Note to ACLU: No verifiable income for Taerian Tsarnev? Then: no Miranda rights for Dzhokhar.

[anobserver2]

Last edited Sun Apr 21, 2013, 09:48 AM - Edit history (1)

Updated posted thread: Some people say there should be no public exemption. But I think the govt should use the public exemption in the Miranda Rights.
-----------

From CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/20/justice/massachusetts-bombers-accomplices/index.html?hpt=hp_t1


The question of whether others may have played a role in the blasts could affect the decision by federal authorities not to read Miranda rights to Dzhokar Tsarnaev, who was in serious condition Saturday in a Boston hospital.

The government is invoking the public safety exception, a designation that allows investigators to question Tsarnaev without reading him his Miranda rights, a Justice Department official told CNN on condition of anonymity.

In ordinary cases, suspects are told by police they have the right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer.


--------------------------------------------
I am very glad the ACLU and others are bringing up the issue of Miranda for Dzhokhar, a US citizen,
because protecting his rights as an American protects us all. HOWEVER --

until someone proves to me that the elder brother had a verifiable source of income, I can not
help but conclude: SOMEONE ELSE WAS PAYING THE BILLS.

And if that someone else is not a relative, not a bank loan, not a legitimate source of income reported on tax forms, then: it was a secret source of income.

In which case: it seems to me that others are involved, and so: NO MIRANDA RIGHTS FOR DZHOKHAR.


-------------------------------------------

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/04/20/boston-bomb-suspect-hospitalized-under-heavy-guard/mDucECDNXBn2QN8KMvbFVL/story.html


The American Civil Liberties Union expressed concern about that possibility. Executive Director Anthony Romero said the legal exception applies only when there is a continued threat to public safety and is ‘‘not an open-ended exception’’ to the Miranda rule, which guarantees the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.

The federal public defender’s office in Massachusetts said it has agreed to represent Tsarnaev once he is charged. Miriam Conrad, public defender for Massachusetts, said he should have a lawyer appointed as soon as possible because there are ‘‘serious issues regarding possible interrogation.’’

[anobserver2]

1. The two issues are connected: that is what I am trying to say.

I just think you can not separate the income issue for the older brother with the Miranda rights issue for the younger brother.
There is no such thing as a money tree. Other money was involved. Which means: others, somewhere, are involved here.

I know this is an important issue and there will be endless debate, but I think the ACLU and others have to start talking about
the financial resources that existed for the elder brother -- and so far, no one has come up with any legitimate source of income
for his lifestyle.

[GeorgeGist]

2. Rubbish.

[anobserver2]

3. Really?

I don't think it's "rubbish." Not Miranda rights. That's not "rubbish." And not the question of a source of funds. Neither issue is "rubbish."

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

12. No, your attempt to say

We don't know where he got his income, therefore no Miranda rights argument is rubbish. The two are wholly unconnected, and it is up to you to show a connection. Until you do, then you have no actual argument.

[anobserver2]

17. Well, others thought it was a "major" point

I said it is a "minor" point on my other thread, this question of income. But others disagreed:

pnwmom (42,762 posts)
15. This isn't a minor question; it's the major question.

View profile
Did he have benefactors who were funding him in his new life? And why?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

24. So what?

It still does not justify your desire to scrap the Fifth Amendment for reasons of expediency.

The magnificent voice of Barbara Jordan saying "My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total. And I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution." just thundered in my head.

[jehop61]

31. Thought you guys were Progressives

Those calling for no Miranda warnings to the younger brother, because.....??? The man is a US Citizen. He has the right to all the protections we give to any criminal in this country. So many are sounding like the repubs and trying to violate the Constitution. It works, let it be applied, no matter how heinous the crime.

[bluethruandthru]

34. +10000 n/t

[malaise]

39. Are you freaking serious? n/t

[pinboy3niner]

4. Bullshit!

There is no financial test for our civil rights.

[anobserver2]

6. I understand but --

But we are talking about this particular case.

Can you honestly tell me that not knowing how this brother was paying the bills is irrelevant to the question of
"are others involved" - ?

Because if "others are involved" - then, that is what turns the issue of Miranda rights one way or another.

[pinboy3niner]

11. Yes, I can tell you ABSOLUTELY that finances are irrelevant to rights

Civil rights are an absolute. Period.

[malaise]

40. +100,000 n/t

[In_The_Wind]

42. !!!

[leveymg]

5. You're confused. Miranda applies regardless of citizenship or withholding of information by a

suspect, or who's paying the bills, or the phase of the moon . . .

The only reason the FBI hasn't Mirandized him is to so that the interrogation doesn't go on-the-record. In other words, you're right, there are things they want to find out that aren't being discussed publicly - having to do with the older brother's trip to Russia, and what he did there, and the people who showed interest in him before, during, and after that trip.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. Yet another op advocating the abolishment of due process and constitutional law.

How readily, how eagerly, we volunteer to surrender our rights. How pathetic.

[anobserver2]

9. Absolutely not!

No. I do not want civil rights surrendered. I want this question answered:

How was that elder brother paying the bills?

That is what I want to know.

[anobserver2]

15. Here is the DU thread re his income

Has any media reported how Tamerlan Tsarnaev earned a living? What was his job?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022725931

[pinboy3niner]

19. Again, completely irrelevant

How the hell would my income--or any behavior of mine, for that matter--invlidate my rights? If you're looking for an excuse for a kangaroo court trial, no thanks!

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

18. "I do not want civil rights surrendered."

Could have fooled me. No, it is quite obvious that you do want civil rights surrendered. You are saying "Until he answers questions, his right not to answer questions should not be observed." In other words, you would deny him his civil rights.

Here is a quote from Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security."

[Chan790]

36. So...you want to deny him a Miranda warning...

until you get the answer to a question they cannot ask him under the public safety exemption without potentially tainting the interview and rendering every single thing he says to them inadmissible?

Smart. No...wait...it's the other one. Dumb! That's the word I was looking for. That's dumb!

[TorchTheWitch]

51. What do you care how he was paying the bills?

So what if he was supported financially? Do you seriously believe that there are no people in this country that aren't financially supported that are of an age where they could be gainfully employed? Geez, I went to school with tons of wealthy kids that were financially supported most of their lives by their families just because they were lazy, felt entitled, or couldn't get a job that kept them in the same standards they were accustomed to while growing up, so their families STILL supported them... and some are STILL supported by their wealthy families even now and despite being married with their own families.

Why in the world does being financially supported mean that the people doing so must somehow be involved in their criminal activies especially when these homemade bombs likely didn't cost a fraction of what their rent, food, cars, school, and all their other bills cost? What a ridiculous notion. Would you think the same of some kid in college that was having their bills paid for by their parents and was caught selling drugs that their parents must have been dope dealing conspirators along with their kid just because they foot their kid's bills??? Of course not. So why in the world do you assume that these guys who may or may not have been financially supported by family have even known about their bombing brewing terrorist good times much less been actually involved in it themselves? And just how the hell does this tie into the younger brother's Miranda rights???

[hlthe2b]

10. +1

Good gawd. I expect this attitude on Free Republic, but damn.....

[anobserver2]

8. Main point is: are others involved? Is there a "continued threat" to public safety?

From CNN:

The question of whether others may have played a role in the blasts could affect the decision by federal authorities not to read Miranda rights to Dzhokar


If no one can come up with how this elder brother paid the bills, then, there has to be others financially supporting him.

[Chan790]

38. There is literally no way to inquire how Tamerlan T financed his lifestyle...

under the public safety exemption. It's astounding that people cannot grasp how narrow this exemption is.

It is in no way within the limited scope of questions that immediately assess an ongoing danger to the public. They can ask him are there are more bombs out there, they can ask him if he knows of other plots, they can ask him if he's aware of any associates of Tamerlan who may be enemy combatants who may pose an immediate danger, they can ask him where the bomb-making materials are. The second they ask him a non-exempted question like "Where did you brother get the money to finance his lifestyle" or even "Do you like school?"...everything he has said is rendered no longer admissible. Everything.

[anobserver2]

43. Correct

I understand now why I was so misunderstood on this thread.

I was not implying they should ask about finances of his brother.

I was trying to say that they should use the public exemption. Period.

Thank you for your post. You clarified a lot for me as to why I am so misunderstood on this thread.

[dipsydoodle]

13. Maybe seem away to yourself

we've got quite enough conjecture here as it is.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

21. You are being illogical

When you say, "The majority of Americans don't want to hear this kind of thing right now", you are using the fallacy of Appeal to Popularity. Saying that a majority of Americans are prepared to ignore the Bill of Rights does not make it the right thing to do.

In this case, the ACLU is acting properly.

[trumad]

22. Yeah---always expressing concern about our rights..

something the right wing and you seem to have a problem with.

[In_The_Wind]

41. +1

[Cooley Hurd]

23. oy vey...

The ACLU is not about "pouting". They're about protecting the Civil Liberties of Americans. Despite all the driven emotion around this case, we are still a nation of laws.

[BlueToTheBone]

37. Huh?

Go away. I want the ACLU there for every violation of my civil rights.

[Progressive dog]

16. ACLU is correct

[FedUpWithIt All]

20. I very much disagree.

Where does it end?

No thank you. Let them determine what they must within the framework of due process.

[bread_and_roses]

25. I know a young woman who has no visible income either ...

... because she can't find a job and her parents support her. She has not done anything criminal - but let's just say she gets picked up because someone who robbed a convenience store looks like her. So she should have no rights because she has no verifiable source of income and "someone else is paying the bills?" Eh? What sort of crazy is that?

So I guess by logical extension the more "verifiable income" one has the more rights one should have? And the less, the less?

Totally amazing what authoritarianism creeps around these days and tries to present itself as "reasonable."

[anobserver2]

26. You just said the answer

Your reply states she has income from her parents.
So: there is no lingering question about how she is paying her living expenses.

[bread_and_roses]

49. You really don't get it, do you? (n/t)

[99Forever]

27. We need an unrec button..

... for crap posts like this.

[anobserver2]

28. "Were others involved" was the original issue, which is being ignored in responses

"Were others involved?" That is the issue which is at the center of what I am trying to discuss.
Because: if yes, then: public safety exemption applies, according to what the federal govt believes, as reported by CNN.

My subsequent points are as follows: if the elder brother has a secret source of income paying all his expenses, then, yes, it seems to me it is rather obvious that somewhere, someone else is indeed involved.

That is pretty logical. That is why others on my other thread posted this:

pnwmom (42,762 posts)
15. This isn't a minor question; it's the major question.

View profile
Did he have benefactors who were funding him in his new life? And why?

---------

And the end result is: if yes, then: no Miranda rights because indeed there is still an issue of public safety.

But none of this is being debated on this thread.

I think people wrongly assume I am against the Constitution or something, when in fact: I am VERY glad the ACLU brought up the whole issue, as stated in my post. Because: it protects us all. I realize that.

However, I am looking at what we know about this particular case.

And another thing we don't know is this: What made the "foreign country" alert the USA that the elder brother was a radical?
I read somewhere that the US asked the foreign govt for more info but did not receive it. Was the non-disclosed info something having to do with a money transfer or financial support known to the foreign govt, but not know to the USA? Something like that?

I think the money trail is important. Others on the other thread agreed with me.

But if it is important, and there are big questions, then: it seems to me likely that somewhere someone else is involved. Again, that was the conclusion of this poster:

pnwmom (42,762 posts)
15. This isn't a minor question; it's the major question.

View profile
Did he have benefactors who were funding him in his new life? And why?

And, I agree. It's a major issue. It also goes to the heart of other issues as well.

[anobserver2]

29. Again, from the top of my post: Were others involved?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/20/justice/massachusetts-bombers-accomplices/index.html?hpt=hp_t1


The question of whether others may have played a role in the blasts could affect the decision by federal authorities not to read Miranda rights to Dzhokar Tsarnaev, who was in serious condition Saturday in a Boston hospital.

The government is invoking the public safety exception, a designation that allows investigators to question Tsarnaev without reading him his Miranda rights, a Justice Department official told CNN on condition of anonymity.

In ordinary cases, suspects are told by police they have the right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer.

[randome]

30. More likely his indulgent parents supported them.

Income is a non-issue.

Withhold Miranda rights for 48 hours, as allowed by law. Keep following the book on this one.

[anobserver2]

33. Yes to "Keep following the book on this one."

Also: "Follow the money."

(I don't think his car mechanic dad overseas was supporting him, BTW.)

As I mentioned on the other thread: the now deceased elder brother's uncle reportedly said the reason for the fall out with this nephew came in "2009" when this nephew announced: he no longer wanted anything to do with "school" or "a job" because instead, he would be doing "God's work."

What exactly that meant, I don't know, but the uncle said he thought it meant the nephew had become radicalized.

[alcibiades_mystery]

32. That's not really how rights work...

Thanks, though.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

35. LOL.

what utter nonsense.

[anobserver2]

44. Article: "Tamerlan Tsarnaev And Uncle, Ruslan Tsarni, Had Falling Out Over Islam"

Here's what I was talking about in one of my above posts:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/20/tamerlan-tsarnaev-islam_n_3124754.html

MONTGOMERY VILLAGE, Md. -- An uncle of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects says he had a falling-out with one of his nephews because of the man's increased commitment to Islam.

Ruslan Tsarni says he grew concerned about Tamerlan Tsarnaev (tsahr-NEYE'-ehv) when he told him in a 2009 phone conversation that he had chosen "God's business" over work or school. Tsarni said he then contacted a family friend who told him Tsarnaev had been influenced by a recent convert to Islam.

Tsarni says their relationship ended after that call.

[anobserver2]

45. Updated post explanation

I have updated the original post to read:

Updated posted thread: Some people say there should be no public exemption. But I think the govt should use the public exemption in the Miranda Rights.

-----

I did not mean to imply he should never have Miranda Rights.

I just believe there is indeed a logical justification for using the public exemption, and in my mind that justification does concern the fact others may be involved (which to me, is evidenced so far by the lack of any other source of money for the elder brother).

(Hope that clears up whatever some people misunderstood about my post. Sorry for the confusion!!!)

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

50. So what if "others may be involved"?

How does this become an excuse to deny a criminal suspect his civil rights?

[dkf]

46. Supposedly his wife was supporting him.

If she thinks she can escape all of this she is sadly mistaken. She may have enabled this even if she did not realize it.

[treestar]

47. I don't see a connection

Dzhokhar gets Miranda rights, period. The exception to Miranda rights of public safety was being invoked for 48 hours. Then he will get his Miranda rights read.

Where Tamerlan got his income is a completely different question. I'm sure the FBI is on it. Obviously a major issue.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

48. Uh...

Rights don't work like that.

[anobserver2]

52. Controversy continues about Miranda rights - is there the required "threat" to public safety?

For those who still do not understand the actual controversy here: the ACLU is saying the exception to Miranda Rights "applies only when there's a continued threat to public safety" -- and is "not an open-ended exception."

So, is there actually a "continued threat to public safety" as required? That is the issue. The ACLU is questioning that, it seems.

----------
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/aclu-eyes-boston-bombing-suspects-miranda-rights-19007093#.UXQJ5YUmzms

ACLU Eyes Boston Bombing Suspect's Miranda Rights

BOSTON April 20, 2013 (AP)

...ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero says the exception applies only when there's a continued threat to public safety and is "not an open-ended exception" to the Miranda rule.

------------

I'm saying: Yes, in my mind there is certainly a "continued" "threat" to "public safety" because: we don't know how this guy
was funded for the past few years, when he had no job/no financial support known for years -- and I think that omitted question about his finances is indeed "major" (as other DU posters pointed out to me).

Consequently, while civil rights are absolute, the issue of whether this exception applies is an on-going source of debate and controversy, though I personally believe the federal govt is correct to move ahead with the exception (and question him for a limited time with limited questions without Miranda).

[anobserver2]

53. "prima facie evidence" exists that: others, somewhere, are involved in this

I would also argue (to all the knuckleheads that think money has nothing to do with anything)
that the OMISSION and LACK of legitimate financial support for the elder brother amounts to what is known as:

"prima facie evidence" (proving: that others, somewhere, are involved in this; and thus: a threat to public safety continues).

Here is a definition of "prima facie evidence" --

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prima+facie+evidence

prima facie evidence
n. Law
Evidence that would, if uncontested, establish a fact or raise a presumption of a fact.

So, if no one can come up with evidence of how this elder brother financially supported himself, then I have to conclude:
that omission is prima facie evidence of the involvement of others in this matter (and thus, a threat to public safety continues, and the federal govt meets the standard to question the younger brother without Miranda for a limited time and for limited questioning).

------

And, on the other hand, if such evidence does show up, in some way -- if for example the elder brother had held a job, that paid well, and could easily afford his Cambridge MA apartment, his boxing training, his expensive clothes, his Mercedes car, etc -- then, I would say:

"Hey, this guy OBVIOUSLY through his well paying job/or trust fund/or family money/, had the financial means to ALSO build a half dozen pressure cooker bombs, buy weapons, etc. So, I am not sure if the federal govt can actually suspend Miranda rights. I agree with the ACLU."

------------

But I think the ACLU has to acknowledge there is currently an OMISSION of evidence of a legitimate means of financial support for this elder brother, and thus: it is prima facie evidence that others, somewhere, are involved.

That is my thinking and my opinion. It is not rubbish, I am sorry. It is quite logical and reasonable. Evidence of money: maybe no one else is involved. Evidence of NO MONEY: someone else has to be involved.

The public safety is still an issue, because out there somewhere is someone funding this guy.

--------

For those who call me crazy, I challenge you: Move to Cambridge, MA with no money, and: stay unemployed, but rent an apt, buy a Mercedes car, pay for boxing training at a private studio, and do that for what, eight years, pay all your bills, and again, do it all with: just an imaginary money tree.

Good luck.