Why is it a worry to me that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will not be read his rights?

[machievelli]

I just learned that the surviving 'Boston Bomber', Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, will be questioned without being read his rights under the Miranda decision of 1966. This bothers me. If you want to understand why, read on.

 

Anyone my age or a little older remembers an old TV show named Adam 12. During just about every episode, one of the officers would pull out a card, and read the following:

 

You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used as evidence against you in a court of law.

 

You have the right to attorney before questioning. If you do so, and cannot afford one, an attorney will be appointed for you free of charge.

 

Then they ask if you understand this, if you give up the right to silence, and then if you give up the right to an attorney.

 

What this litany is, is a repition of your rights under the fifth and sixth amendments to keep the government from using other means to convict you of a crime. The Miranda decision was passed because back in 1966, a man was convicted using testimony without being informed. Oddly enough after the fact, before that decision was passed, cops did not have to inform you at all.

 

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

 

There has been an exception created in the Miranda warning, thanks to a rape case in 1984. The victim had claimed that her assailant had a gun. When he was later captured in a grocery store, the officer searching him found an empty shoulder holster. He asked (Before reading his rights) where the gun was, and the man being arrested motioned toward where he had ditched it. The trial was challenged because the officer asked first, yet the challenge was denied 'in the interests of public safety'.

 

In the last decade or so, it has been used several times, almost always in terrorism cases.

 

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

 

But if your thought is 'good', remember this:

 

First, remember that Tsarnaev is in a hospital after being injured in his arrest. There is no 'legal' reason not to question him while he lays there doped to the eyeballs on pain killers.

 

Second, while he is in this condition, he has to remember that he even has these rights to invoke them. Back when I was 24 I had a blinding toothache, and a friend gave me a pain pill that had me flying so high I didn't even know what planet I was on. Since then I have found I have a high pain threshold, but a very low one for drugs used for pain. These days if I get a toothache I just pop a couple of Aspirin, and I'm good. Anything stronger, and I am pretty much useless until it wears off.

 

So picture this kid flying between the stars, being asked questions that will later come up as evidence.

 

Third, he's from Chechnya. He's only been in this country for ten years. If you have been watching TV during that time, you might have seen a Miranda scene, but it is not likely that you have heard a lot about it. So he might not even know he even has rights. Most countries (Including his homeland) don't observe them.

 

Finally, who decides when this 'public safety' exemption is used? Answer, the Justice department and the Attorney General. I.E., your prosecutor and the cops.

 

The record is alarming for two reasons. First, while the Feds claimed to get valuable information from the cases where it has been used, DOJ has not bothered to get permission in the terrorist cases where it has been invoked before. They have just assumed they had that ability.

 

Worse yet, after the fact there have been protests, but in those cases the protests were not about the prisoner's rights... They were protests that Miranda was used at all!

 

So we have the government deciding when they can invoke this exemption. Not a pretty thought when you consider that if they use it in terrorist cases, what stop them from nailing some drug mule carrying into the country and question him to arrest the traffickers.

[Darth_Calo]

First, let me say that I read your entire post.

 

Second, I get your concerns. I do. But when they found him he was bleeding out badly and was too weak to resist. If they had read him his rights, he'd either be so weak he might not get it; unfamiliar with the process as a non-native to the country; or doped out of his mind and unable to answer. If they read him his rights it will be after he is back down from his drug-induced state (this assumes that he will not simply expire from his wounds in the hospital, which is what I personally hope happens. Yes that would mean they'd get no information from him, but honestly I doubt he'll give anything up anyway when he's a professional killer at age 19)

 

In this case, also, the public safety exception clearly should apply. The guy was (is) a psychotic bomber, who carried out a plot to kill and maim as many people as he possibly could. He and his dirt bag, now deceased brother only managed to kill four people - including an eight year old boy - but they clearly planned to kill many more based on the suicide vest his corpse of a brother was wearing and the pipe bombs and the like they were hurling at the pursuing officers.

 

As to your drug mule example: This one I disagree with. The Police usually use the drug mules to get to the traffickers. They usually give them some sort of deal, since in some cases they become drug mules simply because they feel they have no options.

[machievelli]

First, let me say that I read your entire post.

Thank you. I tend to repeat myself ad nauseum because people fail to read it all, merely give me a knee-jerk reply to one point.

 

Second, I get your concerns. I do. But when they found him he was bleeding out badly and was too weak to resist. If they had read him his rights, he'd either be so weak he might not get it; unfamiliar with the process as a non-native to the country; or doped out of his mind and unable to answer. If they read him his rights it will be after he is back down from his drug-induced state (this assumes that he will not simply expire from his wounds in the hospital, which is what I personally hope happens. Yes that would mean they'd get no information from him, but honestly I doubt he'll give anything up anyway when he's a professional killer at age 19)

I was not referring to him laying there injured and maybe drifitng in and out. I as referring to what will be done if and when he begins to recover. As for waiting until he recovers sufficiently without using that same drugged stupor as an additional way to get information, if you believe they will wait, then you have more trust than I have. If this were a regular case, a man shot up during a robbery say, they would wait, because too many people would be looking over their shoulders when the questioning began. But by invoking the exemption, that will not happen. Everything that is not later used in court will be sealed under Homeland Security cover. So the specifics of that interrogation will never see the light of public disclosure, at least not in our lifetimes.

 

As much as people complain about the treatment of the prisoners held at Guantanamo, we have used the exemption to reduce this man to an illegal combatant, just as those men in Cuba are. The rules about what is allowed in a POW interrogation are relaxed from a standard Police interrogation of a suspect. The treatment of an illegal combatant is undefined under international law because you can merely execute them upon capture if you wish. Using his testimony under a drug stupor would be perfectly legal.

 

In this case, also, the public safety exception clearly should apply. The guy was (is) a psychotic bomber, who carried out a plot to kill and maim as many people as he possibly could. He and his dirt bag, now deceased brother only managed to kill four people - including an eight year old boy - but they clearly planned to kill many more based on the suicide vest his corpse of a brother was wearing and the pipe bombs and the like they were hurling at the pursuing officers.

A given, true, though calling them professionals assumes training, and since he left his homeland at 9, I don't see that happening. What you fail to realize, is that the exemption has been used three times since it's inception, in each case the people it has been used on are all foreign nationals who proably do not even know the Miranda rights exist. It was not attempted in McVey's case after Oklahoma city for example, though the possiblity of catching anyone who helped him would have been a good reason to try it. But McVey as an American would have known about Miranda.

 

Before you point out that as an American McVey would have lawyered up, there is a little known fact about the 5th Amendment you might not know about. Once invoked, you have to say nothing. Oh if they offer you something, coffee, a smoke, you can answer that question. But if they ask anything connected to the case, you must merely repeat the litany 'I stand on my fifth amendment rights'. If you answer any questions, the law assumes you have waived your rights. As for a lawyer, do you honestly think the police can't 'forget' to call one until they make a slip?

 

Also, in the cases I mentioned above, the FBI claims to have gotten information from those interrogated, but think of it this way; let's go back to the start of the operations in Iraq, (I will not use that insulting code name), using the same rules the DOJ did use, and will use in this case. No imbedded reporters, they are going in using the rules we had during the first part of the Second World War, we tell you what's happening, and if you want to know the truth, read the history books in three decades time.

 

They find nothing, but is the Bush White House going to admit it? He lost a lot of credibility when all they found was some more advanced missile parts, but beyond that, no chemicals, no bioweapons, no nukes. So much credibility in fact that Collin Powell, (who was lied to) resigned rather than continue as Secretary of State.

 

Before you think I am being paranoid, during WWII, the US delivered mustard gas to the port of Bari in Occupied Italy for use against the Germans. The ship carrying it was sunk in a bombing raid, and the US government covered it up. http://rense.com/general83/gas.htm . It wasn't until 1984, over 40 years after the fact that documents finally came to light that the incident had occurred. Almost a hundred American sailors died, and almost 300 more were injured by the chemicals along with an untold number of Italian civilians, some of the survivors having health problems for years and were never even told they were exposed. In fact before then there was a mere dry recitation in history that a bombing raid had occurred 2 December 1943, and a listing of ships sunk.

 

Unless he dies before leaving the hospital, do you think for a second they will admit they got nothing? All we, got from DOJ in those other cases was 'we got information'. As to what might have been learned, those interrogations are still sealed. If they got anything, anyone arrested would have been dealt with the same way, except since they were arrested using that testimony, they will never see the light of day

 

As to your drug mule example: This one I disagree with. The Police usually use the drug mules to get to the traffickers. They usually give them some sort of deal, since in some cases they become drug mules simply because they feel they have no options.

 

All right, that example I will admit was a bit far fetched. But if McVey above had been arrested without all of the Media hoopla, do you think for a minute they wouldn't have just made him disappear?

 

The rights of everyone are based on how we treat prisoners, including those who were not born here.

[Darth_Calo]

Per Fox News, he has actually been read his Miranda Rights. There are two schools of thought here:

 

(1) Good (or bad) - the "yes I believe it" school

(2) well, it's Fox News... (the "I'll buy it when I see it" school)

[machievelli]

Per Fox News, he has actually been read his Miranda Rights. There are two schools of thought here:

 

(1) Good (or bad) - the "yes I believe it" school

(2) well, it's Fox News... (the "I'll buy it when I see it" school)

 

Actually my favorite nickname for any modern news is the throwaway line from a recent VW commercial.

Lame-stream media. Frankly too many of our media organs are owned by proponents of one political party or another. If CNN claimed water was wet, Fox would bring out a blue ribbon panel that swore it was bone dry.

 

If you have ever read it, there was a book by Jerry Pournelle about Falkenberg's Legion that called our modern day opposing parties the 'Unity' party, because they just trade who is in charge every four years or so.

 

I make a habit of comparing the news from out local sources, and some select foreign one to get a better feel for the events.

[Darth_Calo]

Interesting. If it makes you feel better, FOX News came out with it yesterday (4/22) and CNN later agreed that he'd been Mirandized. He also physically is unable to speak due to a bullet wound in hit throat. Both of which change things. I think they used the public safety exception to gain information about any immediate threats (i.e. more unexploded bombs) and are mirandizing him for when they take him to trial. Just my feeling. Could be more off than Gary Busey.

[machievelli]

Remember the 'relaxed rules of interrogation' I mentioned above? They won't work if the person has to be coherent enough to write a response.

[Darth_Calo]

True. And as someone living in the Greater-Boston area, I want to be absolutely sure there are no other undetonated bombs like the ones these "humans" (used loosely) decided to plant at the finish line of the Boston Marathon. They had more with them; the APB that was out on them on Thursday night/ Friday morning suggested they were headed for NYC.

 

They were planning more attacks. If they use the public safety exemption to get info about their immediate plans, motivations etc, I am all for that. I endorse it. Especially, as I said, as a resident of The Greater-Boston area. Afterwards, Mirandize him and bring the heavy in terms of prosecution.

 

Simply put: make him pay but do it legally.

[machievelli]

True. And as someone living in the Greater-Boston area, I want to be absolutely sure there are no other undetonated bombs like the ones these "humans" (used loosely) decided to plant at the finish line of the Boston Marathon. They had more with them; the APB that was out on them on Thursday night/ Friday morning suggested they were headed for NYC.

 

They were planning more attacks. If they use the public safety exemption to get info about their immediate plans, motivations etc, I am all for that. I endorse it. Especially, as I said, as a resident of The Greater-Boston area. Afterwards, Mirandize him and bring the heavy in terms of prosecution.

 

Simply put: make him pay but do it legally.

 

The most hysterical comment I have heard from authorities, is someone trying to define the bombs they did place as a 'weapon of mass destruction' so they can ask for the death penalty.

[Tommycat]

I was speaking with a police officer friend, and he pointed out that you don't have to mirandize the suspects for any conviction to stick. You just cannot use any statements they make without first informing him of his rights. So, if he has not been informed of his rights, and blurts out "Yeah I did it. And I'd have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for those pesky kids, and their stupid dog," that statement cannot be used in court to convict him. However information obtained in such a way can be helpful in gaining knowledge of other bombs, or even other terrorists.

 

It is also not uncommon for investigators, and detectives to read the Miranda warning every time the question the subject. They do this in the event that they gain some glimmer of information that proves the subject's guilt. It's also in the event that the arresting officer did not read the Miranda warning. They also do not have to read it verbatim as you have gotten to know it. If the officer says, "Hey bud, just so you know I HAVE to do this. You know legally you don't have to talk to me without a lawyer present, and if you need one, we can go get one for you. They might use anything you say to me in court," you have been informed of your rights, and therefore Mirandized. They actually got at least one conviction because he thought it had to be read to him exactly like in the TV shows. And he admitted he killed her.

 

Now, to the meat of the issue. I agree with you that it's dangerous to suspend rights of US citizens on the basis of "terrorism" not so much for this guy, but for the precedent we could be setting ourselves up for. If they can strip the rights of any American citizen on the ACCUSATION of terrorist ties, we have a HUGE problem. I don't mind if there is a hearing to make that determination based on presented evidence, but before the person has had any chance to defend themselves they lose rights? It smacks of a modern day Witch Hunt.

[machievelli]

Actually the wording of the Miranda decision was that you had to read the card. Saying it verbatim as I did at the start would have originally not been considered valid. But I can see why that would have changed in the last 40 years

[Darth_Calo]

In some cases, though, shouldn't the safety of the public be taken into consideration? For instance, according to some news outlets, Dzhokhar claimed that after the Boston Marathon, he and his brother were going to head to Times Square in New York City, New York to detonate additional explosive devices. After that, who knows? The cops got him off the street and used the exception in the interest of Public safety to ensure that these two weren't funded by some larger terrorirst group. (Which he claims they were not; whether that is to be believed is another issue).

 

My point: sometimes there are extreme circumstances. In those instances, the rights of criminals should at least be suspended in the interest of protecting the lives of the general public. I am not advocating a police state. Far from that. I am advocating the authorities getting people like Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev off the streets and preventing people they may have been associated with from following in their footsteps and finishing what they started.

 

Also worth consideration: Was Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's citizenship valid? When becoming a naturalized citizen of the United States of America, one must take an oath, swearing loyalty to the United States. Detonating the bombs at the marathon with the expressed intent of maiming U.S. Citizens (and foreign nationals visiting to participate/watch) could be seen as an act of treason; it could also be argued (but proven? I am not so sure, admittedly) that when he took the oath, he didn't actually intend to live up to it.

 

The oath:

 

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

[Q]

The Bill of Rights is now officially obsolete, and has been since the Patriot Act.

 

There's your "hope and change" for you, suckers.

[machievelli]

In some cases, though, shouldn't the safety of the public be taken into consideration? For instance, according to some news outlets, Dzhokhar claimed that after the Boston Marathon, he and his brother were going to head to Times Square in New York City, New York to detonate additional explosive devices. After that, who knows? The cops got him off the street and used the exception in the interest of Public safety to ensure that these two weren't funded by some larger terrorirst group. (Which he claims they were not; whether that is to be believed is another issue).

 

My point: sometimes there are extreme circumstances. In those instances, the rights of criminals should at least be suspended in the interest of protecting the lives of the general public. I am not advocating a police state. Far from that. I am advocating the authorities getting people like Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev off the streets and preventing people they may have been associated with from following in their footsteps and finishing what they started.

 

Also worth consideration: Was Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's citizenship valid? When becoming a naturalized citizen of the United States of America, one must take an oath, swearing loyalty to the United States. Detonating the bombs at the marathon with the expressed intent of maiming U.S. Citizens (and foreign nationals visiting to participate/watch) could be seen as an act of treason; it could also be argued (but proven? I am not so sure, admittedly) that when he took the oath, he didn't actually intend to live up to it.

 

The oath:

 

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

 

Whether they are a citizen or not, anyone arrested here is allowed the same rights under Miranda. I am protesting not because they used the exemption, but the DoJ used it without even bothering to get permission to do so. Do you want the police to decide whether they have the right to search your home, rather than having a judge make that determination?

 

As a simpler example, the US started monitoring phone and electronic communications between people here in the US, and to places overseas where terrorists are known to flourish, looking for ties to more terrorist attacks. Everyone complained because the only ones making that determination was the CIA and NCA (I.E. President Shrub) without recourse to either a judge or DoJ. If I were a cop and I put a wiretap on your phone, everything I collected would be inadmissible without a court order allowing me to do it.

 

Before you think of it, the president is not legally allowed to make that determination. It is still something a judge can decide. Even the President is supposed to follow legal procedure. I edited the last line because President Wilson used the Sedition act of 1914, and the Sedition and Espionage Act that followed to have the Post Office open mail enroute to people the government believed were complaining about how Wilson's administration was handling things.

[Darth Avlectus]

@machievelli: Haven't read all you wrote but I do tend to agree something about this entire case stinks. I saw a video shot by a neighbor of the boat owner, where the cops were shooting at him in the boat and he wasn't putting up any resistance. Even saying "be cool man, I'm not armed" but kept firing.

 

The entire "throwing a pressure cooker out the window like a grenade while driving" from MSNBC the next morning, like he was some elite combat badass (actually somewhat reminiscent of Niko Bellic considering his ethnicity) sounds a bit too sensationalized to me. Like a reach out to Grand Theft Auto players or something.

 

If they changed the story initially from Tsarnaev being some moslem extremist who joined Al Qaeda, to now blaming libertarians and alternative news media for him becoming a terrorist (a definite sign of SPLC ass-kissing), then that pretty much says to me there's a whole lot more we're not being told about it.

[machievelli]

The problem with the lame-stream media, as I said, is it is linked to proponents of the present political parties. If you support whoever happens to be in charge, you come down on their side, and if you don't you lambaste them. Look at OEF when Fox was supporting the Shrub on every Jot and tittle, even reporting that chemical weapons had been found when the weapons in question were some traces from old BM21 rocket warheads, and the opponents didn't bother to mention that Hans Blix had reported that over 200,000 liters of precursors was missing, saying 'oh Arabs are inherently honest, so when Saddam said they were destroyed, they were'.

 

I don't know if you've ever read it or seen the movie, but find Helter Skelter in either version, and look at the Defense Lawyer for the Manson Family. He did everything he could to find Manson innocent, including trying to have one of the other men admit that he had been the one who convinced the others to commit the crimes. At one point, Manson flashed a news paper where the headline reads 'Manson Guilty, Nixon Declares'.

 

That caused several days of questioning the jurors, trying to get one or more to admit that the headline might have changed their minds; all to get the Jury removed, meaning the trial would have to be started again. He did the same when Manson leaped up and charged at the judge. When the judge leaped to his feet ready to use his gavel on Manson's head, the lawyer tried to get the judge to recuse himself, which would have had the same effect.

 

I was reminded later of it when I watched an episode of an old sitcom named Chico and the Man when the 'Man' is on a jury, and he recognizes the defendant, whom he had known for years. He begins a one man campaign to change the jury's mind, and since all of the evidence had not yet been put forward, he is dragged off to see the judge. He does the same with her, and finally she judge calls the defendant into her chambers, where she admits that Ed (The Man) had convinced her, and she had to recuse herself and start the trial over.

 

At this point the defendant is stunned. He'd been fighting the case for almost a decade and is innocent of all charges, and he now finally has his day in court, but Ed screwed it up.