ACLU?).

Punishment should never occur without prior court approval, even if the defendant admits to a crime. A court should exercise prudence in ensuring that the punishment fits what the government can reasonably prove even if confessions by the defendant are made. This would solve most of the “prosecute for C to get defendants to admit to B and receive a greater punishment” problem, that greater punishment should only occur after court approval and reasonable court prudence is exercised to ensure that the punishment only fits what the government can reasonably prove and not just what the defendant is confessing to. Courts should still demand proof to what the defendant is confessing to. Then punishments would be a lot more reasonable and likely be a much closer fit to the actual crime.

Then again, I know this solution is not really that simple. It’s hard for a court to see a defense that was never made.

Anonymous Coward says:

the last paragraph of the article says ‘what a shame’. it isn’t a shame, it’s disgraceful! i dont know if the guy is innocent or guilty, but the way he is being treated already shows that the USA and it’s administration and law enforcement are no better and possibly even worse than the terrorists that are supposed to be prevented from committing these terrible acts. if the guy was under surveillance, whoever was involved in that wasn’t doing a very good job either! the way things are turning out and the laws that Congress are enacting, there really isn’t any need for terrorist attacks. the USA government is doing more in the way of harm to it’s country and it’s people than could be achieved by any terrorist organisation. it would take many attacks over many years for those terrorists to do what the government has already done! democracy is fast disappearing and home grown terror is quickly winning the war! there needs to be some serious changes, but when even the White House gets ignored, it shows that someone else is in charge! i would have thought that the main aim was to keep terror out, not cultivate it inside your own borders!

Ninja (profile) says:

Suspending basic rights and due process out of fear is exactly the kind of thing that people attacking the US want to see.

And that’s why terrorists won already. The US is walking quickly towards fascism and dictatorship.

This is an organization with a long history of abusing its power, now allowed to wipe out one of the key protections for those they’re arresting, whenever it sees fit. The whole point of the ruling in Miranda is that it should not be up to law enforcement. A person’s rights are their rights.

We point at the DOJ but it wouldn’t be able to act this way if successive administrations didn’t give them a lot of power and room to do so.

Also I couldn’t agree more with you Mike, the US have a bunch of coward pussies in the Govt for the last 15 years or so. But wait, that’s not about terrorism, it’s about control.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

The US is walking quickly towards fascism and dictatorship.

Which could be the last thing the terrorists want. The corporations based in the US are world dominant. They would use American might to protect their interests world wide. This could destroy any and all culture that does not bow down to Mammon, that is make money for the corporations.

The Real Michael says:

Re: Re: Re:

“Which could be the last thing the terrorists want.”

That they succeeded at shutting down an entire American city while people’s Constitutional rights were suspended (particularly the 4th and 5th…) seems to suggest otherwise. If anything, this event proves that all it takes to destroy freedom is a pressure-cooker and explosives in a backpack.

Shame on this country, but especially shame on law enforcement. They swore an oath to protect our Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic but didn’t honor that oath that fateful Friday. Oh yeah, law enforcement sure are brave and courageous when they’ve got thousands of officers to back them up, equipped with fully-automatic weaponry and bullet-proof vests, armored vehicles and black hawk helicopters, just to go after one severely wounded 19 year-old.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Given what happened in California while the police were hunting one of their own in California, would you have wanted to go out while they were hunting a terrorist suspected of carrying explosives? Your police were probably a greater danger to the public that the suspected terrorist.

The Real Michael says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

That’s a crock and you know it. We’re supposed to live with the inherent risks that come with freedom, not cower in its face and surrender our Constitutional rights.

Dictators such as Hitler likewise used essentially the same argument/justification you’re making for why the people should be submissive to government authority. The German authorities were “just doing their job” of protecting the German citizenry, at the greater expense of their rights.

Anonymous Coward says:

I suspect they don’t care. What he says won’t be admissible in court, which doesn’t matter. What the DOJ is saying is they don’t need what he says to make their court case. They have enough evidence for that.

What they need to know about are any other bombs and/or sociopaths.

As much as I may empathize with various oppressed people (and they are everywhere), terrorism (and killing, for that matter) is never a reasonable tactic. Never.

JarHead says:

Re: Re:

As much as I may empathize with various oppressed people (and they are everywhere), terrorism (and killing, for that matter) is never a reasonable tactic. Never.
Trouble is, the word “terror” is open for interpretation, at least for what specific action causing it, i.e. I could be cowering in terror knowing that my Miranda rights can be revoked at anytime without clear explanation/rules as to why. I could be arrested for jaywalking, and some smart ass argues my jaywalking threatens public safety and poof goes my Miranda rights (apparently, he doesn’t approve my relationship with his daughter/sister/neighbor/friend/someone across the street/what-have-you).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Ok so then don’t give him Miranda rights then. But then why then announce to the world that you didn’t give him Miranda rights? Why not simply omit that step, interrogate him, get the info you want then prosecute him with the other evidence you have and just leave the whole Miranda rights thing out of the spot light. I’ll tell you why. It’s arrogant grandstanding. It’s the government trying to bully the terrorists back by saying we won’t treat you like a citizen and give you the rights you deserve under the law if you do these things. We are going to get you at all costs, even our own values. It’s stupid arrogance and it’s going to bite us in the ass.

Bengie says:

Hmmm

On one hand, the government has been chipping away at our rights and I feel that this is another chip in an ever smaller block.

On the other hand, an attack directly meant for a civilian populace by militarily train professions is an act of war, not your normal crime. As an act of war, they should be treated as enemy combatants.

Bengie says:

Re: Clicked submit too soon

What about the other slippery slope?

What if someone create a bomb and killed 10m people? Would you still say “they need their miranda rights”?

There is a line that is eventually crossed when someone attacks civilians with the intent to just cause mass pain and suffering. How many people must get hurt before you can treat an attack as an act of war or crime against humanity?

Rob says:

Re: Re: Clicked submit too soon

What if someone create a bomb and killed 10m people? Would you still say “they need their miranda rights”?

There is a line that is eventually crossed when someone attacks civilians with the intent to just cause mass pain and suffering. How many people must get hurt before you can treat an attack as an act of war or crime against humanity?

I think if we were to say that, it would imply that the severity of the alleged crime determines the care and diligence we need to employ in evidence gathering and prosecution. More severe would imply it’s less important to make sure we get the right guy and determine without a reasonable doubt that he did what we think he did.

Viewed dispassionately, this seems to be the opposite of what we’d want. I’d think that in the case of a truly horrible and heinous crime, we’d want to be especially confident that we caught and punished the right guy, not just to punish the appropriate person but to assure ourselves that in fact the actual perpetrator isn’t — all assumptions to the contrary — still at large.

Due process isn’t supposed to prove we’re a bunch of pussies soft on crime. It’s to establish confidence in the justice system and dissuade such things as fear, lawlessness and vigilantism.

Trails (profile) says:

Re: Re: Clicked submit too soon

What if someone create a bomb and killed 10m people? Would you still say “they need their miranda rights”?

Yes, absolutely. In fact moreso. It’s especially important in that case(and in this) to make sure the gov’t “got the guy”, and isn’t just railroading some asshole. That’s a BIG part of the motivation of due process.

Further, the point of this exception is when there’s an imminent or ongoing substantive threat to members of the public, not just because we’re all really mad.

DCX2 says:

Re: Hmmm

On the other hand, an attack directly meant for a civilian populace by militarily train professions is an act of war, not your normal crime. As an act of war, they should be treated as enemy combatants.

An act of war, huh? What makes this an act of war? What nation-state does the alleged combatant represent?

You can’t just say “xyz was an act of war”. War means very specific things. McVeigh was tried as a criminal and Tsarnaev should be tried as one, too.

Anonymous Coward says:

It's common practice..

nothing to see here.. move along..

It’s called questioning a suspect, often it is the case that someone is a suspect, they are NOT arrested but are questioned/ interrogated by police or the ‘authorities’, and of course if they have not been read their right they have not been arrested.

IF during the interrogation it becomes clear that he will be charged, then his rights are read, and the same questions are asked of him again.

But you don’t read rights to someone who is just a suspect, and who has not had a case built or evidence to warrant an arrest.

It ALLWAYS HAPPENS LIKE THIS !!!!! but it comes as no surprise that Masnick would not know it.

Also, if any prosecutor tried to charge someone based on a ‘confession’ alone without ANY physical evidence or supporting proof it would be a silly move.

It is simply ‘building a possible case’ for charges to be made. If on the basis of this interview and with supporting evidence charges will be made, then at that time should his rights (as someone charged) be made.

If they are searching for this person on what basis are they searching for him for ?

he is probably being searched for, is his assistance in the investigation of a crime, and in alluding police.

I very much doubt that if they find him he will be immediately charged for the crime.

He is at present a suspect, he’s not been charged, and as he has not been charged he does not have to be read the rights.

John Katos (profile) says:

It was so refreshing to see U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz puffing and running for office at the presser. Beyond this massive Miranda fuckup, the FBI’s incompetence is staggering. If they had checked their records the whole shootout could have been avoided and one cop would probably be alive and the other would not have lost all of his blood.

The Real Michael says:

Re: Re:

“…the FBI’s incompetence is staggering.”

How do you know that they didn’t know in advance but allowed it to happen anyway? Perhaps they were even involved in some way. Anyone who questions the ‘official’ story is routinely demonized as a tin-foil hat-wearing conspiracy theorist, but let us not forget, this is the same organization that first staged and then thwarted their own terrorist attacks. We need to ask questions and demand answers.

John Katos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

No, I believe they are too incompetent to plan such an operation. They can only plan sting operations which are obtuse and idiotic involving total morons. The Tsarnaev brothers thought they were home free, hell Jahar went back to school! The bombing was Monday, Thursday afternoon they release the photos, if they thought they would be identified they would have been long gone. The FBI should have figured that out and realized a more thorough search of the photos in their own files would possibly turn up a person of interest, flagged by Russia no less, and not reveal to the Tsarnaevs that they were suspect since they were in one of two possible situations. One they were three plus days gone or thought they had got away without being identified. If I were the FBI I would have searched in this order: 1. People who really hate runners (just kidding … too soon?). 2. Right wingnuts (I’m a liberal) 3. Islamic terrorists (cliche?). Number 3 check nuts in Boston and passport photo of Tam shows up, go to his apartment/house, over and out.

Anonymous Coward says:

it’s supposed to be the Department of Justice! anyone like to point out where the actual ‘Justice’ is? when the very organisations that are supposedly responsible for ‘justice’ actually ignore it as and when they want, the rest of the country will quickly follow. the USA is very quickly becoming the very thing it has already fought against, the very same as what it keeps saying it is still fighting against. when those that are supposed to represent the people in a democracy are doing what they want and not what the people want, there is something very wrong. go too far, and getting back will be all but impossible! the first place to look has to be at who is pushing for all the surveillance laws to be introduced, followed by who wants all freedom and privacy removed from the people. when the people have little or no say in the way a country is run, dictatorship, fascism, totalitarianism, communism is just round the corner!!

Spointman (profile) says:

Miranda doesn't mean what you think it means

Normally I agree with Mike, but I think he missed the point a bit with this article. Miranda itself isn’t a right; there’s no such thing as “the right to be read your rights.” Instead, Miranda just means that if you’re not read your rights, anything you say can’t be used against you in court. The police can still investigate you and act on the info you give them. You can still be prosecuted on evidence the police get independently of your statements or confession. My guess is in this case, the police already had enough to convict the guy several times over, so by skipping Miranda, they basically allow themselves more leeway to question the guy about acts they don’t yet know about.

Popehat has a good roundup of posts about this: http://www.popehat.com/2013/04/20/brave-new-world-miranda-roundup/

The first two links in the Popehat article are both great reading.

mac65 says:

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev IS (just recently) a U.S. of A. citizen.

I understand everybody wants revenge bbb justice. But,
an attorney representing Dzhokhar Tsarnaev would actually benefit the government’s case against him
because anything he said with an attorney present would be more than admissible in a court, so to speak.

As it stands, the implied part of the Miranda ruling is that anything he say isn’t admissible in a court of law
because it’s implied that that information/facts was obtained unlawfully (at best, but torture could have been involved).

The only thing the kid can hope for is life, and if he cooperates that’s what he should get, one per victim without
parole. Refuse to cooperate, then the death penalty.

So far, law enforcement has shown us how to do it right with his capture, let’s not do something we, as a country, will be ashamed of in the future. Miranda was put there by
smarter men and for a reason.

Anonymous Coward says:

Questions...

If one is being shot at….would one have time to read the Miranda Rights which are null and void when someone is shooting at you?

1. Would it not be a waver of those rights when you shoot at a police officer?

2. Can you not be apprehended without the Miranda Rights if you are unconscious?

So here’s the thing….the suspect shot at them…they shot back….no time for quoting the Miranda Rights when you are getting shot at.

The Real Michael says:

Re: Questions...

They claimed that he shot back at them, but he was severely wounded well before that (supposed) firefight took place, including a bullet which pierced through his neck. It seems highly improbable to me that he would be able to get into a firefight while in critical condition and with that much loss of blood. The only video evidence is of the sound of constant gunfire while at a distance, several automatic weapons being fired in tandem by law enforcement. If he really fought back at law enforcement then the evidence should be there at the start of the gun fight. You should hear one or two gun shots before law enforcement would’ve responded by firing in tandem.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Questions...

So you’re going to play the Devil’s advocate? Maybe you forgot the fact that Tsarnaev had explosives on him and was trying to get rid of then as he attempted to escape that boat he was hiding in…

He shot first…he also helped blow up the Boston Marathon so yeah, even by the way you tell it….they had no choice but to shoot first not knowing exactly what he would do…oh and by the way, the Boston PD uses semiautomatic weapons and witnesses reported full automatics being fired during the firefight…he had to have shot first.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Questions...

So you’re going to play the Devil’s advocate? Maybe you forgot the fact that Tsarnaev [allegedly] had explosives on him and was [allegedly] trying to get rid of then as he attempted to escape that boat he was hiding in…

He [allegedly] shot first…he also [allegedly] helped blow up the Boston Marathon so yeah, even by the way you tell it….they [allegedly] had no choice but to shoot first not knowing exactly what he would do…oh and by the way, the Boston PD [allegedly] uses semiautomatic weapons and witnesses reported full automatics being fired during the firefight…he had to have shot first.

Fixed that for you. This guy is innocent until proven guilty. This whole episode smells funny and I’m not going to swallow it.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Questions...

So by having a trace of the matching spectrographic chemicals used in the explosives used in the bombings is allegedly participating in a bombing? Or how about the fact they caught the guy on Infrared cameras trying to rid himself of the explosives during attempted escape? I mean that footage was showed on the news this morning.

Oh and the gap in your logic was trying to correct me about the Boston PD’s use of semiautomatic weapons…they only use semiautomatics they don’t allegedly use them.

Before you play devil’s advocate, maybe you should try to do a little more research about your outside world.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Questions...

But you just did it again… My point was the law says he’s innocent until proven guilty.

As for a police department only ever using semi-auto weapons, you’ll find that an impossible claim to back up. The only evidence comes from what the police say which depending on your opinion of them may hold some or no weight. (it also ignores the possibility of any other department using said weapons)

I’m not sure the testimony of a civilian that it “sounded like” an automatic weapon is sound evidence either for that matter.

Don’t convince yourself he did it until a jury of his peers do.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Questions...

if they have all this great evidence on this guy, then what would they need with a ‘confession’ from him.

Not reading him his rights, simply means his statements cannot be used against him in court. But clearly, neither do they need what he says to convict him, they have all the evidence they need to build a case.

so in that regard it makes a great deal of sense NOT to read him his right, and allow him to speak ‘off the record.

Prosecution are not going to need that evidence to bring a solid case against him.. and it does not hurt his defence, because nothing he can SAY, is going to greatly dispute the physical evidence.

But it’s not for anyone here to determine guilt or not, or if it is a terrorist act or not, school shootings, and school bombings are just as much intended to instil terror as a bombing at a fun run.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Questions...

Pretty sure you’re trolling but in case you’re just not awake I’ll help you out.

1) no
2) yes

What you’re missing is that those rights are read out some time between apprehension and interrogation. It doesn’t matter when but it’s quite OK to read them once the suspect is in a cell. There’s no requirement for them to be shouted out during a gunfight but once you’ve got he guy in cuffs why not?

LJW says:

It’s funny just how “free” we are compared to the 70’s and 80’s. Watch some old movies from the cold war era, and WE have become the bad guys! We are now the ones who require “papers” comrade, restrict travel for no legal reason, can be held indefinitely, can be the subject of unknown investigations (apparently, not very good investigations), and can have our rights taken away for any reason.

Yep, the terrorists have won already. We’re more like the old USSR than they ever were. I’d bet there are some old Soviets out there who wish they had thought of some of this stuff!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“Yep, the terrorists have won already.” that’s been obvious in your country for all of it’s history.

You think this is something new ??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_bombing

“The Wall Street bombing occurred at 12:01 pm on Thursday, September 16, 1920, in the Financial District of New York City. The blast killed 38 and seriously injured 143. The bombing was never solved, although investigators and historians believe the Wall Street bombing was carried out by Galleanists (Italian anarchists), a group responsible for a series of bombings the previous year. “

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Incorrect assumption by the article

  1. He’s a Chechen terrorist.
  2. He was here on a visa as a “student”.
  3. Those that carried out the 9/11 attacks were here on visa’s as “students”
  4. He was indoctrinated to do this.
  5. Quit trying to convey innocence for terrorists, you only make matters worse when you do.
  6. All my human rights activist friends would agree to throwing him into Gitmo.
  7. Under Interpol laws, terrorists are to be put to military trial.

    End of story….

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Incorrect assumption by the article

Wally,

He was a US citizen:
Became a naturalized U.S. citizen on September 11, 2012.
Here’s a little bio on the guy:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-boston-suspect-bombing.html

Just because you disagree with something, don’t lie about the facts…

Rob says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Incorrect assumption by the article

There is no such thing as naturalized citizenship unless your foreign parents gave birth to you within US borders…be it military base or territory….

WTF? You can disagree WRT the nature of his immigration status, but your comment about “naturalized citizenship” is demonstrably false.

You won’t bother reading this, since it conflicts with your beliefs, but here’s what naturalized citizenship means according to the US Citizenship and Immigration Service:
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=d84d6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=d84d6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Incorrect assumption by the article

Oh and before you flinch at any other comment I make…make sure to look at whether or not he was actually considered a full US citizen. Visa does not mean citizenship in the US…it means you are visiting. Hell the FBI even stated that this was a foreign terrorist attack and not of the domestic variety….so nice try.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Incorrect assumption by the article

So much wrong here.

He’s a Chechen terrorist.

He’s of Chechen descent, and committed an act of terrorism, but there’s no evidence that he was part of a terrorist organization.

He was here on a visa as a “student”.

He was here because his family was seeking political asylum, not on a student visa. He has been living in the U.S. since 2002, when he was roughly eight years old. He went to high school at Cambridge Ringe and Latin school, graduated, and was attending college at UMass Dartmouth.

He has been a naturalized citizen – not a “student visa holder” – since 2011.

He was indoctrinated to do this.

We still don’t know what his motivations were. Neither he nor his family have any known connection to any terrorist organization.

Quit trying to convey innocence for terrorists, you only make matters worse when you do.

Even the guilty must be treated like human beings with human rights. Not doing this is precisely what will “only make matters worse.”

All my human rights activist friends would agree to throwing him into Gitmo.

You know what? I live less than a mile from the Watertown standoff, and live in one of the areas that was on lockdown. One of the bombing victims went to the same college I do. Another one (Krystle Campbell) worked with a friend of mine at the Summer Shack.

And I don’t want this kid thrown into Gitmo. In fact, I think everyone who advocates “justice” like this, is a thug who just wants a little armchair vengeance.

Under Interpol laws, terrorists are to be put to military trial.

Obama already said that he is going to be tried in a civilian court of law, and not under a military tribunal.

Anonymous Anonymous Coward says:

Prosecutorial Zeal

As I watched the news conference the other night, and caught Carmen Ortiz grandstanding in front of the cameras, I wondered if she would use the same zeal for this matter as she did for Aaron Swartz.

Somehow I think things will be different here, and I recommend that the DOJ find a new leader in Boston.

Suzanne Lainson (profile) says:

A really good piece

I find a lot of the “us versus them” discussions contribute to the problem rather than getting rid of it. We may have to look at the entire American culture, not just the “them” within American culture that we don’t like. This article suggests reasons for our reactions to the world within our borders and outside our borders. Read the whole thing, not just this very brief excerpt.

Is American Nonviolence Possible? – NYTimes.com: “Competitive individualism, insecurity, neoliberalism: the triad undergirding our penchant for violence.”

Wally (profile) says:

Re: A really good piece

I postulate this question to you….would you like US citizens if a few came over on a Visa to your country to carry out a terrorist attack only to hear from people who do not understand your country’s laws concerning citizenship that since they had a visa they had similar criminal rights as you do in accordance to the same laws you are bound when they should be treated like terrorists under NATO rules?

Suzanne Lainson (profile) says:

Re: Re: A really good piece

I postulate this question to you….would you like US citizens if a few came over on a Visa to your country to carry out a terrorist attack only to hear from people who do not understand your country’s laws concerning citizenship that since they had a visa they had similar criminal rights as you do in accordance to the same laws you are bound when they should be treated like terrorists under NATO rules?

What does this have to do with the link I posted? Did you read the article? It’s about more than just our response to terrorism. It also discusses why we have so many people dying each day from guns.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: A really good piece

A gun piece? Seriously? The Boston PD aren’t allowed to defend themselves against an armed suspect who set off bombs at the Boston Marathon finish line? Suzan I’m sorry but that has A LOT to do with how countries handle terrorism. But I guess the concept of self defense escapes you when somebody decides to shoot at you in an escape attempt….

Suzanne Lainson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 A really good piece

But I guess the concept of self defense escapes you when somebody decides to shoot at you in an escape attempt

The article is about violence in our culture. He suggests it is a combination of philosophy (political and cultural) and declining world power. If that is the case, we’re probably facing a tumultuous future.

“Competitive individualism, insecurity, neoliberalism: the triad undergirding our penchant for violence.”

Suzanne Lainson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 A really good piece

They want us to feel like individual insecure insignificant little creatures rather than a strong nation of one…

I certainly wished we’d all come together, but politically the country seems very polarized these days. I think whatever divisiveness we have in this country is more an internal issue than one stirred up by external terrorists.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: A really good piece

I think they would only be able to read him his rights when he got to the hospital and woke up…then and only then would they be remotely able to do so. The only time you are read you’re rights during an arrest is when you are apprehended while conscious….shots were exchanged and because of that the younger brother got shot in the throat, passed out from blood loss, and was taken to a hospital. They would rather have the rights read when he is actually able to understand them which is likely the reason why the judge decided it would be Ok if they got him but did not read the suspect his rights straight away at the moment of apprehension.

Now as for your political drive against guns.

The suspect was hiding in a boat undercover. It was a standoff and the suspect was armed….not just with a gun that’s lethal in close range, but with explosives and a creaking detonator. They had no choice but to use a frangible round to apprehend him…if they had used a full metal jacket he’d have no head on his shoulders…so the police had to do something to at least incapacitate him with the equipment they were carrying.

Oh and I don’t know it you noticed….he bombed the Boston Marathon with his brother! I mean wouldn’t you classify him as dangerous.

You tell me what alternative they had against an armed suspect who was inaccessible accept in the boat be was hiding in? Gas would have killed him considering the tight space in which he was hiding.

Now I ask you this….why are you trying to run an anti-gun article when there is currently no place to push your own political agenda? Seriously….what the heck does this accomplish considering there literally was no other course of action?

Suzanne Lainson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 A really good piece

Did you guys miss the focus on individualism, neoliberalism, and global insecurity in the article? The fact that you see the piece as primarily a way to get people to give up their guns seems to me to reinforce the points the author is making. He’s explaining why we want our guns and want to be armed against terrorists to a degree that goes beyond what happens in other countries. He’s explaining why Americans associate guns with personal freedom, while in other countries people don’t.

To the rest of the world, America is an unusually gun-obsessed country.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: A really good piece

“only to hear from people who do not understand your country’s laws concerning citizenship “

see the problem there ?? it is not YOUR country and “their” country, they are either citizens or ‘just visiting’ makes no difference, they are in American and they are THE laws, NOT YOUR laws.

IF the are where you are, you are “US”, it’s not about “them” and “us”. It’s about the laws of the country your are both in, or international laws.

So he came from another country !!! hey SO DID YOU !!, or your parents, or their parents, you are just as much a ‘them’ and anyone else.

That is why much of the world look with sadness at the “American Attitude”, always trying to make out your ‘better’ than people from ‘other countries’, even when you are from “another country” too !!, and if it’s not about your country of origin, it’s about your beliefs, or the color of your skin, or your age, or what part of America you are from, or if you are gay.

Anonymous Coward says:

Maybe the point is that he does *not* have the right to remain silent. I understand innocent until proven guilty, but when you get caught red handed after murdering 4 people, in a terrorist action, this isn’t one of those cases where they’re toeing the line. He should be treated as a captured enemy combatant first, a US criminal second.

Anonymous Coward says:

Maybe the point is that he does *not* have the right to remain silent. I understand innocent until proven guilty, but when you get caught red handed after murdering 4 people, in a terrorist action, this isn’t one of those cases where they’re toeing the line. He should be treated as a captured enemy combatant first, a US criminal second.

Anonymous Coward says:

There’s still something I don’t get. Maybe someone here can clarify it, but I’d like to hear an explination for why a shooting rampage at a school or mall is just considered a tragedy while a bombing is considered terrorism. I mean we had the Oklahoma bombing (which was way worse than this for damage) and I don’t remember that ever being called terrorism…

Why (before there is even a suspect) is terrorism the first thing we go to when something like this happens?

The Real Michael says:

Re: Re:

Let’s say they conflate shootings with terrorism. That would give the authorities justification to lock down ANY town or city, suspending the Constitution anytime a shooting took place, until they nabbed their suspect(s).

Terrorism is supposed to be a politically motivated attack. We do not even know what the motive was for the Boston bombings, only whatever the media is spoon-feeding us at any given time.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Here is my take in it as a psychologist:

First, I would like to point out that the Oklahoma City bombing was domestic terrorism and was as such in the finalized reports. A shooting rampage doesn’t stem from ideological beliefs as a terrorism case would.

Just a bit of a hypothetical example or 2.

1. Terrorism occurs when the person intends to affect the world in which his/her/their victims are in and the intent is to send those victims into fear of another attack…they strike terror in so deep that it makes victims paranoid that it will happen again some day soon. Groups of people, nationalities, and entire countries are the target because, in a most basic sense, those groups’ ideologies differ from those whom are being the aggressor. These attacks are mostly planned out and coordinated right down to specific targets or targeted events.

2. Shooting rampages usually don’t stem off of differing beliefs and are self explanatory. They stem from the angered rage of a person and there is no particular target selected for any real reason.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Oklahoma bombing is know throughout the world as the worst case of DOMESTIC TERRORISM EVER in the US.

Notice the work TERRORISM there?????

What about the highway sniper, or the Unibomber ?? just as much acts designed to install terror. Domestic terror, or the Anthrax letters.

Wall street bombing another !!

what about the abortion clinic bombings ??? also domestic terror inspired by Christian beliefs ! (religious fanaticism ?)

how about the KKK ??

The US of A has far more to answer for that most if not all other countries. In terms of domestic terrorism.

The Real Michael says:

Re: Re: Re:

Just because somebody uses a bomb as their method of murder does not necessarily equate the perpetrator’s motivations to being political in nature. Any madman could utilize explosives as a killing device. Heck, our military routinely uses far bigger explosives on the battlefield, and we pay for it. Does that make them nothing more than politically-motivated terrorists?

3 people died from the Boston bombings. A staggering 750,000 will die in the US this year from medical mistakes and perscription drugs. Shall we shut down every hospital and have the feds raid the pharamceutical industry?

I don’t believe that McVeigh did the Oklahoma City bombing, at least not by himself. No way, not a chance. It took the FBI 44 hours to convince the rental agent that McVeigh was the one who rented the van, despite previously stating that he didn’t. Research the FBI’s evidence and contrast it with the Elgin Air Force’s. The latter found two other explosive residues in the rubble and determined that the explosives in the van could not have done that much damage.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Heck, our military routinely uses far bigger explosives on the battlefield, and we pay for it. Does that make them nothing more than politically-motivated terrorists?

All military action is politically motivated, based on the greed, the desire to impose the correct political or religious solution on others, or desire to divert the populations attention outwards from one side, and objection to the military action by there other side. The objective of military action being to impose a political settlement on the other side by force.

madasahatter (profile) says:

MIranda

First, Miranda says that for a police interview to be used as evidence the suspect must be read his rights before the interview. It can literally happen when the detective sits down to do the interview. There is no timeline that says the defendant must be read his rights at arrest only before the interview. See Orin Kerr at Volokh.com for a good discussion.

It was never stated why they did not read Miranda yet. But noting the above and the possibility that Tsarnaev was not able to communicate with the police too much has been read into the timing of any reading of the Miranda warning.

The problem is most US TV shows act as if Miranda must be read at arrest which is incorrect; it must occur at some time before the interview commences.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: MIranda

YES….Exactly my thoughts!!! The thing is that we know he did it. We just want to know what drove him to do it (which is not the same as interrogation and you don’t need Miranda Rights when you’re acting as a detective asking questions) His statements won’t be used against him because of the evidence already against him, and that they just want to investigate the full story to reassure us of what happened and to also be able to study up on what they can to prevent this from happening again.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: MIranda

First, Miranda says that for a police interview to be used as evidence the suspect must be read his rights before the interview. It can literally happen when the detective sits down to do the interview. There is no timeline that says the defendant must be read his rights at arrest only before the interview.

I think they typically Mirandize immediately because if they don’t, the guy could confess in the car on the way to the police station and they wouldn’t be able to use it.

Wally (profile) says:

I think people commenting forget two major things concerning all this.

1. The man was a terrorist and participated in terrorist activities.
2. The US is handling things in accordance to NATO’s Interpol rules as the was not a domestic terrorist attack and he is a citizen of Chechnya and is here on a student visa.

Terrorism is something we do not tolerate here in the US so get over yourselves about saying a foreign terrorist has US citizenship rights.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re:

2. The US is handling things in accordance to NATO’s Interpol rules as the was not a domestic terrorist attack and he is a citizen of Chechnya and is here on a student visa.

Which brother are you talking about? The older brother who died in the gunfight with police or the younger brother who was captured in the boat?

The younger brother (Dzhokhar) became naturalized United States citizen on Sept. 11, 2012. This means he has every single right that any US citizen has, with the exception of not being able to run for President.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I stand corrected…even so…I think they would only be able to read him his rights when he got to the hospital and woke up…then and only then would they be remotely able to do so. The only time you are read you’re rights during an arrest is when you are apprehended while conscious….shots were exchanged and because of that the younger brother got shot in the throat, passed out from blood loss, and was taken to a hospital. They would rather have the rights read when he is actually able to understand them which is likely the reason why the judge decided it would be Ok if they got him but did not read the suspect his rights straight away at the moment of apprehension.

Chris-Mouse (profile) says:

Re: Re:

1. The man was a terrorist and participated in terrorist activities.
2. The US is handling things in accordance to NATO’s Interpol rules as the was not a domestic terrorist attack and he is a citizen of Chechnya and is here on a student visa.

1. The man is alleged to be a terrorist, and alleged to have participated in terrorist attacks. Under US Law, anyone, US citizen or not, is assumed to be innocent until proven in a court of law. No court has so ruled, therefore he is assumed to be innocent. How much evidence the police may or may not have simply does not matter until that evidence is presented in court.

2. Visitors to the United states are bound by US law. They are also entitled to the protections of US law.

This man should be charged with three counts of murder, and a couple of hundred counts of attempted murder. Once charged, the case should be handled as any other murder trial would be handled.

Chris Brasuell (profile) says:

The DOJ is hoping the out rage of U.S. voters towards this kid will overshadow what our government is doing which is slowly taking all of our rights away and will someday become a total police state and we will all have no rights of due proses and loose what our founding fathers fought so hard to establish a government of the people and for the people not the wealthy fat cats that are so out of touch with the American people

Violated (profile) says:

The 5th

Well they were first thinking about his health in order to keep him alive.

Currently he is in a drug induced coma so not much opportunity to read him his Miranda rights. It also seems they can do so at leisure and I doubt they would take long.

The only exception is if they want to prevent him talking to a lawyer who is likely to just tell him to state to them a brief denial and then to take the 5th amendment.

Anonymous Coward says:

They should absolutely question him, with or without Miranda, to make sure there are no other bombs.

But if they do it without Miranda, then they should not even TRY to use anything he says in court. You cannot tell me that they do not have enough other evidence (even if some of you are complaining that you haven’t seen it yet – as if they would release all of their evidence to the public while the investigation is still happening.)

Anonymous Coward says:

There are two jurisdictions here.

1. State
Murder, bombings, car theft, and other crimes that do not cross state lines are state issues.

I have read nothing in this that says the State of Massachusetts is going to deprive anyone of their constitution rights is state court.

2. Federal
Basically actions outside of the US (with exceptions) are federal issues. If the suspects are part of an international crime / terrorist organization that is a federal issue.

Considering the level of penalties for multiple murders and the fact that most likely nothing the defendant says is likely relevant to the proof against him and the fact that he may hold information of a world wide terrorist network it is not unreasonable for the feds to use any and all means to extract that information and not prosecute him leaving prosecute to the state.

Brent Ashley (profile) says:

To what advantage?

I don’t see the investigation’s upside in delaying reading him his rights if truly that is all it is – a delay in explaining to him the rights he still maintains whether or not he is aware of them.

On the surface they seem to be contending that not reading him his rights will give them extra leeway in interrogating him. This would only hold if they were in fact suspending his rights themselves and not just his right to be made explicitly aware of their existence.

The only advantage I can see to this tactic is to set a precedent to be used as a wedge to erode the rights themselves, not just the right to know about them.

I would be only too glad to hear of a less pessimistic explanation. Why take on the downside of trial complications unless there is much more at stake than telling him something he probably already knows?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: To what advantage?

Because legally any questions and answers he provides prior to the Miranda rights being read cannot be used against him in the court of law, effectively “off the record”. This should make it easier to obtain information from the suspect as he would feel free to speak openly about the case and not have it used against him in court.

Once the Miranda rights have been read, however, anything he says can be used against him in court. Now the suspect would be less likely to cooperate with your investigation for fear of prosecution if he says something incriminating. The suspect is now legally “on the record”.

The only question remains as to how far a judge would interpret the “public safety” exemption here to put an off the record admission on the record legally. However, that is up to the judge, not the prosecutor. Separation of powers, judicial vs executive.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: To what advantage?

Because legally any questions and answers he provides prior to the Miranda rights being read cannot be used against him in the court of law, effectively “off the record”.

That’s what this is about – an exception to that rule that lets any such statements still be admitted as evidence.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130420/00321822776/why-dojs-decision-to-not-read-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-his-miranda-rights-is-terrible-idea.shtml#c764

Brent Ashley (profile) says:

Re: Re: To what advantage?

Interesting. So they think that by not reading him his Miranda rights, he’s going to be legally savvy enough to know that he can safely spill more beans until such time as they do read them to him.

How do they explain this esoteric point of law to him in order to ensure he spouts info, without accidentally explaining his Miranda rights?

son ik says:

hysterical blathering

Just knew there would be an article in my newsreader from good old mike complaining about this or some other issue.

I’m surprised he’s not calling this the “FBI breaking up one of their own plots” like he does whenever the FBI busts one fo these events ahead of time.

He’s always got a complaint and always will.

The courts have stated that there is in fact a public safety exemption.

But mike is a higher authority than the courts in this country.

He knows better than the FBI. (He’s prob glad that at least they didn’t trick these men into exploding fake bombs instead of the real thing.)

As best I can understand from his numerous posts the way to fight terrorism is to do nothing.

Well not nothing, fighting for the rights of the terrorists will somehow “prove” something to “the world”.

Interrogating them to prevent further attacks is so obv off the table, there is no public safety exemption or right, the rights of this accused terrorist trump all.

Lance (profile) says:

tsarnaev-and-miranda

This is pertinent:

http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/20/tsarnaev-and-miranda-rights/

The anon in comment 17 is, while being an ass about it, quite correct.
It is not a violation of anyone’s rights to skip Miranda, it simply means those statements cannot be admitted into a court proceeding unless they are later repeated after the warning.
While it has no reason to be publicized, the police do this on a smaller scale every single day. It is common to talk to a suspect before the Miranda caution trying to elicit important information about criminal activity.

Rudolf von Slatin says:

Boaton bombing

To deny a suspect a basic right as the Miranda Warning is
a poor move.
The court proceedings will for ever be tainted.
The conduct the coming court cases will be suspect.
In addition: our enemies in the mohammedan countries have already gained a victory if we are attempting to try to exchange civil rights for security.
We know; if we trade civil rights for security, we shall have no security nor civil rights.
We shall then be living in a more or less lawless country, just as they are in the mohammedan countries.
Then our mohammedan enemies have gained an important victory.

Rudolf von Slatin says:

Boaton bombing

To deny a suspect a basic right as the Miranda Warning is
a poor move.
The court proceedings will for ever be tainted.
The conduct the coming court cases will be suspect.
In addition: our enemies in the mohammedan countries have already gained a victory if we are attempting to try to exchange civil rights for security.
We know; if we trade civil rights for security, we shall have no security nor civil rights.
We shall then be living in a more or less lawless country, just as they are in the mohammedan countries.
Then our mohammedan enemies have gained an important victory.

Suzanne Lainson (profile) says:

A good resource

There are already nearly 200 comments on this post and I haven’t taken the time to read most of them. So forgive me if this has already been posted here.

How the Media Have Misunderstood Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s Miranda Rights – Adam Goodman – The Atlantic: “A primer on Miranda and the public-safety exception”

mitch says:

miranda

Whoever wrote this has absolutely no understanding of criminal law. Not reading Miranda does not invalidate an arrest, as the author contends. At worst, it renders post-arrest statements inadmissible. I think there is already plenty of evidence to support a conviction; we don’t need his confession. There is more value in learning who else is involved for preventive purposes than there is in obtaining admissible statements for prosecutorial purposes.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Angry Prenda Is Angry
Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...