No Miranda rights for now for bombing suspect

[kpete]

Source: Politico

The Boston Marathon bombing suspect captured Friday night will not be immediately read his Miranda rights, a Justice Department official said.

The announcement came as a debate broke out among lawmakers, lawyers and political activists over whether the suspect, Dzhokar Tsarnaev, should be prosecuted in a civilian criminal court or subjected to military interrogation and over when and whether Tsarnaev should be told about his right to an attorney.

eginning several hours before Tsarnaev’s capture, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) wrote on Twitter that the suspect ought to be placed in military custody.

“If captured, I hope Administration will at least consider holding the Boston suspect as enemy combatant for intelligence gathering purposes,” Graham wrote Friday afternoon. “The last thing we may want to do is read Boston suspect Miranda Rights telling him to ‘remain silent.’”






Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/no-miranda-rights-for-now-for-bombing-suspect-90362.html?hp=f1

---

this will backfire, it always does...
kp

[Kali]

1. yeah fuck the constitution!!11!!!

just a piece of paper

[LovingA2andMI]

5. Did Dzhokhar and Tamerlane Tsarnaev care about the Constitutional rights....

Of the citizens they murdered and injured to the point that many lost their limbs? NOPE, not at all.

Supporting President Obama 150% on this one! Charge, convict and punish Dzhokar Tsarnaev with the Death Penalty!

[Kali]

9. does any criminal?

the protections are for all of us. it is how we are better than them.

[LovingA2andMI]

14. We ARE BETTER THAN THEM!

By caring about our fellow citizens. They did not, they killed a eight year old little Angel, two other individuals and injured 170+ others for a Jihad? No thank you, Miranda Rights not warranted!

[vrp]

25. Good God

There's a reason we have a constitution! We've never needed it for the easy cases. We need it for the tough ones. As bad a this guy is, he still deserves due process. Punishment will come later.
I can't believe what I'm reading here. Read him his rights and send him to trial. You're not one of those right wing trolls are you?

[defacto7]

55. Thank you.

The reasonable response is yours.

[Sherman A1]

70. Agreed

If we fail to proceed according to the Constitution then they who create terror have won the day. We must face these situations according to law and by increasing liberty for all.

[avebury]

80. Agreed! nt

[LovingA2andMI]

86. Yes, God is good

Last edited Sat Apr 20, 2013, 04:56 PM - Edit history (1)

And President Obama is 200% right in this case by not reading this suspected mass murderer anything related to Miranda until the Government receives the information it needs. He's not a natural born citizen anyway so why are you so concerned about the supposed "rights" of a suspected immigrant mass murder who's actions killed three people, made many others lose limbs, injured hundreds, killed a police officer, threw bombs on the street at other law enforcement personnel and had the city of Watertown, Mass. terrorized for nearly 24 hours on the run to nowhere?

Convict him, give him the death penalty then carry out the sentence as swiftly as possible! Any questions?

[premium]

94. Are you for fucking real?

He's a naturalized american citizen, captured on american soil, therefore, he's afforded the all the same rights that native americans are afforded.

I can't believe I'm reading this shit on a progressive board.

[LovingA2andMI]

103. Groupthink, I see/read...

I don't subscribe to Groupthink!

Instead after reviewing the facts presented so far, I formed a Independent opinion. In this case I STRONGLY support President Obama's actions in this case. I didn't know this board/forum was named "Groupthink Underground". Oops, its' not so...

[vrp]

101. You need a civics class!

And I believe you're a right wing troll. Democrats believe in the constitution. Everyone on American soil deserves due process and a fair trial; citizen or not. That's the way it works. There are plenty of places on this planet where due process isn't followed. Perhaps you would enjoy one of those places better.

[LovingA2andMI]

102. So, again....

The PRESIDENT of the United States, Barack Obama authorized the temporary suspension of the Suspected Mass Murder Terrorist Miranda Rights under a FEDERAL LAW in order to gain information regarding any other threats or bombs that this Suspected Mass Murder Terrorist might know of that could place other AMERICANS in imminent danger, like now.

And instead you are worried about how fast and quick the Suspected Mass Murder Terrorist Miranda Rights are read....

Also, where is it in the rule book to be a Democrat, you must be soft on crime? Anywhere?

I stand with President Obama on this! What about you?

[vrp]

105. What about me?

I think you're a scary person. I'm not ready to shred the constitution.

[LovingA2andMI]

107. President Obama's

actions did not shred the Constitution (with a Capital "C&quot , instead he authorized the use of a Federal Statue or Law. I STRONGLY SUPPORT the President's actions in this case. You don't and we disagree. You're not going to change my mind nor I yours...

Next...

[Daniel537]

121. Naturalized citizens have every right natural-born Americans have

except become President. Your blatant anti-immigrant rant, combined with your hatred of civil liberties make you a better fit for Free Republic than DU.

[eggplant]

27. Nope, sorry. Thanks for playing.

He's a citizen, he has rights. Much worse mass murderers in this country enjoyed those same rights, what makes this guy so special that we should deny him his?

[Arrowhead2k1]

42. He's a muslim.

[LovingA2andMI]

89. No "Game Playing" required or necessary, instead

The President of our United States, Barack Obama authorized obtaining information without Miranda Rights for the first 24-48 hours by this suspected Mass Murderer to inquire about any other bombs or threats against American Citizens. Then and only then this Suspect MASS MURDERER TERRORIST will be read his Miranda Rights.

Thank you President Obama, this is the right thing to do and I support you 200%!

[kestrel91316]

47. Why do you hate America and out Constitution?

[LovingA2andMI]

90. So since the President of the United States

Barack Obama, authorized invoking this LAW of no Miranda Rights reading for special circumstances of suspected terrorist actions taken against American Citizens which killed four (including a law enforcement officer) and injured hundreds of others for the FIRST 24-48 HOURS, to determine if any other bombs or threats exist (by this suspected MASS MURDERER TERRORIST) that can cause immediate harm to other Americans, he hates America and OUR (not out) Constitution too?

Inquiring minds want to know....

[premium]

95. Inquiring minds want to know why you're here

and not over at CC?
Just because the Pres. authorized it doesn't mean it's the correct thing to do.
Let me take a stab at this, I'm guessing that you also approve of the drone strikes in foreign countries, even though those strikes have killed hundreds of innocent men, women, children?

Who gives a shit if it doesn't harm other americans, it's still not the right thing to do.

[LovingA2andMI]

106. Because...

It's a public board and I agreed with the context of this post, questioned answered, correct?

Also, I read more than reply but believe moi, reading is excellent skill as it limits ones siding with a Groupthink mindset, if you know what I mean.

As for what the President did, he's using his authority under FEDERAL LAW to temporary suspend the Suspected Mass Murder Terrorist Miranda Rights to find out about other imminent threats or bombs the Suspected Mass Murder Terrorist could have unique knowledge that could harm other Americans, and I STRONGLY SUPPORT his actions in this case.

Any additional questions?

[Orsino]

73. And some of us are in an awful hurry to stop being better. n/t

[John2]

76. did you say the same

thing about right wing extremists? He grew up in America and is an American citizen. Under the Constitution, American citizens have rights. I do believe there were kids killed in th Middle East and kids killed from drone attacks. That is what gets me. Do you use that language when those kids are killed also?

To tell you where I'm coming from, injustice is done every day in the world and it want be the last. I don't think any body's life should be cheapened more than another person's life based on skin color, sex or religion. I just wonder also who is being placed into this label of Jihad and is there any distinctions? Especially when the assumed killers were American citizens and their parents came from Chechnya.

As far as the President's reasoning for not giving the defendant his miranda rights for 48 hrs, I think the reasons are warranted in this case. He has valuable information. Especially if he can verify or dispel some of the theories people are throwing around. Like if there really is a connection to a Terrorist group or them acting on their own because they were upset with U.S. Policies in other places. There are a number of groups, even people in the United States been trying to affect our Foreign Policy in favor of one direction or the other. Like arming or getting into Syria. Violence is just part of this environment. I just don't fall for the sympathy buttons on one side or the other. All unjustified killing is heinous, especially of children on all sides.

[avebury]

78. If you don't make Constitutional Rights and Miranda

available to the most hated amongst us, how can you expect them to be around for the best of us. It is a slippery slope when we decide to pick and choose who is protected by citizen's rights. This needs to move through the civilian courts and let due process work itself out.

To strip the suspect of his constitutional rights would make us no better then the Islamic countries and dictatorships that we despise. This country should be better then that.

[SylviaD]

122. In this case I agree with you. I cried over that little boy....crying right now. n/t

[adieu]

21. The constitution defines how the GOVERNMENT is supposed to behave

not how the citizens are supposed to behave. People can and do break the law (and that break have legal consequences, of course). The government cannot and should not break the law, that is the constitution. Of course, the government has broken its own law many times. Doing so in this case will only jeopardize the prosecution of Dzhokhar.

And skip the death penalty. We're not barbarians.

[Ed Suspicious]

65. Perfect. Nicely put.

The constitution defines how the GOVERNMENT is supposed to behave not how the citizens are supposed to behave.

[Wind Dancer]

48. People like you really scare me!

[JDPriestly]

49. If you apply your theory, there would never be any Miranda rights,

never a fair and public trial. You could just throw away the Bill of Rights.

We believe that what this young man did was an act of terrorism.

Until he has been questioned and tried, we cannot know that for certain even if it seems evident to us.

An innocent person could be accused of a crime, treated like a terrorist and finished without a fair trial, without respect for his/her constitutional rights.

So, of course, this person should be read his Miranda rights and then questioned. He is accused of a crime and has a right to all the rights assured to persons accused of a crime in the Constitution.

And you'd want that too if you were in his position. So would I.

[midnight]

100. Exactly.... Well said....

[cthulu2016]

50. I was waiting for the punchline... but you seem to be serious

[bjobotts]

59. With your logic Bush/Cheney should be shot

They certainly injured more innocent men women and children plus tortured innocent persons turned in for rewards without evidence. The photos of victims were prevented from being made public they were so sick. Shock and awe crap. Get a grip...this is America...a democratic republic...a nation of rights and laws. We don't just drop them under duress else we'd just be a gangland.

[Orsino]

74. Welcome to DU. n/t

[atreides1]

82. So we beome just like them?

If the government has the ability to deny a right, then it is no longer a right...it becomes a privilege!

[curlyred]

93. He is a citizen just like you

[Hugabear]

120. Yes, the Constitution should only apply to shoplifters

Right?

[RufusTFirefly]

16. Fuckin' A! Miranda rights are only for good guys!

Just like the First Amendment is only for stuff we agree with.

Given the virtual non-existence of due process and habeas corpus these days, not to mention the routine violation of the implicit right of privacy protected under the Fourth Amendment, it's not surprising that Miranda rights would be swept aside. Not to worry. Very few of our amateur Constitutional scholars (aka our fellow American consumers, er citizens) are going to sweat it.

What's on TV?

[Kali]

19. as long as we are SAFE! safe, watching the tee vee

only bad guys get arrested so why even have courts?

[RufusTFirefly]

24. I feel a wave of patriotism coming over me. Guess I'd better go out and shop!

[Mira]

20. let's not forget it's just a "damn piece of paper"

I think I remember that was GWBush'es very special best words phrase

[kath]

22. Yeah, fuck the Constitutiion! As W said it's just a piece of paper. And, thank Jeebus, our wonderful

President continues to endorse W's policies. woo hoo!

On edit - cross posted with Mira. GMTA

[bjobotts]

62. Mob rule huh. Just hang 'em.Graham gooberism.

[Ikonoklast]

26. Any statement made would not be used in a trial.

But information gained just might save lives.

Does not violate Miranda protections.

[JDPriestly]

52. Completely unnecessary. And the information gained would not save lives.

[Ikonoklast]

83. And you know this how, exactly?

You know there are no other plotters, co-conspirators? Other IED'S booby-trapping thier home, apartment? Other people they know with a contingency plan that will now go forward?

You don't.

[LovingA2andMI]

88. Thank you!

It amazing that this fact was not known among the ...."but, but, if we don't read him Miranda we're killing the Constitution crowd". Also, the others...."let's not give him the death penalty crowd when convicted" and instead give this suspected MASS murderer three hots and a cot for the remainder of his life.

Excuse me but I believe eight year old Martin Richard and the other two victims of this suspected MASS MURDER and his Brother (now dead because with a IUD planted on this chest, he walked towards law enforcement personnel to blow them up in a "blaze of glory" one could guess) deserved equal rights to attend a Marathon race in Boston without being murdered by acts of terror.

[former9thward]

97. The Supreme Court has said statements made can be used at trial.

Under the safety exception questioning must be limited to police or public safety but any statements made can be used against the defendant. New York v. Quarles (1984)

[geek tragedy]

40. Do you understand the Miranda rule?

Hint: the constitution isn't being violated.

[JDPriestly]

53. It is unnecessary. It will not be difficult to get this young man to talk.

We don't need to ignore his Miranda rights.

He faces a likely death penalty or worse. He is going to cooperate. He is 19 years old.

[brett_jv]

2. I understand the thinking ...

But I think it's still wrong and unconstitutional.

If he wasn't a citizen I'd entertain the idea, but he is, and he was caught on US Soil.

So this should be a no-brainer to read him his rights.

[midnight]

3. Not if the NDAA has anything to say about it.....

[24601]

4. Not unconstitutional at all. The only prohibition is using what was said during custodial

interrogation (without the Miranda warning) against the individual. As long as the post-Miranda is not tainted by any pre-Miranda interrogation, the fruit of the poisoned tree has not been ingested. Just have a clean team for the post-Miranda interrogation.

[DirkGently]

8. They're invoking a SCOTUS "public safety exception" to

Miranda. So the idea is that any statements will be admissible. It's an odd, narrow exception based on a case where cops cornered a guy, saw his empty holster, and demanded to know where the gun was hidden before they read him his rights. If the statement had been inadmissible, apparently the whole case would have been tossed.

Strange thing publicly announcing invoking this. The case reads like it's something a cop would decide, on the spot, was necessary, not something you plan out and announce.

Not a great way to go here, in my opinion.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=467&invol=649

[happyslug]

18. The "Public Safety Exception" is broad, but it still has its limitations

From the FBI website:

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/february2011/legal_digest

The Public Safety Exception must relate to some sort of Public Safety concern, NOT anything else. Now, the concern does NOT have to be the primary reason for the questioning (In the case cited above, the concern was about an handgun that the defendant had thrown away, the Police Officers were NOT concerned about their own safety, but the safety of the public in case someone found that pistol and shot themselves with it, that concern was enough for the US Supreme Court).

On the other hand, the exception can only be involved when the safety of the public is concerned. In this case, questions as to location of bombs, bomb material that can explode (i.e. things that can go "boom", like the actual items that exploded in the pressure cooker, not where are any unplugged pressure cookers). Thus the suspect can be questioned about those items without being told their Miranda Rights.

The Public Safety Exception can be seen in the following cases:

NEW YORK v. QUARLES, 467 U.S. 649 (1984) (Which is the same case you cite):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/467/649

A more recent 2009 case from the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20FCO%2020090609139.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR

I mention the Public Safety Exception AND its limitations to show SOME questioning without giving the Miranda rule is permitted, but only if it relates the Safety of the Public.

[DirkGently]

30. It appears to be part of this administration's terror policy.

“There are exceptions to Miranda and that is one of the ways in which we conduct our interrogations of terrorism suspects, it’s what we did with Abdulmutallab, it’s what we did with Shahzad,” Holder said. (See video below)

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/experts_obama_admin_pioneering_more_robust_use_of.php

“It looks like to me they’re trying to find this middle ground between saying the Constitution applies with full force and the Constitution doesn’t apply,” says Sam Kamin, a professor of criminal law and procedure at Sturm College of Law in Denver who has written about terrorism interrogations. “It seems to be a deliberate strategy.”

[JDPriestly]

58. Makes sense.

But setting aside Miranda rights to ask about past crimes makes no sense at all.

[24601]

75. Propably why the official described the public safety exception and then said, "...and to try

and gain intelligence." In reality two exceptions in play.

[LovingA2andMI]

108. Exactly

And thank you for providing the Case Law links!

[JDPriestly]

56. Does he have the right to deny post-Miranda what he said pre-Miranda?

Or can he, post-Miranda, be impeached with what he says pre-Miranda?

[happyslug]

87. You are asking TWO questions, use of pre Miranda to impeachment a Witness AND use for other purposes

You have to remember, even if what the Defendant said Pre-Miranda is ruled to be inadmissible, it can be used to IMPEACH the Defendant as a prior inconsistent statement if the Defendant decides to go on the stand and testify himself. Given that most jurors assume you have to be guilty NOT to testify, the existence of such a statement can force a Defendant NOT to testify even if he is the only person in a position to say what happened. Thus your use of the word "impeached" ends up making your question two questions. The first is can the pre-Miranda statement be used to IMPEACH the Defendant, and the answer to that is YES but that is true about ANY pre-Miranda Statement not just the Public Safety exception.

As to the Public Safety Exception to Miranda, the case law clearly states that when the questioning is to protect the safety of the public responses to those questions ARE ADMISSIBLE even if given pre-Miranda. Thus the SECOND question you asked, is the response to the questions admissible even if NOT used to impeached a Witness, the answer is YES.

As to the "Gain intelligence" the Supreme Court has ruled a pre-Miranda Statement that is excluded due to being given pre-Miranda, can be used for other purposes against other people. Miranda is restricted to the person being questioned, not to other people. Thus if the Police asked Someone pre-Miranda, the police may NOT be able to use it against THAT person at trial, they can use it against other people. Thus, technically there is NO "Intelligence" exception to Miranda, but as long as anything the suspect says is NOT used against him, the Police can use it as they see fit.

[happyslug]

6. Miranda Rights only kick in if you want to question the suspect.

There is NO constitutional requirement to give Miranda Rights if the Police do NOT question the suspect (Or the police do NOT intend to use anything he said against him in a court of law).

Lets be honest, they have these suspect with enough evidence to convict them of the bombing (or at least having bombs) without relying on anything they said. Thus no need to ask them any questions as to these actions and with no need to ask them any question no need to give them their Miranda Rights.

[jberryhill]

7. You are generally correct

They can question away at will. The point is that the evidence to convict must not rely on answers to those questions.

[JudyM]

13. Would be helpful to know if they were coached in their bomb-making and event planning...

It's not just about having evidence to convict the one they caught.

[happyslug]

23. That does NOT come under the Public Safety Exception to the Miranda Rule

The Public Safety exceptions, which is what I suspect everyone is relying on, relates to safety of the public NOT to other person's involvement in the crime. The survivor, I suspect, is being asked where he planted any additional bombs and part to those bombs but not much more.

[JudyM]

123. In the interest of neutralizing any imminent threats from others in their group, if there is a group

I haven't researched the law on this but it certainly seems like finding out if there is imminent danger from any colleagues ought to be within the exception.

[kudzu22]

43. It's remarkable how few people understand that

And most people on this board are pretty well informed. They've got enough evidence to put him away forever. They don't have to ask him a damned thing, so they have no need to give the Miranda warning.

[JDPriestly]

60. Good points. They do not need to set aside his Miranda rights.

[BanTheGOP]

10. Thank you George W. Bush and Dick Cheney

Slippery slope has been started. Look, if the guy is guilty he should get life in prison, and no amount of Miranda rights will keep him out of that sentence given a competent prosecution. But by specifically not giving his rights here, we have set the tone which the republicans have started. Bad idea.

[Purveyor]

29. And Barak Hussein Obama for walking down the same path. It is his fucking call...

I'm done giving him a 'pass'... WTF is what with him? Seriously.

[geek tragedy]

41. All Miranda rule means is that they can't use what he says against

him at trial.

That's it. It's not a flat prohibition on interrogation without a lawyer present.

[LovingA2andMI]

109. Thank you!

And to the poster above you, the President's name is Barack Hussein Obama. Please type it correctly if you prefer to use it in this context.

[RobinA]

117. It Also Means

that you can't use anything you GAINED from what he said at trial. I would think that anybody who wants to make damn sure he gets put away forever would WANT him Mirandized so some sharp defense lawyer can't come along successfully arguing about poisoned trees.

[dmrtndl1]

11. miranda rights just get in the way of justice

what does the supreme court know.

[bjobotts]

64. Look to the Hague.Last administration's home.

[bhikkhu]

12. So his confession will be inadmissable...

somehow I don't think they need it, and I don't see what difference it makes in this case.

[RBInMaine]

15. I think you will find extreme exigent circumstances here allowing questioning around other possible

bombs remaining out there or other possible accomplices, and I think they would win that argument given this fact pattern. When you have the strong possibility of explosive devices planted around the city, rigged apartments, risk of more people being killed, etc. then I am sure you could question within a restricted scope of those public safety topics and within a reasonable timeframe to determine if there are other live explosives out there, any other accomplices about to bomb or attack, etc. And if he talks about any other active bombs or bombers, then they could ask about locations, bomb types, etc. I am sure this would pass Constitutional muster before the SCOTUS under the emergency circumstances exception.

[jg15]

31. I have a tough time with this but - I still need to think about this one

I'm no expert and would love to hear from some but I think you have the public safety exception correct. There is a chance you have bombs planted in the nearby area or a snipper friend getting ready to open up on a crowd - seems reasonable to allow a brief and very narrow interrogation to prevent a bunch of people dying (like the free speech exception for yelling fire in a theater).

My question is what happens if an aggressive and angry fed pushes the limits of the exception - could the conviction be put at risk? I.e. - guy gets held for a week because they want to find out if he has friends? Seems like an exception like this would and should have very tight limits..

Still chewing on whether I like this one...

[DeadEyeDyck]

91. But why risk it. It takes less time to recite

Miranda then it does to handcuff the perpetrator.
It almost seems it was done without Miranda to make a statement of sorts.

[bhikkhu]

92. I think the reasoning of the Public Safety Exception

is to allow immediate questioning, such as if there are bombs that might need locating. I suppose it doesn't happen very often at all. Questions answered before Miranda should be inadmissible, so a person might speak more freely without worrying about self-incrimination, I would imagine.

[RobinA]

118. It Does Seem

an unnecessary risk. Deciding at this point that whatever he says won't be needed at trial, so let's not Mirandize him.

I don't like this no Miranda thing on so many levels... Again Obama opening a door that would be better off left close.

[mckara]

17. I Don't Understand these Ridiculous Decisions!

[vrp]

28. Lindsey Graham

is a coward and an idiot! He thinks by not believing in due process everyone will think he's tough! That's Soviet Union stuff...the bastard.

[BethanyQuartz]

112. Well look on the bright side!

Those in favor of not following the Constitution will surely save taxpayers a lot of money in the future. If we can trust our government to truthfully and accurately detect and detain terrorists we can trust them to truthfully and accurately detect and detain other criminals as well.

At that point we can put an end to the costly practice of criminal law, courts, juries, the whole expensive circus. Criminals of all stripes will simply be whisked away to detention, torture, execution, or for more minor offenses perhaps work camps, all without the fuss of letting citizens have any role in deciding if any of them actually committed a crime.

[frazzled]

32. It's been constitutional since 1980: Public Safety Exemption (New York v. Quarles)

The Miranda rule is not, however, absolute. An exception exists in cases of "public safety". This limited and case-specific exception allows certain unadvised statements (given without Miranda warnings) to be admissible into evidence at trial when they were elicited in circumstances where there was great danger to public safety.[8]
The public safety exception derives from New York v. Quarles, a case in which the Supreme Court considered the admissibility of a statement elicited by a police officer who apprehended a rape suspect who was thought to be carrying a firearm. The arrest took place in a crowded grocery store. When the officer arrested the suspect, he found an empty shoulder holster, handcuffed the suspect, and asked him where the gun was. The suspect nodded in the direction of the gun (which was near some empty cartons) and said, "The gun is over there". The Supreme Court found that such an unadvised statement was admissible in evidence because "n a kaleidoscopic situation such as the one confronting these officers, where spontaneity rather than adherence to a police manual is necessarily the order of the day, the application of the exception we recognize today should not be made to depend on post hoc findings at a suppression hearing concerning the subjective motivation of the police officer".[9] Thus, the jurisprudential rule of Miranda must yield in "a situation where concern for public safety must be paramount to adherence to the literal language of the prophylactic rules enunciated in Miranda". The rule of Miranda is not, therefore, absolute and can be a bit more elastic in cases of public safety.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning#Public_safety_exception

They need to ask him if there are any more IEDs planted, and where; and whether there are any co-conspirators out there. The pre-Miranda period will be limited. And he WILL be tried in a regular court of law, by the Justice Department, not the military. Did you not listen to the President's statement tonight?

[bowens43]

35. So basically they need some time to torture him........Obama is no better than bush on civil rights

He's a disaster on civil liberties

[Volaris]

51. If that does indeed happen (which I don't think it will), and THEN he gets to have his day in court?

he will walk free on a mis-trial, no questions asked. And Obama knows it. No WAY anyone will so much as cut this kids hair now without a cadre of lawyers present and on record.

[frazzled]

72. Good lord

That's crazy talk. Just rabid imaginings. Gives me a window onto what drives zealotry.

Go back and listen to last night's speech.

[Kolesar]

81. Flame bait ... eom

[rollin74]

33. if the feds have enough evidence to convict without a confession

then it doesn't really matter

[MADem]

68. It isn't about that--it's about getting him to talk about where he got his bomb making help.

They have enough to convict the kid from dash cam video on police cars. They don't have to ask him anything and he doesn't have to confess to anything.

They want to know if there are other members of brother's terror cell--that's where they are going with the public safety aspect, I think.

[bowens43]

34. Obama Bush...... meet the new boss, same as the old boss

what a fucking disaster this guy is

[LovingA2andMI]

110. Really?

Because President Obama cares enough to use a FEDERAL STATUE/LAW to have this Suspected Mass Murder Terrorist tell information on where ANY OTHER BOMBS OR IMMEDIATE THREATS to Americans lives are, like RIGHT NOW, before they read the Suspected Mass Murder Terrorist his Miranda Rights? That's makes President Obama a "F*****G Disaster" (your words, not mines)?

So what does your statement above makes you? Curious?

[RobinA]

119. It Strikes Me

If they want to know about his bomb making club they can cut him a deal. Like regular cops do with regular criminals. Some of whose death tolls make this guy look like a kindergartner. All perfectly legal and without taking a bite out of the Constitution.

Oh, and before you ask, a card carrying ACLU member is what I am.

[blkmusclmachine]

36. .

[AzDar]

37. Ugh. We are supposed to be better than this...

edit: and so is my typing ...

[Mr.Pain]

38. Due process is supposed to be guaranteed for every citizen.

It's not just a matter of questioning, he also has the right to an attorney, and to have that attorney present during questioning. He is a U.S. citizen after all. What he is accused of is a horrendous act, we can all agree on that. Without the Miranda rights they could easily coerce,(or torture), any story they want out of him, without an impartial witness. It would be best that a lawyer were present during questioning to make sure that, (1) the real and true motive is discovered, (2) any other persons involved would be noted for investigations sake, (3) that there is no cover up, tortured confessions, or conspiracies. To not Miranderize him gives authorities the chance to cover up any discrepancies, mislead the public as to true intent and or motive as well as remove other potentially sensitive co-conspirators in the name of public safety and or national security.
After all this isn't the 15th century and he is not a witch.

[Adam-Bomb]

39. I have to remind folks

Neither of these two guys are/were U.S. citizens.

I am NOT saying they don't deserve due process, but they ARE foreign nationals.

[kudzu22]

44. The one in custody became a citizen

last September. The eleventh, I believe.

[cstanleytech]

46. That can be revoked though.

Though even if it is I personally believe he should still have the protections of a trial that we all have because our nation wasnt founded with the ideal that only some people were created equal but rather we all were and that being the case that the government should treat us all the same.

[MADem]

67. Yes they are--the kid got citizenship on 911, ironically. Or not.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57580380/1-boston-bombing-suspect-dead-massive-manhunt-for-2nd-the-white-hat-suspect/


CBS News confirmed that Dzhokhar is an American citizen, having been naturalized on September 11, 2012.

[LovingA2andMI]

111. Good point

The Suspected Mass Murder Terrorist (Black Hat-Suspect #1) who's dead after walking to law enforcement officials with a IUD on this chest. He preferred to die in a "blaze of glory" and was foreign national on a Visa. He hadn't obtained his nationalized citizenship (because he was NOT born in America to be a NATURAL-BORN citizen) by his choice....as he stated, "I don't have any American friends."

Suspected Mass Murder Terrorist (White Hat - Suspect #2) two years ago became a nationalized citizen on 9/11/2011. He when taking his Oath pledged to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Instead of defending the People attending and taking part in the Boston Marathon on April 15th against the actions of his now dead Brother, he joined in carrying a duffle bag (with a suspected bomb) to the location. Three People were killed on site, 170+ were injured and many lost limbs. Next, the Brother and him worked together (it is alleged) to high-jack a vehicle at gunpoint and kill Police Officer at MIT.

Also, when Suspected Mass Murder Terrorist Number 2 - Brother decided to go out in a "blaze of glory -- Jihad Style", he (himself) did not exit the high-jacked vehicle to turn himself in for questioning. Instead, he drove over his dying or dead Brother, fled the scene, ditched the car, ran on foot, hid for nearly 24 hours, had the full resources of Local, State and Federal Law Enforcement personnel locking down a entire CITY to prevent further lost of innocent life and then, was FINALLY found hiding in a boat near death with gunshot wounds in Watertown, Mass.

That's the story so far.

Now, if President Obama used a FEDERAL LAW to first, gain any further information about BOMBS or IMMEDIATE THREATS to other Americans before law enforcement officials read Suspected Mass Murder Terrorist - Number 2 his Miranda Rights. The President was 200% right in this case.

Next, let's read him the Miranda Rights, charge him, have a trial before a jury of his peers, convict him and invoke SWIFT and QUICK justice by hopefully the Death Penalty.

Enough said!!

[cstanleytech]

45. "this will backfire" Maybe, maybe not.

They will have to tread very carefully on how they deal with this and one way could be that anything he may say until he is read said rights is sealed and cant be used as a confession.
Mind you it wont protect him from saying "Ya we built the bombs using x materials" because the government will argue inevitable discovery but it might reveal if there are say any bombs still out there and allow the authorities to get to them before they detonate.

[MOTRDemocrat]

54. I stand with the administration to make the decisions necessary for public safety.

Those of you that don't have good company:

"Glenn Beck @glennbeck

I despise this terrorist and all that he has done but we must not lose who we are. HE IS AN AMERICAN. Read him his rights! We are not Russia"

[RufusTFirefly]

61. Creepy lockstep loyalty plus gutter-level guilt by association

All in one efficient post.

Nicely done, troll.

[brett_jv]

98. And I got $50 that says that if the opposite had happened ...

And the guy HAD been read his rights, Glenn Beck would be tweeting how Obama is obviously a Muslim Terrorist sympathizer for allowing that to happen.

People like Beck have absolutely no principles, aside from the principle of 'we must viciously attack Obama for EVERYthing he does'.

[DeSwiss]

57. Yep that's the Department of InJustice for ya.....

...doing what they do best.

- Pissing all over the Constitution.....

K&R

[delrem]

63. He gets full rights or this isn't the USA. nt

[steve2470]

66. Was this guy even coherent enough to be questioned ?

Maybe I'm missing something.

My understanding is he was critically ill and bleeding when they arrested him, to the point of barely being able to function. Maybe they asked him a few questions to get him into the ambulance properly.

If I'm correct, simply wait until he's coherent, THEN read him his Miranda rights. I don't know if this would pass Constitutional muster but why read Miranda rights to someone seemingly near death who cannot understand or even remember it ? That doesn't seem right or fair.

[jakeXT]

69. Martial Law and this... down the rabbit hole we go

DoD Issues Instructions on Military
Support of Civilian Law Enforcement

The Department of Defense has issued an instruction clarifying the rules for the involvement of military forces in civilian law enforcement.  The instruction establishes “DoD policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides procedures for DoD support to Federal, State, tribal, and local civilian law enforcement agencies, including responses to civil disturbances within the United States.”

The new instruction titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” was released at the end of February, replacing several older directives on military assistance to civilian law enforcement and civil disturbances.  The instruction requires that senior DoD officials develop “procedures and issue appropriate direction as necessary for defense support of civilian law enforcement agencies in coordination with the General Counsel of the Department of Defense, and in consultation with the Attorney General of the United States”, including “tasking the DoD Components to plan for and to commit DoD resources in response to requests from civil authorities for [civil disturbance operations].”  Military officials are to coordinate with “civilian law enforcement agencies on policies to further DoD cooperation with civilian law enforcement agencies” and the heads of the combatant commands are instructed to issue procedures for “establishing local contact points in subordinate commands for purposes of coordination with Federal, State, tribal, and local civilian law enforcement officials.”

http://publicintelligence.net/dod-support-civilian-law-enforcement/



Holder Backs a Miranda Limit for Terror Suspects
May 9, 2010

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Sunday it would seek a law allowing investigators to interrogate terrorism suspects without informing them of their rights, as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. flatly asserted that the defendant in the Times Square bombing attempt was trained by the Taliban in Pakistan.

Mr. Holder proposed carving out a broad new exception to the Miranda rights established in a landmark 1966 Supreme Court ruling. It generally forbids prosecutors from using as evidence statements made before suspects have been warned that they have a right to remain silent and to consult a lawyer.

He said interrogators needed greater flexibility to question terrorism suspects than is provided by existing exceptions.

The proposal to ask Congress to loosen the Miranda rule comes against the backdrop of criticism by Republicans who have argued that terrorism suspects — including United States citizens like Faisal Shahzad, the suspect in the Times Square case — should be imprisoned and interrogated as military detainees, rather than handled as ordinary criminal defendants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/us/politics/10holder.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[awoke_in_2003]

113. While I think the suspect...

should be treated to the standards of the Constitution, Boston was NOT under martial law. People were asked to stay inside, and they did.

[GreenStormCloud]

71. Read him is rights.

It won't matter. He is proud of what he did and will likely brag about it.

[John2]

79. You are joking right?

And are you another Texan? I have to take a visit to that state and see how they live myself. There must be something in the water.

[Ikonoklast]

84. Actually, that is a valid point. Even after being Mirandized,

many terror suspects just keep blabbing.

They are proud of what they did, and want the entire world to know how they did it, and why.

We got convictions of more than one of theses assholes by using their own words, freely given.

[GreenStormCloud]

116. Obviously, you don't understand.

As a matter of principle, he should be read his rights. I stand firm on that. It will matter as a legal precedent.

As a matter of interrogation of the prisoner, it won't matter. Even after he has been read his rights he is going to brag about it. He considers himself a martyr for Islam, and the trial will be his opportunity to proclaim his beliefs.

[secondvariety]

77. What's the big deal?

Read him his Miranda rights and put him on trial. Do everything by the book and there will be a conviction. It all goes south when they try this sneaky slight of hand "enemy combatant" bullshit.

[walkerbait41]

85. Read him his rights

That's were we stand

[Sunlei]

96. sure soon they will read him his rights. republicans may call for him only in the Fed system.

Not gonna happen. He will get both- federal and local police on his back. It will be public what happened with the CIA and the FBI in the brothers last decade in the USA.

[Nika]

99. It's amazing he's still alive.

[Sunlei]

104. It is amazing he is alive. Twice, a hail of police bullets.

[Cha]

114. Rachael Maddow Explains Why Dzhokar Tsarnaev was not read his Miranda rights..

“The Obama administration,” said Maddow, “has extended the reach of that public safety exemption, so it essentially can last longer to attend to the type of public safety threats that could accrue in terrorism cases.”


Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has not been arrested under enemy combatant status, but is currently on track for a federal trial within the civilian justice system.

“At some point he will be read his rights,” Maddow said. “He’s an American citizen.”

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/04/beth_israel_staff_tried_to_save_bombing_suspect

Sounds good to me.

[woo me with science]

115. Every single day, our rights being dismantled

and a corporate state put into place.