Last night I was among the millions of Americans who breathed a collective sigh of relief as the second suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing was apprehended. I watched as hundreds of citizens lined the streets of Watertown, MA and cheered on the scores of law enforcement officers leaving the scene of the arrest, receiving well deserved thanks for what is all too often a thankless job. This was a quintessentially American celebration of the capture of a person who is alleged to have committed a heinous act of terror at a quintessentially American event, killing and maiming innocent people in horrific fashion.
The scene last night was America at its best. But what we are seeing now in the way the suspect is being treated is America at its worst.
Federal law enforcement officials revealed last night that the suspect, 19-year-old Dzhokar Tsarnaev, would not be read his Miranda rights because authorities are invoking what is known as the “public safety exception,” which will enable them to question him extensively as they attempt to gain intelligence.
This exception was established in the 1984 case New York v. Quarles, in which the U.S. Supreme Court carved it out for a man suspected of rape. In that case, the victim said her assailant had a gun, and he was wearing an empty holster, so police asked him where the gun was before reading him his Miranda rights. That was allowable, the court held, because of the immediate threat the gun posed to other people. An unaccounted for gun, used in the commission of a crime and witnessed by the victim, is indeed an immediate threat to public safety, and the exception was appropriate in that case.
Unfortunately, this exception was overextended after the events of 9/11, when legislators (and many of those they represented), were all too willing to suspend civil liberties in the name of a War on Terror via laws such as The Patriot Act, NDAA, and the extension of warrantless wiretapping – all of which are applicable not just to foreign-born people who may wish to do the United States harm, but also to American Citizens.
Additionally, in October 2010, the Justice Department widened 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 U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) memo to the FBI that wasn’t disclosed at the time. But the memo went further than than the immediate threat exception: “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.”
Of course the FBI, in consultation with USDOJ, gets to determine whether “unwarned interrogation” is necessary. The New York Times published the Justice Department’s memo in March 2011. The Supreme Court has yet to take up any case involving this complete lack of a check on police and prosecutorial power, leaving the door wide open for the ongoing abuse of Americans’ Fifth Amendment rights.
Tsarnaev, born in Kyrgyzstan and of of Chechen heritage, immigrated to the United States as a child with his family over a decade ago and became a naturalized U.S. citizen on September 11, 2012, while a student at the University of Massachusetts. In other words he is an American – and he deserves all the rights and protections afforded any other American citizen. But because of the climate of fear and the suspension of civil liberties that Americans have lived under since 9/11, he’s not getting them. The reason we have a Fifth Amendment and Miranda rights is to prevent abusive interrogations and wrongful convictions that result from false confessions under “unwarned interrogation” that goes unchecked.
Yesterday, the comments of South Carolina’s senior U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham – issued before the Tesarnaev’s apprehension – foreshadowed this turn of events. Graham argued that the U.S. Constitution shouldn’t apply to the questioning of Tsarnev, who is, again, an American citizen. Not backing down from his argument in the face of national criticism by, this morning, Graham tweeted that “A decision to NOT read Miranda rights to the suspect was sound and in our national security interests.”
Why should you care that Dzhokar Tsarnaev wasn’t read his Miranda rights? Because he’s an American citizen, and so are you. And even after “all relevant public safety questions have been asked,” you can continue to be interrogated, and no one but your interrogators will know what – and how – they asked you.
That’s un-American.
Amy Lazenby is an occasional commentator for FITSNews. Follow/ contact her on Twitter @Mrs_Laz, and check out her blog – Polistew.
109 comments
Great article! Definitely one of the best I’ve read on here and other places.
Great article! Definitely one of the best I’ve read on here and other places.
Very well said. These extremists are pushing us towards the life they lead. A country where laws don’t exist, fairness is not in the vocabulary and with each horrific action they perpetuate on us they know they are driving us closer and closer to having NO FREEDOM NO RIGHTS. The one thing that irritates these cretins, more than anything else, we are throwing out the window.
Very well said. These extremists are pushing us towards the life they lead. A country where laws don’t exist, fairness is not in the vocabulary and with each horrific action they perpetuate on us they know they are driving us closer and closer to having NO FREEDOM NO RIGHTS. The one thing that irritates these cretins, more than anything else, we are throwing out the window.
The Miranda Rights are only required to be read before questioning not when you are taken into custody.
That’s exactly what they are doing, or in this case, not doing. They have stated publicly that they will not be reading him his Miranda rights before they question him.
The Miranda Rights are only required to be read before questioning not when you are taken into custody.
That’s exactly what they are doing, or in this case, not doing. They have stated publicly that they will not be reading him his Miranda rights before they question him.
You would think that the suspect, being a naturalized American citizen with all the rights and responsibilities contained therein, would already know that he has the right to remain silent without being read the Miranda rights. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, just as the wanton murder of innocent people allows for no excuse.
You would think that the suspect, being a naturalized American citizen with all the rights and responsibilities contained therein, would already know that he has the right to remain silent without being read the Miranda rights. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, just as the wanton murder of innocent people allows for no excuse.
I agree. Surely the ACLU will later defend Dzhokar, but meanwhile there may be other terrorist friends of his — perhaps a cell — planning similar attacks elsewhere.
Let us not look back on another scene of carnage and say, “Geez, these terrorists were companions of Dzhokar; how unfortunate we weren’t able to make this connection and prevent this.”
Kudos to Ms. Lazenby! She hit the nail right on the head!
Do you blow up innocent children too???
No asshole, but I’d like to shove a pipe bomb up your ass!
Another violent and angry Leftwing Nutjob…You are abundant, but the media Never reports about you…
I agree. Surely the ACLU will later defend Dzhokar, but meanwhile there may be other terrorist friends of his — perhaps a cell — planning similar attacks elsewhere.
Let us not look back on another scene of carnage and say, “Geez, these terrorists were companions of Dzhokar; how unfortunate we weren’t able to make this connection and prevent this.”
Kudos to Ms. Lazenby! She hit the nail right on the head!
Do you blow up innocent children too???
No asshole, but I’d like to shove a pipe bomb up your ass!
Another violent and angry Leftwing Nutjob…You are abundant, but the media Never reports about you…
CNN Quits Breaking News, Becomes “CNN Classic”
NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report) — In a sweeping format change that marks the end of an era for the nation’s first cable news outlet, CNN announced today that it would no longer air breaking news and would instead re-run news stories of the past “that we know we got right.”
The rebranded network, to début nationwide on Monday, will be called “CNN Classic.”
“Breaking news is hard,” said the newly installed CNN chief, Jeff Zucker. “You have to talk to sources, make sure their stories check out O.K., and then get on the air and not say anything stupid. I, for one, am thrilled to be getting out of that horrible business.”
CNN Classic will begin its broadcast day on Monday, Mr. Zucker said, “with round-the-clock coverage of Operation Desert Storm.”
Mr. Zucker did not indicate what impact the new format would have on such CNN stars as Wolf Blitzer, saying only, “I can’t promise that Wolf will be a part of CNN’s future, but he will continue to be a big part of our past.”
The CNN chief scoffed at reports that other cable news outlets had eclipsed his network once and for all, throwing down this gauntlet: “We are going to win May sweeps with Hurricane Katrina.”
Matt Lauer may be able to get out of his contract.
CNN Quits Breaking News, Becomes “CNN Classic”
NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report) — In a sweeping format change that marks the end of an era for the nation’s first cable news outlet, CNN announced today that it would no longer air breaking news and would instead re-run news stories of the past “that we know we got right.”
The rebranded network, to début nationwide on Monday, will be called “CNN Classic.”
“Breaking news is hard,” said the newly installed CNN chief, Jeff Zucker. “You have to talk to sources, make sure their stories check out O.K., and then get on the air and not say anything stupid. I, for one, am thrilled to be getting out of that horrible business.”
CNN Classic will begin its broadcast day on Monday, Mr. Zucker said, “with round-the-clock coverage of Operation Desert Storm.”
Mr. Zucker did not indicate what impact the new format would have on such CNN stars as Wolf Blitzer, saying only, “I can’t promise that Wolf will be a part of CNN’s future, but he will continue to be a big part of our past.”
The CNN chief scoffed at reports that other cable news outlets had eclipsed his network once and for all, throwing down this gauntlet: “We are going to win May sweeps with Hurricane Katrina.”
Matt Lauer may be able to get out of his contract.
I can’t find the word “Miranda” in any of our country’s documents. But I find “Justice.”
The problem w/ attorneys, or people who want to portray them: the have NO IDEA what Justice is. They have found that the money is SO GOOD defending injustice and the Guilty…they have a whole new Money-Maker Constitution memorized in their heads…
Corrupt lawyers and Liberal America-Haters are America at its worst
PS: I’d love for you to go to a country that you put before America, and run your mouth about the governments you sympathize with. And then I’d love to see you BEG for THEIR soldiers to come afford you the same rights OUR soldiers give to the undeserving (like you) in this country…
I really would pay your plane fare, if you go to one of those countries (let’s say Iran) and treat them like you treat our Constitution…
.
I can’t find the word “Miranda” in any of our country’s documents. But I find “Justice.”
The problem w/ attorneys, or people who want to portray them: the have NO IDEA what Justice is. They have found that the money is SO GOOD defending injustice and the Guilty…they have a whole new Money-Maker Constitution memorized in their heads…
Corrupt lawyers and Liberal America-Haters are America at its worst
PS: I’d love for you to go to a country that you put before America, and run your mouth about the governments you sympathize with. And then I’d love to see you BEG for THEIR soldiers to come afford you the same rights OUR soldiers give to the undeserving (like you) in this country…
I really would pay your plane fare, if you go to one of those countries (let’s say Iran) and treat them like you treat our Constitution…
.
Good write up.
That’s only because you and Lisenby are in favor of Brutal Muslim Jihadists murdering little white boys…
This event, and the sides being taken by the left, could be what shows America how Bitter, FILTHY and low the left in this county, and Obama, have become… The media still will not admit they are your people Islam) who did it
Does your Hatred for America, no know bounds…???…How far will yall push your luck???
Good write up.
That’s only because you and Lisenby are in favor of Brutal Muslim Jihadists murdering little white boys…
This event, and the sides being taken by the left, could be what shows America how Bitter, FILTHY and low the left in this county, and Obama, have become… The media still will not admit they are your people Islam) who did it
Does your Hatred for America, no know bounds…???…How far will yall push your luck???
Mrs. Laz – I cannot think of a time in the past that I have disagreed with you, but this time I do. Last night and even today I feel like these guys may have set something up that would still be a risk to the safety of our public. There was another bomb that went off in Boston Thursday afternoon. How do we know there were not others?
And, to the best of my knowledge, he was not nor has he yet been charged with anything. How can you read his Miranda rights when there has not been any charges?
Miranda rights are read when a suspect is arrested, before he is charged with a crime. The police don’t charge people with crimes, the prosecutors do that.
I have to disagree with that – I was a municipal court judge and I did many arrest warrants for police officers to charge and arrest people – the officers brought the charges.
Yes, when you’re dealing with a crime with a penalty that carries 30 days or less, there is no indictment, there is only an arrest warrant, but the police officer still has to apply to the municipal court judge for that warrant. That puts an additional check on the power of the police officer – he doesn’t issue the warrant – the judge does. There is no such check in the case we’re talking about, and we’re dealing with much more serious allegations.
Municipal court judge… in the legal field that’s the equivalent of a podiatrist calling himself a doctor.
Mrs. Laz – I cannot think of a time in the past that I have disagreed with you, but this time I do. Last night and even today I feel like these guys may have set something up that would still be a risk to the safety of our public. There was another bomb that went off in Boston Thursday afternoon. How do we know there were not others?
And, to the best of my knowledge, he was not nor has he yet been charged with anything. How can you read his Miranda rights when there has not been any charges?
Miranda rights are read when a suspect is arrested, before he is charged with a crime. The police don’t charge people with crimes, the prosecutors do that.
I have to disagree with that – I was a municipal court judge and I did many arrest warrants for police officers to charge and arrest people – the officers brought the charges.
Yes, when you’re dealing with a crime with a penalty that carries 30 days or less, there is no indictment, there is only an arrest warrant, but the police officer still has to apply to the municipal court judge for that warrant. That puts an additional check on the power of the police officer – he doesn’t issue the warrant – the judge does. You were a municipal court judge who issued those warrants and you don’t get that? There is no such check in the case we’re talking about, and we’re dealing with much more serious allegations.
Municipal court judge… in the legal field that’s the equivalent of a podiatrist calling himself a doctor.
Meanwhile: The Ft. Hood Shooter is avoiding trial, arguing that he has a religious right not
to shave his beard…
Clinton allowed 9-11, and 3,000 deaths, because he treated our enemies to due process.
Ms. Lizenby puts the rights of the murderous, guilty and evil ahead of dead American
children…
Even Hanoi Jane has profusely apologized for the HATE she evoked. Ms. Fonda grew achieved some wisdom…Let’s us all pray for Ms. Lizenby’s soul, that she can one day put her
leftwing politics and her hatred for justice and American children behind her…
Hmm. If you’re so in favor of Americans losing their rights, perhaps we should take yours, Big IdioT.
If you’re allowed to pervert the Constitution to fit your America-Hating, Muslim-apologist politics, maybe I should be able to interpret your rights, according to my whims and emotions and ability to stuff my pockets w/ attorneys fees from the guilty and evil …
Um, you’re confused on who is perverting the Constitution, T, but I would expect no less from you.
You leftwing extremists are the ones who claim the Constitution is subject to whims and changes of pop culture…
It’s why you have to Laugh your @$$ off to now see you trying to defend Muslim Child Killers using the document that you Disparage (as Obama did) as too limiting upon your god, government…
Meanwhile: The Ft. Hood Shooter is avoiding trial, arguing that he has a religious right not
to shave his beard…
Clinton allowed 9-11, and 3,000 deaths, because he treated our enemies to due process.
Ms. Lizenby puts the rights of the murderous, guilty and evil ahead of dead American
children…
Even Hanoi Jane has profusely apologized for the HATE she evoked. Ms. Fonda grew achieved some wisdom…Let’s us all pray for Ms. Lizenby’s soul, that she can one day put her
leftwing politics and her hatred for justice and American children behind her…
Hmm. If you’re so in favor of Americans losing their rights, perhaps we should take yours, Big IdioT.
If you’re allowed to pervert the Constitution to fit your America-Hating, Muslim-apologist politics, maybe I should be able to interpret your rights, according to my whims and emotions and ability to stuff my pockets w/ attorneys fees from the guilty and evil …
Um, you’re confused on who is perverting the Constitution, T, but I would expect no less from you.
You leftwing extremists are the ones who claim the Constitution is subject to whims and changes of pop culture…
It’s why you have to Laugh your @$$ off to now see you trying to defend Muslim Child Killers using the document that you Disparage (as Obama did) as too limiting upon your god, government…
One seemingly easy way to accommodate being able to question when it is thought that “the government’s interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation” is making all the evidence and especially where it leads inadmissible, giving the suspect an automatic pass. The investigators then can make their professional determination as to how important it truly is: “Is it important enough to let this guy walk?”
One seemingly easy way to accommodate being able to question when it is thought that “the government’s interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation” is making all the evidence and especially where it leads inadmissible, giving the suspect an automatic pass. The investigators then can make their professional determination as to how important it truly is: “Is it important enough to let this guy walk?”
Why is it Liberal Extreme Zealots only jump to defend rights for Muslm Child Killers???
Where was Lizenby when George Zimmerman had his Rights eliminated in Fla. by a Leftwing, Race-Hating Lynch Mob (bolstered by Obama)???..
‘Mum’ is the word for Leftwing Nutjobs if it does not fit the agenda…
You mention this country’s documents in a previous post. Would one of those Documents be “The Constitution”? If so, Mr. T, how in the hell can you scream at the comments on this page as left wingers etc? The 4th amendment gives us a right to privacy and Bush whittled away at that with the enticingly termed Patriot Act. A bill that watered down the right to privacy and I resented that. The jabs you, Mr. T, take at Obama lead me to ascertain you PRETEND to be a conservative. Me thinks you are not. Your diatribes on here offer nothing of substance. Simple fanning of the flames ala McCain and Graham. This disgusting excuse for an American, much like Tim McVeigh, is to be granted the same rights as the rest of us, and that Mr. T would be AMERICANS. Your and others propaganda concerning this issue will take us down the road of no privacy, no rights, no due process and then, Mr. T, we will live in a fireant infested country like Iran, Syria, North Korea. I would rather live in this great country than those ratholes. So if you want to do away with the constitution and give the Government complete control of your life then by all means, Mr T, move to one of the aforementioned places and enjoy Big Brother.
You are Ignorant if you think we suffer from a LACK of Rights…
We suffer from a LACK of Justice and a Lack of Responsibility. And Trial Lawyers, and liberals, get their WEALTH by perpetuating INJUSTICE for those who violate the rights of DECENT Americans…
Also: Obama’s MAIN charge: is to protect our freedom. He is not doing a good job…and people, like you, who place imaginary rights in front of the lives of our children are a Disgusting reminder that freedom must endure even the lowest of cretin…
You misguided simpleton. First we shall take a moment of silence to pray for you………… Ok that is over. Your rants, which unfortunately I had the time to read several of yesterday, sound pretty much the same. What is your fixation with abortion? You bring that into every discussion on FitsNews. Are you a member of the inbred Phelps clan? If so, I shall take another moment of silence…………… I can see there is no debating any issue with you. You have nothing more than partisan vernacular to spew and since I am a free and critical thinker, it may be best to leave you and your kin to discuss your particular sets of beliefs. Try to have a good life. Remember to bend over anytime you see a Gov. official coming. Things will go much easier for the submissive (esp if you keep that tube of vaseline in your pencil pouch).. So, Low T,
…..you wounded BigT
OUCH !
You are but another sad FITS cliché…
You fall into the SAME trap as most brain-dead, leftwing puppets of the DNC, FITS and MSNBC…
You become so obsessed (and discombobulated) with my more-sound premises, which you’ve never considered and you are unable to adequately address..that all you do is attempt insults, usually culled from something original, accurate and creative I’ve said about you…
When I find accurate, original and creative I shall address those, until then, Low T, I shall fight the fight on a level playing field. Brain dead against brain dead, not an easy task for me but I only go to a knife fight with a knife. Until you, Mr. Phelps, can identify how abortion even REMOTELY fits into this argument then that is a null/void distraction provided by you to make yourself feel somewhat like a man. So in addition to that tube of vaseline for the gov. officials to ease their cavity searches on you a tube of Andro Gel might assist you once again becoming some semblance of a man. Goodbye, my brain can longer remain in this puerile state that it takes to discuss anything with you. Hope your set grows back soon. Your folks in Kansas are waiting for your appearance at the next funeral they decide to picket.
Why is it Liberal Extreme Zealots only jump to defend rights for Muslm Child Killers???
Where was Lizenby when George Zimmerman had his Rights eliminated in Fla. by a Leftwing, Race-Hating Lynch Mob (bolstered by Obama)???..
‘Mum’ is the word for Leftwing Nutjobs if it does not fit the agenda…
You mention this country’s documents in a previous post. Would one of those Documents be “The Constitution”? If so, Mr. T, how in the hell can you scream at the comments on this page as left wingers etc? The 4th amendment gives us a right to privacy and Bush whittled away at that with the enticingly termed Patriot Act. A bill that watered down the right to privacy and I resented that. The jabs you, Mr. T, take at Obama lead me to ascertain you PRETEND to be a conservative. Me thinks you are not. Your diatribes on here offer nothing of substance. Simple fanning of the flames ala McCain and Graham. This disgusting excuse for an American, much like Tim McVeigh, is to be granted the same rights as the rest of us, and that Mr. T would be AMERICANS. Your and others propaganda concerning this issue will take us down the road of no privacy, no rights, no due process and then, Mr. T, we will live in a fireant infested country like Iran, Syria, North Korea. I would rather live in this great country than those ratholes. So if you want to do away with the constitution and give the Government complete control of your life then by all means, Mr T, move to one of the aforementioned places and enjoy Big Brother.
You are Ignorant if you think we suffer from a LACK of Rights…
We suffer from a LACK of Justice and a Lack of Responsibility. And Trial Lawyers, and liberals, get their WEALTH by perpetuating INJUSTICE for those who violate the rights of DECENT Americans…
Also: Obama’s MAIN charge: is to protect our freedom. He is not doing a good job…and people, like you, who place imaginary rights in front of the lives of our children are a Disgusting reminder that freedom must endure even the lowest of cretin…
You misguided simpleton. First we shall take a moment of silence to pray for you………… Ok that is over. Your rants, which unfortunately I had the time to read several of yesterday, sound pretty much the same. What is your fixation with abortion? You bring that into every discussion on FitsNews. Are you a member of the inbred Phelps clan? If so, I shall take another moment of silence…………… I can see there is no debating any issue with you. You have nothing more than partisan vernacular to spew and since I am a free and critical thinker, it may be best to leave you and your kin to discuss your particular sets of beliefs. Try to have a good life. Remember to bend over anytime you see a Gov. official coming. Things will go much easier for the submissive (esp if you keep that tube of vaseline in your pencil pouch).. So, Low T,
…..you wounded BigT
OUCH !
You are but another sad FITS cliché…
You fall into the SAME trap as most brain-dead, leftwing puppets of the DNC, FITS and MSNBC…
You become so obsessed (and discombobulated) with my more-sound premises, which you’ve never considered and you are unable to adequately address..that all you do is attempt insults, usually culled from something original, accurate and creative I’ve said about you…
When I find accurate, original and creative I shall address those, until then, Low T, I shall fight the fight on a level playing field. Brain dead against brain dead, not an easy task for me but I only go to a knife fight with a knife. Until you, Mr. Phelps, can identify how abortion even REMOTELY fits into this argument then that is a null/void distraction provided by you to make yourself feel somewhat like a man. So in addition to that tube of vaseline for the gov. officials to ease their cavity searches on you a tube of Andro Gel might assist you once again becoming some semblance of a man. Goodbye, my brain can longer remain in this puerile state that it takes to discuss anything with you. Hope your set grows back soon. Your folks in Kansas are waiting for your appearance at the next funeral they decide to picket.
Ms. Lazenby-You need to mention that Sen. Graham is facing an election challenge by Tea party candidates. He’s out Tea Partying the Tea Party.
Ms. Lazenby-You need to mention that Sen. Graham is facing an election challenge by Tea party candidates. He’s out Tea Partying the Tea Party.
If they don’t want to use any of his statements in the prosecution, they don’t need to ever read him his Miranda rights.
If they don’t want to use any of his statements in the prosecution, they don’t need to ever read him his Miranda rights.
And not a fuck was given.
Do you cut your hair like that on purpose or did you lose a bet?
And not a fuck was given.
Do you cut your hair like that on purpose or did you lose a bet?
There are few out there who trust the federal government less than I, BUT…Quarles watered down Miranda. Thank the Supreme Court for that. And no ruling has solidified it since with regard to the (over)breadth of the public safety exception. An argument can certainly be made for both sides.
Don’t forget, Miranda itself is only read into the Constitution, not part of it. It wasn’t until Dickerson in 2000 that the Court solidified the Constitutional status of Miranda, but the fact remains that nothing in the document expressly requires interrogators to read detainees any rights before securing admissible confessions. Liberal interpretations aside.
Further, I doubt these government thugs care too much about admissibility at this point. The information received is more valuable than the case/conviction…assuming this whole thing is “as it seems” and the Feds are even trying to interrogate him (like…if they didn’t already know everything days/weeks/months/years ago).
These two articles posted today back up your last statement.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312331/Was-Boston-bomber-inspired-Doku-Umarov-FBI-tracked-brothers-years-told-links-Chechen-terrorists.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312378/Its-disturbing-hes-FBI-radar-screen-Congressman-questions-officials-lost-track-suspected-Boston-bomber-Tamerlan-Tsarnaev-Russia-warned-extremist-ties.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/us/legal-questions-riddle-boston-marathon-case.html?hp&pagewanted=all
—- got it, thanks. If this guy lives to go to trial I’m interested in seeing what precedent will be set. If he dies then the justice system is off the hook(s) until another day.
Not sure why my comment above was deleted, but it was a link to the NYT article posted by “Guest.” Honestly, the decision to try him as an enemy combatant – if that’s what they do – is more important than the Miranda decision, and a scarier precedent to set, because it denies all of his rights as an American. Like the NYT article said, we have not seen any evidence that he is tied to AQ, the stated enemy that we are currently at war with.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/295139-aclu-calls-for-miranda-rights-for-boston-bombing-suspect
“Every criminal defendant is entitled to be read Miranda rights,” Romero (Executive Director of ACLU) said in a statement. “The public safety exception should be read narrowly. It applies only when there is a continued threat to public safety and is not an open-ended exception to the Miranda rule.”
“Every criminal defendant has a right to be brought before a judge
and to have access to counsel. We must not waver from our tried-and-true
justice system, even in the most difficult of times,” Romero said.
“Denial of rights is un-American and will only make it harder to obtain fair convictions.”
From a NYT article on the legal issues involved in not Mirandizing: “Civil libertarians have objected to the more aggressive interpretation (by the DoJ) of the exception to the Miranda rule, which protects the Constitutional right against involuntary self-incrimination. Anthony D. Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said that it would be acceptable to withhold Miranda before asking whether there were any more bombs hidden in Boston, but that once the F.B.I. went into broader questioning, it must not “cut corners.”
— one more
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312378/Its-disturbing-hes-FBI-radar-screen-Congressman-questions-officials-lost-track-suspected-Boston-bomber-Tamerlan-Tsarnaev-Russia-warned-extremist-ties.html
There are few out there who trust the federal government less than I, BUT…Quarles watered down Miranda. Thank the Supreme Court for that. And no ruling has solidified it since with regard to the (over)breadth of the public safety exception. An argument can certainly be made for both sides.
Don’t forget, Miranda itself is only read into the Constitution, not part of it. It wasn’t until Dickerson in 2000 that the Court solidified the Constitutional status of Miranda, but the fact remains that nothing in the document expressly requires interrogators to read detainees any rights before securing admissible confessions. Liberal interpretations aside.
Further, I doubt these government thugs care too much about admissibility at this point. The information received is more valuable than the case/conviction…assuming this whole thing is “as it seems” and the Feds are even trying to interrogate him (like…if they didn’t already know everything days/weeks/months/years ago).
These two articles posted today back up your last statement.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312331/Was-Boston-bomber-inspired-Doku-Umarov-FBI-tracked-brothers-years-told-links-Chechen-terrorists.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312378/Its-disturbing-hes-FBI-radar-screen-Congressman-questions-officials-lost-track-suspected-Boston-bomber-Tamerlan-Tsarnaev-Russia-warned-extremist-ties.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/us/legal-questions-riddle-boston-marathon-case.html?hp&pagewanted=all
—- got it, thanks. If this guy lives to go to trial I’m interested in seeing what precedent will be set. If he dies then the justice system is off the hook(s) until another day. The pressure in their heads must be intense right now. None of them want to be perceived as stupid, uncaring, or weak. Could be a close call for them.
Not sure why my comment above was deleted, but it was a link to the NYT article posted by “Guest.” Honestly, the decision to try him as an enemy combatant – if that’s what they do – is more important than the Miranda decision, and a scarier precedent to set, because it denies all of his rights as an American. Like the NYT article said, we have not seen any evidence that he is tied to AQ, the stated enemy that we are currently at war with.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/295139-aclu-calls-for-miranda-rights-for-boston-bombing-suspect
“Every criminal defendant is entitled to be read Miranda rights,” Romero (Executive Director of ACLU) said in a statement. “The public safety exception should be read narrowly. It applies only when there is a continued threat to public safety and is not an open-ended exception to the Miranda rule.”
“Every criminal defendant has a right to be brought before a judge
and to have access to counsel. We must not waver from our tried-and-true
justice system, even in the most difficult of times,” Romero said.
“Denial of rights is un-American and will only make it harder to obtain fair convictions.”
From a NYT article on the legal issues involved in not Mirandizing: “Civil libertarians have objected to the more aggressive interpretation (by the DoJ) of the exception to the Miranda rule, which protects the Constitutional right against involuntary self-incrimination. Anthony D. Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said that it would be acceptable to withhold Miranda before asking whether there were any more bombs hidden in Boston, but that once the F.B.I. went into broader questioning, it must not “cut corners.”
— one more
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312378/Its-disturbing-hes-FBI-radar-screen-Congressman-questions-officials-lost-track-suspected-Boston-bomber-Tamerlan-Tsarnaev-Russia-warned-extremist-ties.html
The President claims the AUMF gives him power to kill American citizens WITHOUT…
* Charge
* Trial
* Evidence the target threatens the U.S.
‘The process of deciding who gets killed is top-secret. Even Congress doesn’t know the details.
2001’s “Authorization for the Use of Military Force” (AUMF) “justifies” this evil power.
Of course, you Leftwing Radicals are A- OK with your abortionists killing Babies…just don’t target Jihad…
You are DISGUSTING….A Disgrace to MY country…
The President claims the AUMF gives him power to kill American citizens WITHOUT…
* Charge
* Trial
* Evidence the target threatens the U.S.
‘The process of deciding who gets killed is top-secret. Even Congress doesn’t know the details.
2001’s “Authorization for the Use of Military Force” (AUMF) “justifies” this evil power.
Of course, you Leftwing Radicals are A- OK with your abortionists killing Babies…just don’t target Jihad…
You are DISGUSTING….A Disgrace to MY country…
Shame on you, LEZENY.
You are SILENT amid the BUTCHERING of Helpless Infants at the hands of your party’s Abortionist…but you Spring to the defense of child-killing Jihadists…
The abortionist (who you support) was outed for butchering babies. WHERE WERE YOU????… He threw one in the toilet and then killed it, as it the baby tried to get out. He cut the throats of breathing babies. He was soiled in baby’s blood, w/ all around him saturated…
NOT A WORD from Lezenby, the media, or the leftwing politicians…yet you use your forum to shill for a Child-Killing Terrorist…
I PRAY you are not a mother. You are the equal of those in Germany who laughed and partied as Hitler slaughtered innocent Jews…
Shame…SHAME on You….and I am VERY sincere…
Ah, Godwin’s Law. Never takes long for T to bring up Hitler, regardless of the discussion. Also, who is LEZENY, and who is talking about abortion other than T?
At least you and Lazenby are consistent:
You support the baby-killing Abortionist, who drowned babies in the toilet…and you are pro-Jihadist Child-killer…Nice party…
Shame on you, LEZENY.
You are SILENT amid the BUTCHERING of Helpless Infants at the hands of your party’s Abortionist…but you Spring to the defense of child-killing Jihadists…
The abortionist (who you support) was outed for butchering babies. WHERE WERE YOU????… He threw one in the toilet and then killed it, as it the baby tried to get out. He cut the throats of breathing babies. He was soiled in baby’s blood, w/ all around him saturated…
NOT A WORD from Lezenby, the media, or the leftwing politicians…yet you use your forum to shill for a Child-Killing Terrorist…
I PRAY you are not a mother. You are the equal of those in Germany who laughed and partied as Hitler slaughtered innocent Jews…
Shame…SHAME on You….and I am VERY sincere…
Ah, Godwin’s Law. Never takes long for T to bring up Hitler, regardless of the discussion. Also, who is LEZENY, and who is talking about abortion other than T?
At least you and Lazenby are consistent:
You support the baby-killing Abortionist, who drowned babies in the toilet…and you are pro-Jihadist Child-killer…Nice party…
Good God, the over-wrought hand-wringing about the Quarles thing is about to wear people who know what they’re talking about slap out. Quarles case law exists in exactly the same framework and universe as the oft-misunderstood Miranda case law. Both are Fifth Amendment decisions from SCOTUS, not heavenly proclamations from the mouth of Thomas Jefferson. Quarles simply acknowledges that it is not too bright for law enforcement to ruin their chance at locating and mitigating a potentially dangerous situation.
SCOTUS provides a very detailed framework that defines when LE may apply the standard, and contrary to what many of the screaming whackos on the cable box have said in past days the use of the Quarles Public Safety Exception in no way impacts the voluntariness standard that dates back to Miranda. In other words (for those of you reading this on your free gov’t cell phone in line at Wal-Mart), Quarles doesn’t allow for any kind of duress, torture, etc. It simply means that if there’s reasonable chance that a suspect may, I don’t know, have a bomb set up somewhere that could maim and kill a few more innocent mommies and eight year olds, the cops probably ought to work that angle quick-like before they work on the rest of the case.
One last tidbit for consideration- the use of the Quarles exception, like any other Constitutional issue, may be appealed and decided based upon facts specific to that case, so even if LE screws it up there is still protection. There is no “complete lack of a check on police and prosecutorial power” as stated in this piece. That’s just silly overreaction. Quarles is the law of the land, promulgated in exactly the same manner as the Miranda case law that confuses so many folks. By the way, the original Quarles criminal case occurred on 9/11…1980. This stuff isn’t even new.
The DoJ memo referenced above extends the scope of Quarles, and SCOTUS hasn’t taken that up yet. That appears to be the point – the contents of the DoJ memo, not reviewed by SCOTUS. The ACLU and other civil liberties lawyers are all over it, but they must be mistaken since “Mike at the Beach” thinks it’s not a problem.
And the the interagency High Value Detainee Interrogation Group, which includes
investigators from the FBI and CIA who specialize in collecting
intelligence from terrorism suspects, will be used to question Tsarnaev, federal officials have said. So, yeah, nothing to see here. Keep looking away.
You’re right, that is her point, and it’s based upon faulty interpretation of the law. You seem to hold DOJ attorneys in high regard, but I can assure I am in fact smarter than many of the ones I’ve met and worked with through the years. Of course, that’s a low bar / tallest-midget-in-the-circus statement for
sure. The “Justice Department widened the exception to Miranda beyond the Supreme Court’s 1984 ruling” part of this story just didn’t happen.
It’s nuanced, which makes it exceedingly hard to discuss here, but the
DOJ can’t “widen” any exception or rule defined by SCOTUS. It simply cannot be done; there is no law, ruling, or mechanism by which they can accomplish that. What the DOJ did was interpret the ruling- a difference which may seem semantic to you but in the legal world (i.e., the real world) it’s a huge and important distinction. If the courts disagree with your highly-esteemed gov’t attorneys’ actions, guess who wins that argument? Maybe you’ve had a different experience, but I’ve never seen a DOJ memo introduced as precedent during trial arguments.
Even the second part of the memo referenced in the article (which advised that in certain exceptional cases “the government’s interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation”) doesn’t warrant the black-helicopter fear and loathing that it has engendered. What do you think the “disadvantages” of continuing questioning sans Miranda warnings are? They are the SCOTUS-defined sanctions
applicable to all such cases- the most obvious of which is the suppression of
the statements obtained in regard to their use against the person making
them. There are cases in which there is a mission larger than convicting the suspect with whom you’re dealing. If that’s the case (as the DOJ memo states), then LE agents should protect the public first, then worry about making their case. LE should never let additional victims be killed simply to bolster their case against a particular suspect.
So, for many reasons there is in fact “nothing to see here.” Surely the more important debate is the “enemy combatant” piece, but many people seem to be getting hung up on the Quarles thing (and the infamous DOJ memo) instead. The most ironic part of this story is how irrelevant the Quarles / DOJ memo will likely turn out to be: it would appear to most knowledgeable observers that the US doesn’t need a confession from Tsarnaev anyway. There is a ton of video (circumstantial) evidence, he confessed to the carjack victim (who would play much better on the stand than a gov’t interrogator anyway), and the searches of the Tsarnaev brothers’ electronic and digital footprints that are surely now taking place will no doubt turn up even more damning evidence. So, SCOTUS says that agents can ask the Tsarnaev dirtbag about other potential devices he and his martyred brother may have in place to maim and / or kill additional innocent victims. Your fear that the HIG may successfully interrogate Tsarnaev seems misplaced. Tsarnaev is, in fact, a terror suspect, and he likely has valuable intelligence which could, in the very short-term, save lives. If SCOTUS says it’s okay, guess what? It’s okay.
From the NYT editorial board yesterday:
“There is a public safety exception to the Miranda requirement, allowing investigators to question suspects about imminent threats, like bombs or specific terror conspiracies, before the warning is given and then use that information in court.
In 2010, unfortunately, the administration improperly told agents that
they could expand that exception for terror suspects even when threats
were not imminent.” (This was in the case of Faisal Shahzad, the suspect in the Times Square bombing attempt).
That expansion has yet to be tested by the Supreme Court and could be used again here. That is the problem. They’ve done it before, and they can do it again unless SCOTUS rules on it.
Dude, seriously?! You get your Constitutional law advice from the editorial board of the NYT??? Wow. I think our debate here is done.
We’ve already discussed the “expansion” to which your brainiac friends at the Grey Lady refer, and it’s not an expansion at all; it is merely an opinion that some cases will call for action outside of Miranda. The DOJ, in that same memo (same sentence, actually) freely admits that there may be negative consequences, which we also discussed. They simply acknowledge that sometimes public safety is worthy of the negative consequences. Not a single court-sanctioned check has been avoided by this memo, and the courts could expand or restrict Quarles at any time if a single defendant appeals any relevant case (and have done so!).
The NYT reference to the Shahzad case is interesting for political purposes, but (again) not legally relevant. He could have moved to suppress his pre-advisement incriminating remarks, but didn’t do so. You should, if you want at look at some relevant case law, take a peek at US v Khalil. Khalil did make the motion, and the court gave him a big fat “Nope.” You may also find enlightening the HuffPo article on Quarles exceptions written by Colleen Rowley three years ago. If you take legal advice from the gang at NYT, you should also lend credence to the folks at HuffPo, right?
I am out of ways to explain it, so let’s just agree to disagree. DOJ announced their charges today, so at least the “enemy combatant” thing is dead for now…
Good God, the over-wrought hand-wringing about the Quarles thing is about to wear people who know what they’re talking about slap out. Quarles case law exists in exactly the same framework and universe as the oft-misunderstood Miranda case law. Both are Fifth Amendment decisions from SCOTUS, not heavenly proclamations from the mouth of Thomas Jefferson. Quarles simply acknowledges that it is not too bright for law enforcement to ruin their chance at locating and mitigating a potentially dangerous situation.
SCOTUS provides a very detailed framework that defines when LE may apply the standard, and contrary to what many of the screaming whackos on the cable box have said in past days the use of the Quarles Public Safety Exception in no way impacts the voluntariness standard that dates back to Miranda. In other words (for those of you reading this on your free gov’t cell phone in line at Wal-Mart), Quarles doesn’t allow for any kind of duress, torture, etc. It simply means that if there’s reasonable chance that a suspect may, I don’t know, have a bomb set up somewhere that could maim and kill a few more innocent mommies and eight year olds, the cops probably ought to work that angle quick-like before they work on the rest of the case.
One last tidbit for consideration- the use of the Quarles exception, like any other Constitutional issue, may be appealed and decided based upon facts specific to that case, so even if LE screws it up there is still protection. There is no “complete lack of a check on police and prosecutorial power” as stated in this piece. That’s just silly overreaction. Quarles is the law of the land, promulgated in exactly the same manner as the Miranda case law that confuses so many folks. By the way, the original Quarles criminal case occurred on 9/11…1980. This stuff isn’t even new.
Good God, the over-wrought hand-wringing about the Quarles thing is about to wear people who know what they’re talking about slap out. Quarles case law exists in exactly the same framework and universe as the oft-misunderstood Miranda case law. Both are Fifth Amendment decisions from SCOTUS, not heavenly proclamations from the mouth of Thomas Jefferson. Quarles simply acknowledges that it is not too bright for law enforcement to ruin their chance at locating and mitigating a potentially dangerous situation.
SCOTUS provides a very detailed framework that defines when LE may apply the standard, and contrary to what many of the screaming whackos on the cable box have said in past days the use of the Quarles Public Safety Exception in no way impacts the voluntariness standard that dates back to Miranda. In other words (for those of you reading this on your free gov’t cell phone in line at Wal-Mart), Quarles doesn’t allow for any kind of duress, torture, etc. It simply means that if there’s reasonable chance that a suspect may, I don’t know, have a bomb set up somewhere that could maim and kill a few more innocent mommies and eight year olds, the cops probably ought to work that angle quick-like before they work on the rest of the case.
One last tidbit for consideration- the use of the Quarles exception, like any other Constitutional issue, may be appealed and decided based upon facts specific to that case, so even if LE screws it up there is still protection. There is no “complete lack of a check on police and prosecutorial power” as stated in this piece. That’s just silly overreaction. Quarles is the law of the land, promulgated in exactly the same manner as the Miranda case law that confuses so many folks. By the way, the original Quarles criminal case occurred on 9/11…1980. This stuff isn’t even new.
The DoJ memo referenced above extends the scope of Quarles, and SCOTUS hasn’t taken that up yet. That appears to be the point – the contents of the DoJ memo, not reviewed by SCOTUS. The ACLU and other civil liberties lawyers are all over it, but they must be mistaken since “Mike at the Beach” thinks it’s not a problem.
And the the interagency High Value Detainee Interrogation Group, which includes
investigators from the FBI and CIA who specialize in collecting
intelligence from terrorism suspects, will be used to question Tsarnaev, federal officials have said. So, yeah, nothing to see here. Keep looking away.
You’re right, that is her point, and it’s based upon faulty interpretation of the law. You seem to hold DOJ attorneys in high regard, but I can assure I am in fact smarter than many of the ones I’ve met and worked with through the years. Of course, that’s a low bar / tallest-midget-in-the-circus statement for
sure. The “Justice Department widened the exception to Miranda beyond the Supreme Court’s 1984 ruling” part of this story just didn’t happen.
It’s nuanced, which makes it exceedingly hard to discuss here, but the
DOJ can’t “widen” any exception or rule defined by SCOTUS. It simply cannot be done; there is no law, ruling, or mechanism by which they can accomplish that. What the DOJ did was interpret the ruling- a difference which may seem semantic to you but in the legal world (i.e., the real world) it’s a huge and important distinction. If the courts disagree with your highly-esteemed gov’t attorneys’ actions, guess who wins that argument? Maybe you’ve had a different experience, but I’ve never seen a DOJ memo introduced as precedent during trial arguments.
Even the second part of the memo referenced in the article (which advised that in certain exceptional cases “the government’s interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation”) doesn’t warrant the black-helicopter fear and loathing that it has engendered. What do you think the “disadvantages” of continuing questioning sans Miranda warnings are? They are the SCOTUS-defined sanctions
applicable to all such cases- the most obvious of which is the suppression of
the statements obtained in regard to their use against the person making
them. There are cases in which there is a mission larger than convicting the suspect with whom you’re dealing. If that’s the case (as the DOJ memo states), then LE agents should protect the public first, then worry about making their case. LE should never let additional victims be killed simply to bolster their case against a particular suspect.
So, for many reasons there is in fact “nothing to see here.” Surely the more important debate is the “enemy combatant” piece, but many people seem to be getting hung up on the Quarles thing (and the infamous DOJ memo) instead. The most ironic part of this story is how irrelevant the Quarles / DOJ memo will likely turn out to be: it would appear to most knowledgeable observers that the US doesn’t need a confession from Tsarnaev anyway. There is a ton of video (circumstantial) evidence, he confessed to the carjack victim (who would play much better on the stand than a gov’t interrogator anyway), and the searches of the Tsarnaev brothers’ electronic and digital footprints that are surely now taking place will no doubt turn up even more damning evidence. So, SCOTUS says that agents can ask the Tsarnaev dirtbag about other potential devices he and his martyred brother may have in place to maim and / or kill additional innocent victims. Your fear that the HIG may successfully interrogate Tsarnaev seems misplaced. Tsarnaev is, in fact, a terror suspect, and he likely has valuable intelligence which could, in the very short-term, save lives. If SCOTUS says it’s okay, guess what? It’s okay.
From the NYT editorial board yesterday:
“There is a public safety exception to the Miranda requirement, allowing investigators to question suspects about imminent threats, like bombs or specific terror conspiracies, before the warning is given and then use that information in court.
In 2010, unfortunately, the administration improperly told agents that
they could expand that exception for terror suspects even when threats
were not imminent.” (This was in the case of Faisal Shahzad, the suspect in the Times Square bombing attempt).
That expansion has yet to be tested by the Supreme Court and could be used again here. That is the problem. They’ve expanded the public safety exemption unchecked before, and they can do it again unless SCOTUS rules on it.
Dude, seriously?! You get your Constitutional law advice from the editorial board of the NYT??? Wow. I think our debate here is done.
We’ve already discussed the “expansion” to which your brainiac friends at the Grey Lady refer, and it’s not an expansion at all; it is merely an opinion that some cases will call for action outside of Miranda. The DOJ, in that same memo (same sentence, actually) freely admits that there may be negative consequences, which we also discussed. They simply acknowledge that sometimes public safety is worthy of the negative consequences. Not a single court-sanctioned check has been avoided by this memo, and the courts could expand or restrict Quarles at any time if a single defendant appeals any relevant case (and have done so!).
The NYT reference to the Shahzad case is interesting for political purposes, but (again) not legally relevant. He could have moved to suppress his pre-advisement incriminating remarks, but didn’t do so. You should, if you want at look at some relevant case law, take a peek at US v Khalil. Khalil did make the motion, and the court gave him a big fat “Nope.” You may also find enlightening the HuffPo article on Quarles exceptions written by Colleen Rowley three years ago. If you take legal advice from the gang at NYT, you should also lend credence to the folks at HuffPo, right?
I am out of ways to explain it, so let’s just agree to disagree. DOJ announced their charges today, so at least the “enemy combatant” thing is dead for now…