Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

[cali]

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will not hear his Miranda rights before the FBI questions him Friday night. He will have to remember on his own that he has a right to a lawyer, and that anything he says can be used against him in court, because the government won’t tell him. This is an extension of a rule the Justice Department wrote for the FBI—without the oversight of any court—called the “public safety exception.”

There is one specific circumstance in which it makes sense to hold off on Miranda. It’s exactly what the name of the exception suggests. The police can interrogate a suspect without offering him the benefit of Miranda if he could have information that’s of urgent concern for public safety. That may or may not be the case with Tsarnaev. The problem is that Attorney General Eric Holder has stretched the law beyond that scenario. And that should trouble anyone who worries about the police railroading suspects, which can end in false confessions. No matter how unsympathetic accused terrorists are, the precedents the government sets for them matter outside the easy context of questioning them. When the law gets bent out of shape for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, it’s easier to bend out of shape of the rest of us.

Here’s the legal history. In the 1984 case New York v. Quarles, the Supreme Court carved out the public safety exception for a man suspected of rape. The victim said her assailant had a gun, and he was wearing an empty holster. So the police asked him where the gun was before reading him his Miranda rights. That exception was allowable, the court said, because of the immediate threat that the gun posed.

<big snip>

Holder started talking about a bill to broadly expand the exception to Miranda a few months later. Nothing came of that idea, but in October of 2010, Holder’s Justice Department took it upon itself to widen the exception to Miranda beyond the Supreme Court’s 1984 ruling. “Agents should ask any and all questions that are reasonably prompted by an immediate concern for the safety of the public or the arresting agents,” stated a DoJ memo to the FBI that wasn’t disclosed at the time. Again, fine and good. But the memo continues, “there may be exceptional cases in which, although all relevant public safety questions have been asked, agents nonetheless conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat, and that the government's interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation.”

<snip>

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/04/dzhokhar_tsarnaev_and_miranda_rights_the_public_safety_exception_and_terrorism.html

[bowens43]

1. have to leave time for torture, right?

[whathehell]

7. Wrong. That's hardly the intended, or even likely, follow-up

Good try, though.

[rhett o rick]

43. And you are basing that on what? nm

[whathehell]

49. No, I think you've got it backwards. Bowen43 made the original assertion

with no stated basis, so it's his obligation, or that of others backing

him, to "go first" with that.

[rhett o rick]

56. Plez, plez! If you dont think the FBI will torture him, just tell us why you thing that.

It's a tool they have available, why wouldnt they use it? It you think they will not torture this man you are very, very naive.

[whathehell]

58. "Plez, plez" yourself...Again, you and Bowen made the initial assertion but failed to back it up

As to "tools available", um, no, there's no legal tool available for that.

If I'm so "naive" it seems that others on the thread are as well -- Talk to them.

[rhett o rick]

59. I am guessing that your and my definitions of torture are quite different. nm

[whathehell]

61. I don't know, rhett, why don't you tell me yours.

[rhett o rick]

62. I will be glad to.

I go with the International Red Cross.

http://assets.nybooks.com/media/doc/2010/04/22/icrc-report.pdf

Now, I would very much like to know where you stand.

And I want to apologize for calling you naive. It was rude.

[whathehell]

63. I could only glance at it, as I'm getting ready to spend my Sunday offline,

but I will read it all closely when I come back.

A couple things I did notice, however.

A. This document was written in 2007 under the BUSH Administration...We have changed

things since then, most notably making torture ILLEGAL.

B. This dated document refers to the CIA whose jurisdiction is OUT of the country. This

guy is a naturalized citizen, he's on our soil and he's in the custody of the FBI and Homeland Security.

I appreciate your apology, and on another personal note, I'd like to assure you that I don't WANT this guy

tortured -- I hate the whole idea of torture and believe it a gross violation of the Geneva Convention and

human rights, generally. I even refused to see the film "Dark Thirty" as I heard gave the dangerous, false impression that

torture "works".

With all that said, I think it's wrong to assume that this is the fate that awaits him...I don't think it's

"impossible", mind you, I just think it's unlikely.

[rhett o rick]

64. This document provides a definition of torture which is what you asked for.

The definition doesnt change from administration to administration. The use may change but that's what we are debating. Citizens should be protected from these torture techniques by the Constitution but the Bush Admin AND the President Obama Admin have made it clear that the protections of the Constitution do not apply to suspected terrorists. I believe some of these techniques will be used as they were used on Pvt Manning and Jose Pidilla.

[whathehell]

65. I have a feeling you've closed your mind on this, but I'll give it one more try.

"I believe some of these techniques will be used as they were used on Pvt Manning and Jose Padilla."

Believe what you want, but, FBI interrogators have already declared that their interview techniques, developed over decades of experience, are far more productive than the "enhanced interrogation techniques" used by the CIA in Guantanamo. In addition,
This administration has disavowed the use of torture and appears to favor law enforcement operations over military tactics. They have tried to close Guantanamo, but could not because Congress refused to fund the movement of prisoners to domestic facilities.

The delay in Mirandizing an arrestee has been supported by the Supreme Court in cases where there is the likelihood that the person has knowledge of an imminent threat to the country. It is, therefore, not illegal. It means the person can be questioned (in this case, about other bombs he and his brother may have placed) before he can stop answering and call a lawyer.

If you're determined to envision the worst, though, I'm sure you won't let anything get in the way of that.

[midnight]

2. Why would police go to all the trouble of rail roading innocent people? Best reason for Miranda

rights to be upheld.... Let's not pay for our freedom by giving them away....

[JDPriestly]

3. I think that not reading him his Miranda rights may be quite a dumb decision.

He may very much want to talk. He may be very frightened and remorseful. It is just as likely that he wants to talk as that he does not. Surely he is smart enough to know that he is unlikely to escape very, very serious consequences for what he probably did. There is very little chance that he is innocent as I understand this.

In my opinion, if he thinks of himself as a martyr, he may not care about his defense or having a lawyer at this point. His family is far away. He may, in my opinion, just want to talk to police.

So, if they read him his Miranda rights, it may not mean that he will remain silent.

I think the police will wait until he is physically able to answer questions and then they will know how to deal with him. He may be very reticent to talk, but he may not. You can never tell.

When the evidence against them is very clear and undeniable, people sometimes just want to get over with it and move on. What does he have to live for at this point may be how he sees it when he realizes where he is and what is going on.

[demcoat]

6. With the over whelming evidence the Feds have

Why do we care what he says? We know they couldn't have gotten the wrong guys, right?

[JDPriestly]

19. If the news reports are at all accurate, they couldn't have.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

4. NBC said that he had been read his Miranda rights.

[madokie]

5. I was arrested for possession of pot seeds once years ago, '71

and I was never read my miranda rights. When I asked my lawyer about that he just shrugged his shoulders and said that shit's for TV, not real life.
Seeds mind you. I had rolled them down a shoe box lid a dozen times if I'd rolled them down once trying to get what little bit of leafy matter that might still be in them so I doubt there was any left but the prosecutor said there was enough to charge me with possession. I was given a deferred sentence and that was it but still I was not read my miranda rights.

[whathehell]

8. Well, there you go

because an arrest for having a joint over forty years ago

is so similar to the present situation.

[dems_rightnow]

9. Did you self-incriminate?

There's no need to Mirandize anyone to get a conviction. It only keeps the prosecution from using your statements against you. It's not a Get Out of Jail Free card.

Miranda himself was re-tried and convicted... not using his confession.

[DCBob]

10. Huh? This situation is a perfect example of the exception due to urgent concern for public safety.

There could be other bombs out there somewhere that he knows about.

[Historic NY]

12. Somehow from the photos he won't be talking for several days any way........

and they won't question him if he is under heavy medical care......

He doesn't appear to be responding to much in the photos....

The mere act of reading them w/o soliticiting a wavier - do you understand etc. is not enough.

There was opinion that he almost bleed out in the boat.

[davidpdx]

17. Exactly

which is why the whole pissing match on DU over whether or not he was read his Miranda Rights is completely stupid.


THE GUY IS IN THE FUCKING HOSPITAL UNCONSCIOUS, YOU CAN'T READ SOMEONE THEIR MIRANDA RIGHTS IF THEY CAN'T ACKNOWLEDGE THEM!!!

Geezus fucking christ people!

[Savannahmann]

13. We always have an excuse ready

We always can find a reason not to follow the rules. When Guantanamo Bay was being discussed, it was the ticking time bomb scenario. What if we had a ticking time bomb, isn't torture a good way to save lives?

It depends on your point of view. If the Constitution is your highest law, the foundation for all other laws, then no, there is never a reason not to follow the rules. If on the other hand, you think the Constitution is another old document that doesn't really apply today, then sure, you can always find a reason not to follow the rules.

There was a case in Texas last week that had the Rethugs up in arms. A man was arrested for walking around with a rifle, he said he was hiking with his son for a merit badge. The part that interested me was the son. When the man was arrested, he told his son to go with the police, and say nothing until he spoke with his Mother, the son wasn't armed. Let the Mother answer any questions. The police put the boy in the car, and told him he couldn't get out and see his Mother unless he answered the questions of the officer.

That is Coercion, and it is a violation of the 5th Amendment. We always hear reasons the Police don't have to follow the rules. In the 1950's, it was a real danger to solving crimes if the Police couldn't beat confessions out of a suspect. The Miranda rule was going to let everyone go because the Police couldn't intimidate people into confessing. Today, in many states, it is a Felony to make a false statement to a police officer, but they can lie to the suspect all day and night without any problems, so long as they eventually tell the truth on the stand. PFUI.

Honestly, if it was me, and the police lied to the suspect to try and convince him to confess, I'd throw out all the charges on the baddie, and at a minimum fire the damned cop for being a lying sack of excrement.

[dems_rightnow]

15. They're following the rules for God's sake

You just don't like the rules.

[davidpdx]

18. No, the problem is some people just can't think logically

You have to explain it slowly. They think he's up and walking around and they are torturing him right now as we speak. Active imaginations aren't they? There is just one problem, how can you torture someone who is in the hospital and is unconscious?

[Bradical79]

50. It's easy to follow the rules when they're made up as you go

[MOTRDemocrat]

14. It's legal. The majority of Americans probably don't care. The courts agree. People should drop it.

[Hissyspit]

16. Or you could read the article.

[Harry Monroe]

24. The majority of people don't care, so drop it?

Apathy and a submissive population is the quick road to fascism.

[cali]

29. I think that's questionable

[Honeycombe8]

20. Don't worry too much. They're doing what's necessary. They don't need a statement.

If all they want is info, and they don't plan on using it in court, they don't need to give Miranda rights. Maybe they will give Miranda rights. Who knows?

They've been handling this okay so far, so give them the benefit of the doubt, will ya?

Besides...doesn't everyone already know they have a right to call a lawyer or get one provided for you? Sure they do. Anyone who watches any crime show on tv.

[WinkyDink]

36. An arrest = Miranda rights.

[WinkyDink]

37. Wow. So TV is your standard for the law, now?

[Honeycombe8]

44. Yep. It's called "common knowledge." nt

[Eddie Haskell]

21. The Life of Pi

As I watched last night's standoff unfold, I couldn't help thinking of the movie. The resemblance between Dzhokhar and the movie's main character, the lifeboat, the story of what we want to hear versus the truth. We need to hear Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's story as told by him through his lawyer ... not through a group of government interrogation specialist.

[geckosfeet]

32. As honeycomb said - any information gathered will not be for public consumption.

[Honeycombe8]

46. I didn't say that. You must be referring to some other post. nt

[geckosfeet]

53. Ok. I'll say it then.

[randome]

33. What do you not get about this? It's simple.

The suspect is likely unconscious. You cannot read someone his rights while he is unconscious. Once he is conscious, there is a public safety exemption -validated by the Supreme Court- that allows him to be questioned for up to 48 hours without having been read his rights.

I swear, the only thing that will satisfy some people is if they go to Boston, barge into this guy's room and listen to everything that is being said.

Let the authorities continue with the stellar job they have done so far.

[Pachamama]

34. Wow! You are correct about the resemblance and the boat and the point about truth vs belief..

Very symbolic...

[Honeycombe8]

45. Oh, yeah....we want the truth as told through a lawyer's mouth. Sure we do. nt

[Eddie Haskell]

54. I sure as hell do.

I want to hear his side of the story, I want to hear the prosecutions side, and I want a fair trial. Anything less would be un American.

[Honeycombe8]

47. The main character in Life of Pi was dark skinned. nt

[formernaderite]

55. thank you

I hope they're letting his family in to see him as well.

[avebury]

22. Citizen's rights are not there to pick and choose

who benefits from them but to be applied equally across the board no matter who the defendant is. Once you develop exceptions, it is hard to stop the cracks in the dams as exceptions are expanded down the road. It is a slippery slope the destination of which we may not see yet. That is why people should care.

[forestpath]

26. +1

[Honeycombe8]

48. One thing is true: this case is so important that they will make sure to do

everything by the book, with no screwups. Head honchos are following this case to the Nth degree, as well.

If Miranda rights are necessary, they will be given....and recorded being given. If unnecessary for their purposes, they won't be given. It's that simple. They've been doing a great job so far. I'm sure they'll keep it up.

I also think the FBI and other agencies know a little more about the case and what the law requires than bloggers on the "internets."

[Bradical79]

51. So you are saying that Miranda rights should be a judgement call?

Also the blotter didn't claim they weren't following the law. That wasn't the original argument. It was an argument about what the law should require and the slippery slope of writing in exceptions left up to personal judgement of law enforcement.

[Harry Monroe]

23. Why Should I Care?

Because it demeans and diminishes us and the values our country supposedly stands for. Bit by bit, the protections and rights we take for granted are being eroded. We don't notice, because it's like the "frog in the boiling pot of water". The environment all around you is changing, but you are immersed in the environment, so you really don't notice the changes. The incremental changing seems all normal until one day the water boils and you find your rights stripped away. But it happened slowly, so you didn't notice they were being taken away.

We and everything this country is supposed to stand for in the world, are better than this.

[DearHeart]

57. Thank you!! You've said it better than I could have.

[dembotoz]

25. he is a citizen he is supposed to have rights

this is not an episode of 24 where they have an atomic weapon they are supposed to find

lets show the world that we actually respect something and the days of bush actually are over

[babylonsister]

27. I just read this-don't know how accurate it is...

Tree Rat posted toThe Real American Way~

People...they CAN interrogate without mirandizing the person, they just can not use that information to convict THAT person. They can also use that information to convict other people. Miranda ONLY pertains to the person incriminating THEMSELVES (not to being able to interrogate them). If they have other evidence (other that a confession or what the person says), the can arrest, interrogate and convict without ever even mirandizing the person...

[WinkyDink]

39. No.

[babylonsister]

42. Without an explanation, I can't just

assume you're correct, sorry.

[Pachamama]

41. My sense is that they have enough evidence, witnesses, video etc to convict him alone...now getting.

...him to talk is a matter of protecting the public by knowing about possible other bombs....other participants and accomplices who may be out there. They have more than enough to convict him on a multitude of charges....everything else is to save lives and apprehend anyone else in their questioning of him when he is concious...even without miranda rights and presuming they couldnt use anything he says against him.

But your explanation of Miranda and "self incrimination" is spot-on....

[chuckstevens]

28. The Saudi "Suspect"

Lindsey Graham is an asshole! Imagine if the Saudi suspect who was tackled was being held without his legal rights?

Hey Senator Graham: I know this isn't how it isn't in "Tea Party Right Wing world", but according to the 6th Amendment you have the right to a lawyer when accused of a crime. When is the last time you took a basic Constitution test?

[Ikonoklast]

30. Mis-leading. He will be Mirandized.

What else?

[randome]

31. Again?

[WinkyDink]

35. The govt seems quite at ease with "making exceptions" to our laws and Constitution.

[randome]

40. There are exceptions to every law and regulation.

That's as it should be. If we don't want nuanced, detailed laws, we are no better than robots.

[alphafemale]

38. You are merely assuming he wasn't. You have no idea what is happening. Just as You also assumed...

...that mother in GA had something to do with her own baby being shot in the face when she was walking him in his stroller.

Bizarre assumptions, just because they may be possible, are usually wrong.

No Miranda?

Well...

I really doubt they have even questioned him yet...given his medical state.

[Hippo_Tron]

52. Anyone who commits this sort of crime surely has to know they have the right to remain silent

What's the point of NOT reading him his rights?

[alarimer]

60. I understand about the exception

And I wouldn't have a problem with it except for the tendency of police/FBI etc to abuse situations like that. You and I both know that they are prone to treating the Constitution like an obstacle to be overcome, rather than the rock-bottom rules that exist to protect all of us from overreaching authority.

Now, just because they didn't inform him of their rights, it doesn't that he lacks those rights. He still (assuming he is aware if it, which is debatable) has the right to refuse to talk. Those rights exist whether or not a suspect is informed of them.