PDA

View Full Version : Feds Make Miranda Rights Exception for Marathon Bombing Suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev



Paul Pless
04-20-2013, 07:43 AM
Anticipating that Tsarnaev may be in a condition to be questioned, the president’s High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group has been activated.


The group, set up in 2009, is made up of agents from the FBI, CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. They have been on standby waiting for the moment the suspect was taken in.


According to the FBI, the HIG’s “mission is to gather and apply the nation’s best resources to collect intelligence from key terror suspects in order to prevent terrorist attacks against the United States and its allies.”


Un-*******-believable.!

Paul Pless
04-20-2013, 07:49 AM
I'll be interested in hearing comments from the left who were bashing Lindsey Graham last night.

JTA
04-20-2013, 07:55 AM
I am really struggling with this concept right now. I understand why, but there is potential for massive abuse of this rule. I am sure that if I lived in Boston, or had lost a loved one I would feel differently.

Jack

moTthediesel
04-20-2013, 07:56 AM
As I understand it, Miranda only applies to self incrimination/confession. This case seems likely to be strong enough without any help from statements made by the suspect.

hanleyclifford
04-20-2013, 07:58 AM
Oh great! This should blow any possibilty of getting a conviction upheld.

Paul Pless
04-20-2013, 08:01 AM
I am really struggling with this concept right now. I understand why, but there is potential for massive abuse of this rule.

My problem is that its a new exception written by one man, Eric Holder, based loosely upon evolving opinions of the Bush Administration's legal advisers - not Bush's attorney general - without any court or legislative oversight. The original exception dates to 1984 and was applicable only in the immediate danger to police officers making an arrest.

C. Ross
04-20-2013, 08:01 AM
Wow. A nice view of the tradeoffs from Politico, and Graham in context.


After the Justice Department decided not to immediately read Tsarnaev his Miranda rights, a debate broke out among lawmakers, lawyers and political activists over whether the suspect, Dzhokar Tsarnaev, 19, 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.
“No Miranda warning to be given” now, a Justice official told POLITICO Friday night. “The government will be invoking the public safety exception.”
That may increase the possibility that Tsarnaev will quickly offer up information about whether he and his brother, who was killed in a shootout Thursday night, acted alone in the bombings or whether they were directed, supported or trained by forces abroad.
Beginning several hours before Dzhokhar 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.’”
“The Law of War allows us to hold individual in this scenario as potential enemy combatant w/o Miranda warnings or appointment of counsel,” the senator added later in the evening. “I hope the Obama Administration will seriously consider this option….The goal is to gather intelligence and protect our nation which is under threat from radical Islam.”
“NBC reporting Obama admin will treat terrorist as a ‘criminal’ and not enemy combatant,” former State Department official Liz Cheney wrote on Twitter Friday night. “Will Obama allow him to lawyer up?”
How does the public safety exception work?
The Obama administration appeared to be taking a middle course, holding off on advising Tsarnaev of his rights, but still directing him into the criminal justice system for prosecution.




Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/no-miranda-rights-for-now-for-bombing-suspect-90362.html#ixzz2R0YrpHgh

apparently this was used for the Christmas Shoe Bomber who flew into Detroit a couple of years ago.

Paul Pless
04-20-2013, 08:01 AM
Oh great! This should blow any possibilty of getting a conviction upheld.

I'm not willing to go so far as to say that.

George.
04-20-2013, 08:04 AM
Another successful terrorist attack on American democracy...

Peach
04-20-2013, 08:05 AM
From Wiki:

"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."

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

Mrleft8
04-20-2013, 08:08 AM
Oh the outrage! :rolleyes:
Until you look at the reality, instead of the alarmist Hannityesque blather.

bogdog
04-20-2013, 08:10 AM
"There is a public safety exemption in cases of national security and for acts of terrorism,” U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz told reporters Friday night.



The FBI has a full explainer of the public safety exception, but here’s the takeaway:
"When police officers are confronted by a concern for public safety, Miranda warnings need not be provided prior to asking questions directed at neutralizing an imminent threat, and voluntary statements made in response to such narrowly tailored questions can be admitted at trial. Once the questions turn from those designed to resolve the concern for safety to questions designed solely to elicit incriminating statements, the questioning falls outside the scope of the exception and within the traditional rules of Miranda."

Paul Pless
04-20-2013, 08:10 AM
Oh the outrage! :rolleyes:
Until you look at the reality, instead of the alarmist Hannityesque blather.My outrage is aimed at the Obama apologists and other liberals that piled on to Lindsey Graham last night.

Captain Intrepid
04-20-2013, 08:17 AM
This doesn't sit well with me, but I will with hold judgement until I see what happens. As I understand, he's not being treated as an "enemy combatant", which was what made the aforementioned morally degenerate windbag senator an idiot.

C. Ross
04-20-2013, 08:20 AM
Where you stand depends on where you sit.

I will enjoy hearing the explanations of why Graham is an idiot for proposing withholding Miranda and trying the suspect in a military court while today the Obama administration has withheld Miranda and has not closed the door to a military court.

The positioning should be interesting. Should one say that maybe Graham is perhaps not an idiot? Or will we have a ten page thread teasing out the tiny nuances why it's different when the Justice Department acts on it? Or maybe one should just say Graham is a Republican and Obama is a Democrat and that's all you need to say. QED. Or! YWWAB may make a quick reappearance!

Peach
04-20-2013, 08:21 AM
My outrage is aimed at the Obama apologists and other liberals that piled on to Lindsey Graham last night.

Fine. Be outraged.

But have you taken the time to understand the difference between Graham's position and the use of the Public safety exception (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_safety_exception). to Miranda.

Graham would strip Tsarnaev of his right to due process. The Miranda exception is due process, as defined by SCOTUS in New York v. Quarles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Quarles)

bogdog
04-20-2013, 08:23 AM
The public safety question resulted from a case on Sept. 11th. 1980. Obama and Eric holder had nothing to do with it as far as I know. Not sure what all the brewhah is about.

Flying Orca
04-20-2013, 08:23 AM
Another successful terrorist attack on American democracy...

Yeah - I'm not convinced the best response to criminal terrorism is the dismantling of a relatively functional legal edifice...

ljb5
04-20-2013, 08:23 AM
My problem is that its a new exception written by one man, Eric Holder, based loosely upon evolving opinions of the Bush Administration's legal advisers - not Bush's attorney general - without any court or legislative oversight. The original exception dates to 1984 and was applicable only in the immediate danger to police officers making an arrest.

I think you need to look into that one better. The Quarles case dates to 1980 and the Supreme Court's ruling was based on the safety of the public, not just the arresting officers.

McMike
04-20-2013, 08:24 AM
The Miranda exception, while bothersome, is not what scared the crap outta me over the past few days. It was the total exception given to government agents to do whatever they wanted to get these two men. There didn't seem to be much consideration given to the idea that this is a free state. Everybody gave way and without question, gave in to the occupation.

I watched on the BBC yesterday morning a cabs occupants being searched and their luggage being subjected to a precautionary charge . . . That's right they blew up their sh17!!! This was after they already knew what the suspects looked like. They had been stopping people simply for being out and about during a lock down.

This at-all-cost approach to "terrorists" has to stop, we will all suffer for it sooner or later.

25+ people die due to HANDGUN violence and stupidity everyday and we do nothing about it, yet we allow our rights to be tossed out the window when two scarry men kill a handfull of people with a bomb. Our society is truly stupid.

Mrleft8
04-20-2013, 08:25 AM
My outrage is aimed at the Obama apologists and other liberals that piled on to Lindsey Graham last night.
Why limit it to liberals and apologists?
Why not be outraged that the Govt. shut down thousands of private businesses denying the legal owners of their right to pursue happiness..... Or all those peace loving private citizens who were forced to stay locked in their houses..... "In house arrest" as it were for 20 hours? How about outrage at the trampling of citizens rights as hundreds of storm troopers in battle gear broke into private citizens houses and searched them w/o a warrant? How about outrage at the absurd amount of money spent chasing down one 19 y/o kid?
The people in Tel Aviv, Beruit, Damascus, Lahore, and Mexico city are laughing their asses off. 2 little bombs? 3 people dead? That's a typical day before lunch for some people.

Paul Pless
04-20-2013, 08:26 AM
But have you taken the time to understand the difference between Graham's position and the use of the Public safety exception (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_safety_exception). to Miranda.Yes. You're quite right of course. But haven't the safety perimeters and police lines and travel restriction and curfews in Boston been lifted. So it would seem that the public safety exemption falls down a little bit there.

One area that I am comfortable with is that there can be two parallel investigations. One, a public safety investigation by the HIG group and another criminal investigation where he has been given his rights.

bogdog
04-20-2013, 08:28 AM
25+ people die due to HANDGUN violence and stupidity everyday and we do nothing about it, yet we allow our rights to be tossed out the window when two scarry men kill a handfull of people with a bomb. Our society is truly stupid.That's why we have the Darwin Awards...

Paul Pless
04-20-2013, 08:28 AM
Yeah - I'm not convinced the best response to criminal terrorism is the dismantling of a relatively functional legal edifice...Exactly!

McMike
04-20-2013, 08:29 AM
Why limit it to liberals and apologists?
Why not be outraged that the Govt. shut down thousands of private businesses denying the legal owners of their right to pursue happiness..... Or all those peace loving private citizens who were forced to stay locked in their houses..... "In house arrest" as it were for 20 hours? How about outrage at the trampling of citizens rights as hundreds of storm troopers in battle gear broke into private citizens houses and searched them w/o a warrant? How about outrage at the absurd amount of money spent chasing down one 19 y/o kid?
The people in Tel Aviv, Beruit, Damascus, Lahore, and Mexico city are laughing their asses off. 2 little bombs? 3 people dead? That's a typical day before lunch for some people.

Exactly!! That, what you said!

C. Ross
04-20-2013, 08:29 AM
Or will we have a ten page thread teasing out the tiny nuances why it's different when the Justice Department acts on it?

Bingo.

I expect the theme to include "Graham wasn't speaking about the public safety exception" and "Graham said a lot of other stupid things so it's logical to say that Justice's views are completely different than Graham's". And some other really cool twists. I expect YWWAB by the end of page 1.

bogdog
04-20-2013, 08:30 AM
Yes. You're quite right of course. But haven't the safety perimeters and police lines and travel restriction and curfews in Boston been lifted. So it would seem that the public safety exemption falls down a little bit there.

One area that I am comfortable with is that there can be two parallel investigations. One, a public safety investigation by the HIG group and another criminal investigation where he has been given his rights.

There could be other bombs or bomb making materials and other individuals, noticed that the brother's hats were labelled #2 and #3? Where's #1?

ljb5
04-20-2013, 08:31 AM
Why limit it to liberals and apologists?
Why not be outraged that the Govt. shut down thousands of private businesses denying the legal owners of their right to pursue happiness..... Or all those peace loving private citizens who were forced to stay locked in their houses.....

Can we wrap some facts around those statements and see if they still stand up?

Was anyone actually forced to stay inside, or was that merely a request?

Did "storm troopers" in battle gear actually break into private houses, or did they knock, identify themselves and request admission?

BrianW
04-20-2013, 08:34 AM
The Miranda exception, while bothersome, is not what scared the crap outta me over the past few days. It was the total exception given to government agents to do whatever they wanted to get these two men. There didn't seem to be much consideration given to the idea that this is a free state. Everybody gave way and without question, gave in to the occupation.


Why limit it to liberals and apologists?
Why not be outraged that the Govt. shut down thousands of private businesses denying the legal owners of their right to pursue happiness..... Or all those peace loving private citizens who were forced to stay locked in their houses.....

I'm with both of you 100%. Those are issues which need to be addressed, and quickly. Sounds like pure BS government overreacting to me too.

However, they are different topics than this one. That Paul is addressing the Miranda Right Exception, and not the issue of how the authorities ran roughshod over your State, is not something to berate Paul about. Either wait for him to start a thread on that topic, or do so yourselves.

I'm interested in your experiences.

McMike
04-20-2013, 08:35 AM
That's why we have the Darwin Awards...

We all deserve one because our country is in critical condition because we've allowed the last and this administration to continue the completely un-American policies outlined in the patriot act and other policies designed to "protect" from "terrorists".

Freedoms is not free, we must accept events like 911 and the Boston Marathon happen because we live in a free society. It's the sh177y part of freedom, but as usual Americans want the good without the bad and are to lazy and ignorant to understand what life costs.

Mrleft8
04-20-2013, 08:37 AM
Can we wrap some facts around those statements and see if they still stand up?

Was anyone actually forced to stay inside, or was that merely a request?

Did "storm troopers" in battle gear actually break into private houses, or did they knock, identify themselves and request admission?
If 6 guys wearing cammies pointing an M-4, or 12ga. shotgun at you request that you stay inside, are you going to blythely ignore them and scamper out to your car for your cell phone?

Paul Pless
04-20-2013, 08:38 AM
Bingo.

I expect the theme to include "Graham wasn't speaking about the public safety exception" and "Graham said a lot of other stupid things so it's logical to say that Justice's views are completely different than Graham's". And some other really cool twists. I expect YWWAB by the end of page 1.LOL, how long before we get to Hitler?

Peach
04-20-2013, 08:38 AM
... So it would seem that the public safety exemption falls down a little bit there...

My understanding is the exception is being invoked for the purpose of locating any other explosives that pose an immediate risk to the public.

The Public Safety Exception is not a free pass to question a suspect on any and all subjects.

"Under this exception, to be admissible in the government's direct case at a trial, the questioning must not be "actually compelled by police conduct which overcame his will to resist," and must be focused and limited, involving a situation "in which police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Quarles

Mrleft8
04-20-2013, 08:40 AM
I'm with both of you 100%. Those are issues which need to be addressed, and quickly. Sounds like pure BS government overreacting to me too.

However, they are different topics than this one. That Paul is addressing the Miranda Right Exception, and not the issue of how the authorities ran roughshod over your State, is not something to berate Paul about. Either wait for him to start a thread on that topic, or do so yourselves.

I'm interested in your experiences.

Next state up/over. I know, it's all blue to you guys from the far red, but there is a dialectic difference! ;)

ljb5
04-20-2013, 08:40 AM
I will enjoy hearing the explanations of why Graham is an idiot for proposing withholding Miranda and trying the suspect in a military court while today the Obama administration has withheld Miranda and has not closed the door to a military court.

The positioning should be interesting. Should one say that maybe Graham is perhaps not an idiot? Or will we have a ten page thread teasing out the tiny nuances why it's different when the Justice Department acts on it? Or maybe one should just say Graham is a Republican and Obama is a Democrat and that's all you need to say. QED. Or! YWWAB may make a quick reappearance!

I don't think we need to do ten pages on it, unless you fail to understand it the first time.

Let's hit it quickly:

The Quarles exception is not the same thing as declaring him an enemy combatant
The Quarles exception was not written by Obama, Holder or Bush.
The Quarles exception has been reviewed and upheld by the Supreme Court
This has nothing to do with military tribunals.... in fact, the Quarles exception is very much about making testimony admissible in civilian courts. It would be pointless in a military tribunal.


You want to fight that for 10 pages? Be my guest. Those facts aren't going to change, no matter how fervently you deny them.

C. Ross
04-20-2013, 08:41 AM
LOL, how long before we get to Hitler?

The phrase "storm troopers" has indeed already made an appearance.

The defense will be made that these were gentler, kinder, Boston storm troopers likely to be Democrats raised in a pluralistic, gender-neutral, inclusive and spiritually aware community so all is well. Now, if they were South Carolina storm troopers....

bogdog
04-20-2013, 08:45 AM
This was an active pursuit of individuals who had already used WMDs and firearms. Was the public suppose to go about their own business while the active pursuit was taking place amongst their businesses and homes? Seems a little stupid to me.

ljb5
04-20-2013, 08:45 AM
If 6 guys wearing cammies pointing an M-4, or 12ga. shotgun at you request that you stay inside, are you going to blythely ignore them and scamper out to your car for your cell phone?

Based on the traffic on Twitter and Facebook, that would seem to be exactly what happened.

During the final shootout last night, NPR had reporters on scene interviewing people on the street. One guy said he was out walking his dog. One lady said she was just walking by.

Sure, the government requested that people stay inside (just as they often do with major storms), but that doesn't infringe on anyone's rights. (Just because the government says it does not mean that it's a bad idea!)

I have not heard any reports of storm troopers breaking in to people's houses without permission. Have you?

Peach
04-20-2013, 08:45 AM
LOL, how long before we get to Hitler?

Godwin arrives, a bit late to the fray, but here at last.

BrianW
04-20-2013, 08:46 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v136/BrianW/stuff/005745d9-ef94-48a0-aaa1-e38129a38ac6_zps851f9703.jpg

:D

McMike
04-20-2013, 08:47 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v136/BrianW/stuff/005745d9-ef94-48a0-aaa1-e38129a38ac6_zps851f9703.jpg

:D

Seriously, that's what happened. Except that the people bent over and took it.

Peach
04-20-2013, 08:50 AM
"High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group"

http://www.artvehicle.com/content/asides/AV-37-1228768613.jpg

Marathon Man.

BrianW
04-20-2013, 08:50 AM
Next state up/over. I know, it's all blue to you guys from the far red, but there is a dialectic difference! ;)

So what you're saying, is that they use 220V appliances?

Peach
04-20-2013, 08:53 AM
Seriously, that's what happened. Except that the people bent over and took it.

Those cheering crowds applauding the cops apparently didn't feel too violated.

McMike
04-20-2013, 08:53 AM
BTW, Bdub, where did you find the storm trooper/Obama-with-a-scattergun pic? Funny as hell!

McMike
04-20-2013, 08:55 AM
Those cheering crowds applauding the cops apparently didn't feel too violated.

They sure didn't, simply because they were soooooo afraid of the buggy (*corrected* boogie Y:o)man that they allowed it.


FWIW; Since when did questioning and being critical of the government become un-liberal?

Paul Pless
04-20-2013, 08:56 AM
BTW, Bdub, where did you find the storm trooper/Obama-with-a-scattergun pic? Funny as hell!its frikking brilliant

MiddleAgesMan
04-20-2013, 08:58 AM
I'm not thrilled about this turn of events but I certainly don't have all the facts.

I just came across this article about the FBI's interest in the elder brother over two years ago. They brought him in for questioning after receiving word that he was being radicalized and could be a threat in the future: http://news.yahoo.com/fbi-interviewed-boston-bombing-suspect-2011-source-040553549.html

You have to wonder if their two-year old intelligence has played a role in this decision.

C. Ross
04-20-2013, 08:59 AM
FWIW; Since when did questioning and being critical of the government become un-liberal?

For some, January 21, 2009. I will give some liberals full marks...they were on the President's case by about January 22.

McMike
04-20-2013, 09:00 AM
Based on the traffic on Twitter and Facebook, that would seem to be exactly what happened.

During the final shootout last night, NPR had reporters on scene interviewing people on the street. One guy said he was out walking his dog. One lady said she was just walking by.

Sure, the government requested that people stay inside (just as they often do with major storms), but that doesn't infringe on anyone's rights. (Just because the government says it does not mean that it's a bad idea!)

I have not heard any reports of storm troopers breaking in to people's houses without permission. Have you?

Holy sh17, you're such an apologist. It's flagging annoying. You're brilliant but wrong. The order had been lifted by then, so naturally, people were out and about.

Paul Pless
04-20-2013, 09:02 AM
Holy sh17, you're such an apologist. It's flagging pathetic. You're brilliant but wrong. The order had been lifted by then, so naturally, people were out and about.ftfy

BrianW
04-20-2013, 09:03 AM
BTW, Bdub, where did you find the storm trooper/Obama-with-a-scattergun pic? Funny as hell!

It came out right after his shooting photo-op.

Forgot about it, until the StormTrooper comment, then I added the text.

The new Photobucket edit feature is very cool and user friendly.

McMike
04-20-2013, 09:04 AM
It came out right after his shooting photo-op.

Forgot about it, until the StormTrooper comment, then I added the text.

The new Photobucket edit feature is very cool and user friendly.

Well done!

ljb5
04-20-2013, 09:04 AM
FWIW; Since when did questioning and being critical of the government become un-liberal?

Being critical of the government does not mean running around like a headless chicken squawking about every damn conspiracy theory and routine event.

You're still obligated to think about stuff before you gripe about it.

Just because you like to questions the government does not give you a free pass to freak the heck out about everything.

It is perfectly normal for governments to do things like close off crime scenes, close beaches during storms, evacuate cities during hurricanes, close highways due to avalanches or rock slides.

Just because the government does it does not mean it's a friggin' conspiracy.

Keith Wilson
04-20-2013, 09:07 AM
I wasn't bashing Mr Graham about this (although I could have ) but this does not seem like a good idea at all. Very, very bad precedent.

McMike
04-20-2013, 09:10 AM
Being critical of the government does not mean running around like a headless chicken squawking about every damn conspiracy theory and routine event.

You're still obligated to think about stuff before you gripe about it.

Just because you like to questions the government does not give you a free pass to freak the heck out about everything.

It is perfectly normal for governments to do things like close off crime scenes, close beaches during storms, evacuate cities during hurricanes, close highways due to avalanches or rock slides.

Just because the government does it does not mean it's a friggin' conspiracy.

Wrong again Einstein, when was the last time I pulled a TD/Chicken Little? Wanna try again, or are you done? I think you need to take a step back you big fat fanboy and think about the lines we, as citizens, need to draw.

If you've been paying attention, I've been fairly critical of the righties in regard to their irrational and racist hatred of Obama. Just because they're idiotic jerks doesn't mean Obama doesn't deserve criticism.

So, take the Obama T-shirt off and be an American or be treated like many of the ignoramus righties here. Cool?

Paul Pless
04-20-2013, 09:11 AM
or are you done? not a chance would be my bet . . .

ljb5
04-20-2013, 09:12 AM
The order had been lifted by then, so naturally, people were out and about.

They had been interviewing people out on the street all day. There were reporters all over the place.

The shelter-in-place was a request, not an order.

So far as I (and you) know, no one was arrested for being out in public.

Look, dude, I like the fact that you like to question the government.... but that doesn't mean you can make up your own fantasies about what happened to justify your paranoia.

Not everything the government does is a frikkin' conspiracy. Sometimes, if they plow the snow off the streets, it just mean they're plowing the streets. You shouldn't interpret that as some sort of lizard-people conspiracy to eliminate evidence of chemtrails!

So the police were on a man hunt. Big deal! That's what they do when there is a dangerous criminal on the loose. That's what we pay them to do.

By all accounts, they did an effective job of it.

C. Ross
04-20-2013, 09:12 AM
I wasn't bashing Mr Graham about this (although I could have ) but this does not seem like a good idea at all. Very, very bad precedent.

Agreed on both counts. What intrigues me, which no one is talking about, is why we believe that these apparently wacky brothers are being considered as part of some larger terrorist activity? Do we think the remaining suspect actually has any information of any interest to intelligence investigators? Is it worth the risk of undercutting the prosecution? And, if we find out during interrogation that somehow he was connected to a larger terrorist initiative, what does Justice do about this? Are their hands tied - politically or practically - with respect to civilian courts versus military courts? This seems like a high risk choice with low probability of counter-terrorism payoff.

Tom Montgomery
04-20-2013, 09:14 AM
Tsarnaev will be asked some narrow, focused questions allowed under the exception (for example: Were there any more undiscovered IEDs planted?). Then he will be Mirandized before the interrogation goes further. This has been done before. Tsarnaev will be prosecuted within the Federal criminal justice system.

None of this is what Senator Graham had in mind when he was tweeting furiously yesterday. Lindsey Graham remains an idiot.

McMike
04-20-2013, 09:16 AM
Tsarnaev will be asked some narrow, focused question allowed under the exception. Then he will be Mirandized before the interrogation goes further. This has been done before. Tsarnaev will be prosecuted within the Federal criminal justice system.

None of this is what Senator Graham had in mind when he was tweeting furiously yesterday. Lindsey Graham remains an idiot.

Promise?

Paul Pless
04-20-2013, 09:17 AM
Agreed on both counts. What intrigues me, which no one is talking about, is why we believe that these apparently wacky brothers are being considered as part of some larger terrorist activity? Do we think the remaining suspect actually has any information of any interest to intelligence investigators? Is it worth the risk of undercutting the prosecution? And, if we find out during interrogation that somehow he was connected to a larger terrorist initiative, what does Justice do about this? Are their hands tied - politically or practically - with respect to civilian courts versus military courts? This seems like a high risk choice with low probability of counter-terrorism payoff.

Excellent points Cris. Is the Obama administration succumbing to the same sorts of fears of further terror caused bloodshed on their watch as did the previous administration?

Peach
04-20-2013, 09:17 AM
Why is it that all these threads, discussing serious issues about American freedoms and protections, devolve into mindless cat fights?

I'm gone.

Keith Wilson
04-20-2013, 09:18 AM
. . . why we believe that these apparently wacky brothers are being considered as part of some larger terrorist activity?I have no idea. Because they're Chechens? It sure has the look of an isolated crime, but what do I know? You'd think if they could read Timothy McVeigh his rights they could do it in this case.

Tom Montgomery
04-20-2013, 09:19 AM
Promise?
They'd be fools to do otherwise. Which is not out of the question... just unlikely. It is not in anyone's interest to see an unsuccessful prosecution.

ljb5
04-20-2013, 09:21 AM
Agreed on both counts. What intrigues me, which no one is talking about, is why we believe that these apparently wacky brothers are being considered as part of some larger terrorist activity? Do we think the remaining suspect actually has any information of any interest to intelligence investigators?

I think you might be leaping to some conclusions there. The questions he is being asked under Quarles are probably limited to issues of the immediate situation such as, "Are there any other bombs?" "How do we diffuse the remaining bombs?"


Is it worth the risk of undercutting the prosecution?

Using the Quarles exception does not undercut the prosecution. The Supreme Court has already ruled on that several times.

In fact, declaring up-front that they are using the Quarles rule helps to protect the prosecution because no one can come back later and say, "Well, you should have used the Quarles exception, but didn't so now it's all tainted...."

Gerarddm
04-20-2013, 09:21 AM
I would expect, and do expect, that he will have been read his Miranda rights before long, once the public safety threshold has been reasonably satisfied. To do otherwise would open a huge door for a defense attorney.

That still does not let Senator Graham off the hook.

Incidentally, this public safety exception has been employed at least once before, in the underwear bomber case. After ascertaining that there was no other immediate threat the bomber was read his rights and the guy still kept yapping.

Tom Wilkinson
04-20-2013, 09:25 AM
Holy sh17, you're such an apologist. It's flagging annoying. You're brilliant but wrong. The order had been lifted by then, so naturally, people were out and about.

There was no order. It was a request.

http://nation.time.com/2013/04/19/was-boston-actually-on-lockdown/


I dont think many people had an issue with staying in when a known murderer and bomber is loose in their neighborhood.

McMike
04-20-2013, 09:27 AM
They had been interviewing people out on the street all day. There were reporters all over the place.

The shelter-in-place was a request, not an order.

So far as I (and you) know, no one was arrested for being out in public.

Look, dude, I like the fact that you like to question the government.... but that doesn't mean you can make up your own fantasies about what happened to justify your paranoia.

Not everything the government does is a frikkin' conspiracy. Sometimes, if they plow the snow off the streets, it just mean they're plowing the streets. You shouldn't interpret that as some sort of lizard-people conspiracy to eliminate evidence of chemtrails!

So the police were on a man hunt. Big deal! That's what they do when there is a dangerous criminal on the loose. That's what we pay them to do.

By all accounts, they did an effective job of it.

I wish my Google fu was better, the video I watched yesterday morning was scary in regard to how they were running around like the absolute authority to dominate was theirs. Check out some of the Beebs footage and see if you change your mind, even a little.

FWIW, I don't think the governments reaction this week was horribly wrong. What I saw was a slow creep of what I consider to be a movement, whether intentional or not, to a serious problem with the government being allowed to react to perceived threats in such a way without any over site or transparent review.

Trust me, you are not going to get a more rational skepticism of the government than what you get from me, you can change my mind with a reasonable argument laced with properly used facts but I doubt you possess the balanced perspective to do so.

ljb5
04-20-2013, 09:27 AM
You'd think if they could read Timothy McVeigh his rights they could do it in this case.

Tim McVeigh had already been arrested on routine traffic charges (no plates) and minor firearms violation.

He was already in police custody for three days before he was identified as the suspect in the bombing.

The Tsarnaev case was quite different. Shall we go over the difference?

Paul Pless
04-20-2013, 09:28 AM
Incidentally, this public safety exception has been employed at least once before, in the underwear bomber case. After ascertaining that there was no other immediate threat the bomber was read his rights and the guy still kept yapping.Not true, he was read his rights after he stopped cooperating, days after his arrest. Then he was read his rights, then the FBI brought in Nigerian relatives to speak with him and he began to co-operate again. Then when he was formally indicted he stooped cooperating again.

C. Ross
04-20-2013, 09:29 AM
I think you might be leaping to some conclusions there. The questions he is being asked under Quarles are probably limited to issues of the immediate situation such as, "Are there any other bombs?" "How do we diffuse the remaining bombs?"

I'm sure they will ask those questions. But why can't these questions be asked under Miranda? And why can't local law enforcement ask these questions? Why is the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group needed?

Most likely this is the result of political pressures and the "new normal" in these wacky times. If you were advising Obama, wouldn't you want to make sure the Feds were seen as fully engaged and supportive, and wouldn't you take a "leave no rock unturned" approach? Seems to me that this is predictable. I'm still not convinced it's a good idea.

McMike
04-20-2013, 09:32 AM
There was no order. It was a request.

http://nation.time.com/2013/04/19/was-boston-actually-on-lockdown/


I dont think many people had an issue with staying in when a known murderer and bomber is loose in their neighborhood.

On the live news report I saw yesterday morning they had stated emphatically that the authorities were stopping and searching anyone who was walking or driving about. Maybe the report was skewed or ill informed, I trust you and the Time article is correct, I'm simply telling you what I watched on the BBC via CPTV.

Paul Pless
04-20-2013, 09:35 AM
I'm sure they will ask those questions. But why can't these questions be asked under Miranda? And why can't local law enforcement ask these questions? Why is the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group needed?

Bingo!

ljb5
04-20-2013, 09:37 AM
I'm sure they will ask those questions. But why can't these questions be asked under Miranda?

I think the main issue was probably time.

At the time of the arrest, he was believed to have a gun, he had been involved in several different shootings, there had been shots fired recently, he had been known to use several different types of explosives in several different encounters. Up until the last moments, he was resisting arrest. There was some speculation that the boat he was in was boobytrapped.

In that situation, the issue of securing the immediate area was time-critical, so asking him about it seems reasonable.

The guy needed medical care (which may have prevented a full interrogation for several hours, or maybe days). To proceed under Miranda, he would have to get a lawyer, which could also take hours or days.[


And why can't local law enforcement ask these questions?

I suspect they did. Normally, these questions would be asked by the police on scene. I have no reason to think this case is any different.


Why is the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group needed?

I should think that would be obvious. However, I think you may be leaping to an assumption here. I don't have any information that the HVDI will not mirandize him. Neither do you.

Normally, the procedure is to use the Quarles exception to secure the immediate area and any exigent threats. After that, Miranda is used to establish the case.

There is no reason to think this case is not following that pattern. In deed, the fact that they have openly declared that they're using the Quarles exception would imply that they know about it and how to use it properly.

This has all been through the Supreme Court already.

McMike
04-20-2013, 09:42 AM
There was no order. It was a request.

http://nation.time.com/2013/04/19/was-boston-actually-on-lockdown/


I dont think many people had an issue with staying in when a known murderer and bomber is loose in their neighborhood.

Okay, I changed my position. Based on what a "shelter in place" "request" actually means, I see where I'm wrong in how I've approached the argument. What I saw on TV yesterday was still disturbing and I wonder if any sane person would feel comfortable walking the streets with the show of force via the govt.

I'm going to think about it some more, still doesn't feel right to me. Ljb5 is still a big fat fanboy. :D

PhaseLockedLoop
04-20-2013, 09:54 AM
There's quite an extensive discussion of this here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/20/boston-marathon-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-mirnada-rights


Regarding the 1980 exception, he comments:

"As controversial as this exception was from the start (and as hated as it was among traditional, actual liberals), it was at least narrowly confined. But the Obama DOJ in 2011 wildly expanded this exception for terrorism suspects. The Obama DOJ's Memorandum (issued in secret, of course, but then leaked) cited what it called (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/us/25miranda-text.html) "the magnitude and complexity of the threat often posed by terrorist organizations" in order to claim "a significantly more extensive public safety interrogation without Miranda warnings than would be permissible in an ordinary criminal case". It expressly went beyond the "public safety" exception established by the Supreme Court to arrogate unto itself the power to question suspects about other matters without reading them their rights (emphasis added):


"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."

That is what Graham advocated regarding Miranda: that Tsarnaev be interrogated about intelligence matters without Mirandizing him, and that's exactly what Obama DOJ policy - two years ago - already approved. Worse, as Bazelon noted: "Who gets to make this determination? The FBI, in consultation with DoJ, if possible. In other words, the police and the prosecutors, with no one to check their power." At the time, the ACLU made clear (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/10/aclu-slams-eric-holder-on_n_570174.html) how menacing was the Obama DOJ's attempted roll-back of Miranda rights for terror suspects."

John Smith
04-20-2013, 09:55 AM
There could be other bombs or bomb making materials and other individuals, noticed that the brother's hats were labelled #2 and #3? Where's #1?

I think that's the key. It's also why so much effort went into taking this kid alive.

We caught this kid because of cameras which many argue violate our rights. Using the public exception rule and denying this guy an attorney may uncover a wider conspiracy and prevent other bombs from blowing up other people.

Which is more important? And, for those who think this kid's rights are more important than preventing more deaths, how did you stand on torture?

Given the publiciity, can this kid get a fair trial under any circumstances? Are there 12 people who haven't seen his photo?

Tom Wilkinson
04-20-2013, 09:57 AM
Okay, I changed my position. Based on what a "shelter in place" "request" actually means, I see where I'm wrong in how I've approached the argument. What I saw on TV yesterday was still disturbing and I wonder if any sane person would feel comfortable walking the streets with the show of force via the govt.

I'm going to think about it some more, still doesn't feel right to me. Ljb5 is still a big fat fanboy. :D

Would any sane person feel comfortable with a known murderer and bomber on the loose. I have a good friend whose sister lives in the neighborhood. I saw police acting on a real threat. Were they out in force? Yes. Were any innocents harmed? To the best of my knowledge no. I haven't heard anyone whose home was actually searched complaining. I don't see as anyone gave up a whole lot of rights here. Looks more like a community cooperating with law enforcement to acheive a goal. Doesn't seem such a bad thing.

Maybe I'm wrong.

PhaseLockedLoop
04-20-2013, 09:57 AM
Can we wrap some facts around those statements and see if they still stand up?

Did "storm troopers" in battle gear actually break into private houses, or did they knock, identify themselves and request admission?

Ah! So when the law enforcement folk requested admission, you could just say "no, I'd rather not have you in" they'd meekly withdraw? For God's sake, man, don't be any stupider than you have to be.

John Smith
04-20-2013, 09:58 AM
We all deserve one because our country is in critical condition because we've allowed the last and this administration to continue the completely un-American policies outlined in the patriot act and other policies designed to "protect" from "terrorists".

Freedoms is not free, we must accept events like 911 and the Boston Marathon happen because we live in a free society. It's the sh177y part of freedom, but as usual Americans want the good without the bad and are to lazy and ignorant to understand what life costs.

I also like the bad guys to get caught. Don't you?

McMike
04-20-2013, 10:00 AM
Would any sane person feel comfortable with a known murderer and bomber on the loose. I have a good friend whose sister lives in the neighborhood. I saw police acting on a real threat. Were they out in force? Yes. Were any innocents harmed? To the best of my knowledge no. I haven't heard anyone whose home was actually searched complaining. I don't see as anyone gave up a whole lot of rights here. Looks more like a community cooperating with law enforcement to acheive a goal. Doesn't seem such a bad thing.

Maybe I'm wrong.

Some perspective; I live and work in New Haven, CT. There are murderers who have killed many more people than these two scumbags have on the loose. I don't sit cowering in my basement waiting for the goon square to come and rescue me, I live my life.

McMike
04-20-2013, 10:01 AM
I also like the bad guys to get caught. Don't you?

Did I say you had to choose? Ore are you being obtuse for another reason?

Tom Wilkinson
04-20-2013, 10:02 AM
Ah! So when the law enforcement folk requested admission, you could just say "no, I'd rather not have you in" they'd meekly withdraw? For God's sake, man, don't be any stupider than you have to be.

My understanding is for the most part they went door to door and asked if anyone had seen anything suspicious. Let's see if there are actual complaints about searches done against peoples will. Are there any documented?

McMike
04-20-2013, 10:03 AM
My understanding is for the most part they went door to door and asked if anyone had seen anything suspicious. Let's see if there are actual complaints about searches done against peoples will. Are there any documented?

Who's responsible for doing the documentation?

John Smith
04-20-2013, 10:06 AM
Excellent points Cris. Is the Obama administration succumbing to the same sorts of fears of further terror caused bloodshed on their watch as did the previous administration?

ONe of the problems here is we think we've been given the entire story. It's likely not the case.

For the sake of debate, let's assume the feds have good reason to believe these two kids were not acting alone. Now put yourself in their position. The most important thing we can get out of this individual may not be locking him up forever, but preventing his co-conspirators from succceeding in more similar attacks.

This is a little like the drone question: If you've got what you believe is good intelligence, what are your options, and which do you choose.

I'd opt for saving lives. You?

Tom Wilkinson
04-20-2013, 10:10 AM
Who's responsible for doing the documentation?

My God, is everything an argument? I simply meant reports of it, not actual forms filled out. Has anyone been interviewed by news reporters, reported on faeceboo, tweeted etc... that they were forced to submit their home to search?? I haven't seen any.

Do you have any reports from anyone actually complaining about this? Or is it based on things you saw on tv without actually being a party to it. Did those you saw have an issue with it??

John Smith
04-20-2013, 10:10 AM
Not true, he was read his rights after he stopped cooperating, days after his arrest. Then he was read his rights, then the FBI brought in Nigerian relatives to speak with him and he began to co-operate again. Then when he was formally indicted he stooped cooperating again.

Didn't Obama take a lot of heat for reading him Miranda rights? I wish people would make up their minds.

I get the feeling, reading some of the posts on this thread, that some folks would prefer these two brothers were both still at large.

C. Ross
04-20-2013, 10:11 AM
This thread is both informative and amusing.

McMike sets the bar for intellectual and ethical query and self-reflection. Impressive.

John Smith
04-20-2013, 10:12 AM
I'm sure they will ask those questions. But why can't these questions be asked under Miranda? And why can't local law enforcement ask these questions? Why is the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group needed?

Most likely this is the result of political pressures and the "new normal" in these wacky times. If you were advising Obama, wouldn't you want to make sure the Feds were seen as fully engaged and supportive, and wouldn't you take a "leave no rock unturned" approach? Seems to me that this is predictable. I'm still not convinced it's a good idea.

I'm just guessing here. We all are, really. There may be a lot of information had that the press has not been privy to. I don't think that would be an unreasonable assumption. If we actually knew what the powers that be know, we might be less prone to second guess.

Gerarddm
04-20-2013, 10:15 AM
The people who complain about an overbearing police response would probably be the same people to complain about lax law enforcement effort if such a response was not made.

I have vociferously attacked the Patriot Act and have bitterly said that Obama's refusal to gut it was one reason why I did not vote for him again last year. Post #78 is germane.

It is worth noting that this whole thing was mainly a police response, notwithstanding Federal jurisdiction. I certainly expect that normal civilian prosecution, without getting into Graham-esque la la land, will be more than adequate to prosecute this case.

PhaseLockedLoop
04-20-2013, 10:18 AM
I'll be interested in hearing comments from the left who were bashing Lindsey Graham last night.

Another excellent article on this subject, tracking the original "exception" and the embellishments that followed.

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

bogdog
04-20-2013, 10:20 AM
Would any sane person feel comfortable with a known murderer and bomber on the loose. I have a good friend whose sister lives in the neighborhood. I saw police acting on a real threat. Were they out in force? Yes. Were any innocents harmed? To the best of my knowledge no. I haven't heard anyone whose home was actually searched complaining. I don't see as anyone gave up a whole lot of rights here. Looks more like a community cooperating with law enforcement to acheive a goal. Doesn't seem such a bad thing.

Maybe I'm wrong.

I think as long as one anti-social psycho didn't want to police in their neighborhood they should have kept out. Perhaps they should have taken a community vote? Of course Fearless Fosdick showed us you can shoot civilians full of holes with absolutely no harm. That's what I was also taught in SDS, so I always had a perfect score.:p

ccmanuals
04-20-2013, 10:23 AM
When was the last time Graham was right about anything?

George Jung
04-20-2013, 10:31 AM
I'm not thrilled about this turn of events but I certainly don't have all the facts.

I just came across this article about the FBI's interest in the elder brother over two years ago. They brought him in for questioning after receiving word that he was being radicalized and could be a threat in the future: http://news.yahoo.com/fbi-interviewed-boston-bombing-suspect-2011-source-040553549.html

You have to wonder if their two-year old intelligence has played a role in this decision.

Bingo. I realize most here have cabin fever bad, but really - are we really this reactionary? From what's been posted, the law is being followed exactly. We don't know all the facts, but there's been enough info released to at least suspect these two were simply the tip of the iceberg - and that other, much bigger attacks were, and still may be, in the works. Would you prefer this kid be Mirandized and quiet, and find out the extent of this group from firsthand experience? That sounds.... dumb.

C.Ross - what is YWWAB?

S.V. Airlie
04-20-2013, 10:39 AM
From Wiki:

"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."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warningI suspect the danger is over in this case. I also see Miranda being overturned sooner rather later of the sake of the country.:)

Canoeyawl
04-20-2013, 10:42 AM
I noticed a couple of things.

One; Anyone foolish enough to think they are going to defend themselves against a rogue police state by using a handgun or rifle and a stockpile of ammunition should study this carefully and just give it up right now.

Two; It seems remarkable restraint was used to capture this person alive. I have to assume there were orders from high up the chain of command. Usually the police just wait for the criminal [sic] to bleed out. I am interested in who was pulling the strings on these two and hopefully we will learn something of value.
Do you think we will have to waterboard him? Just in case?

George Jung
04-20-2013, 10:42 AM
Why would you say that, Jamie? From all the evidence I've seen, every indication is these two didn't act alone. 'Danger over'? I hope so - but certainly wouldn't act on that hope.

George Jung
04-20-2013, 10:44 AM
Nice touch, the waterboarding. Hehe.

On a more serious note - I'm hopeful they are able to tease this one out without learning just what capabilities/intent theses folks had in mind.

Captain Intrepid
04-20-2013, 10:44 AM
I am amazed these two were not Southies but actual Islamic scum. The one left living shouldn't be afforded any rights at all.

Why do you hate freedom, democracy, justice, and the rule of law?

Rich Jones
04-20-2013, 10:47 AM
When was the last time Graham was right about anything?

On another thread, I mentioned how Graham is, indeed, an idiot.
But... if it was proved that the suspect became a U.S. citizen under false pretenses in order to enbed himself in U.S. society and commit acts of terror against U.S. citizens, could his U.S. citizenship be revoked and he charged as a enemy combatant?
I have no idea. Would be an interesting legal question.

As for the 'shelter in place' issue. Perhaps we should have gone the Wayne Lapierre route and sent millions of citizens armed with assault rifles out to hunt down the bomber. What could have possibly gone wrong with that?

Phillip Allen
04-20-2013, 10:51 AM
As for the 'shelter in place' issue. Perhaps we should have gone the Wayne Lapierre route and sent millions of citizens armed with assault rifles out to hunt down the bomber. What could have possibly gone wrong with that?

I would like to see some proof that he actually promomted that... leave out spin, please)

George Jung
04-20-2013, 11:04 AM
Yeah well what about Bush?

You were wrong about Bush.

Danka. I'll have to write that one down in my handydandy decoder ring..


On another thread, I mentioned how Graham is, indeed, an idiot.
But... if it was proved that the suspect became a U.S. citizen under false pretenses in order to enbed himself in U.S. society and commit acts of terror against U.S. citizens, could his U.S. citizenship be revoked and he charged as a enemy combatant?
I have no idea. Would be an interesting legal question.

As for the 'shelter in place' issue. Perhaps we should have gone the Wayne Lapierre route and sent millions of citizens armed with assault rifles out to hunt down the bomber. What could have possibly gone wrong with that?

Interesting take; we talking about these boston bombers? They were, what 9 and 15 when they moved here? Man, I didn't know what I wanted to be when I grew up, at that age. Gotta give them kudos for committing early, and sticking with it.

Rich Jones
04-20-2013, 11:05 AM
I would like to see some proof that he actually promomted that... leave out spin, please)


"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun". He was talking about you and me being armed to the teeth and taking out the bad guys ourselves.
To my knowledge, he's made no comment about this incident, not did I say he did. But, it is the way the man thinks.

Phillip Allen
04-20-2013, 11:15 AM
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun". He was talking about you and me being armed to the teeth and taking out the bad guys ourselves.
To my knowledge, he's made no comment about this incident, not did I say he did. But, it is the way the man thinks.

where's the claimed promotion of "millions with assault rifles" part?

have you got credentials as a physco analist?
have you interviewed the man?

have you any personal integrety?

George Jung
04-20-2013, 11:21 AM
physco analist - that's likely unintentional, butt - brilliant!

Phillip Allen
04-20-2013, 11:24 AM
physco analist - that's likely unintentional, butt - brilliant!

I take em wherever I can get em :)

anyway... 'Y' would you think it was an assident?

Cuyahoga Chuck
04-20-2013, 11:37 AM
On another thread, I mentioned how Graham is, indeed, an idiot.
But... if it was proved that the suspect became a U.S. citizen under false pretenses in order to enbed himself in U.S. society and commit acts of terror against U.S. citizens, could his U.S. citizenship be revoked and he charged as a enemy combatant?
I have no idea. Would be an interesting legal question.

As for the 'shelter in place' issue. Perhaps we should have gone the Wayne Lapierre route and sent millions of citizens armed with assault rifles out to hunt down the bomber. What could have possibly gone wrong with that?

Naturalized citizens can be stripped of citizenship and deported if convicted of felonies. In this case the perp is not going anywhere till the day he dies.

ljb5
04-20-2013, 11:37 AM
Ah! So when the law enforcement folk requested admission, you could just say "no, I'd rather not have you in" they'd meekly withdraw?

I think the rules of police procedure are pretty well established.

I have no reason to think they were violated in this case. Neither do you.

If there were any violations, I hope the aggrieved file a complaint. I would hope they would win easily, because the rules seem pretty well established.

If your fears are based on the assumption that there were widespread, but unreported, violations of a common rule, that's not rational.

That's just paranoia.

Nicholas Scheuer
04-20-2013, 11:49 AM
"Full marks" from a C. Ross mean nothing to this Liberal. It just comes down to the fact that I TRUST Obama, and DON'T TRUST Romney, McCain, Graham, and Boehner, to name just a few. The way Conservatives as well as liberals preempt so many topics here with "the ______ are curiously silent - - -" is laughable.

S.V. Airlie
04-20-2013, 01:36 PM
For Nicholas..with love Barrack.

http://media5.picsearch.com/is?5v7K2tAkIWG_oGz42WNMpgZ6eqK2-7V5iBhFeZg1_bQ

hokiefan
04-20-2013, 02:19 PM
I wasn't bashing Mr Graham about this (although I could have ) but this does not seem like a good idea at all. Very, very bad precedent.

I'm with Keith on this one. Although I'll admit that I was mentally bashing Mr. Graham, just didn't type my thoughts here. But when I saw the headline this morning that they weren't Mirandizing the guy yet it made me really uneasy. I'll be the first to admit I'm no legal beagle, but it doesn't feel right.

Bobby

Oysterhouse
04-20-2013, 02:45 PM
If the guy is an American Citizen then he has certain rights. If his rights are dependent on the situation and circumstances--- than so are mine and yours. It's the proverbial slippery slope, and this has the possibility of being on the edge.

Bilge Disclaimer: I think that Law Enforcement did an excellent job in this case, they had to contend with apprehending these folks while under immense pressure and scrutiny from all sides, and do it in a highly emotional charged urban environment. They walked a fine line, and did it well.

My concern is that some of their actions may become precedent for increased militarization on the part of our law enforcement agencies when dealing with lesser crimes and criminals---another step toward a Police State. As Bobby (hokiefan) has said before "when your a hammer, everything looks like a nail".

Phillip Allen
04-20-2013, 02:47 PM
we ALL seem to be perfectly willing to make excdeptions to law for our own purposes... so much for the rule of law!

Phillip Allen
04-20-2013, 02:48 PM
I think the rules of police procedure are pretty well established.

I have no reason to think they were violated in this case. Neither do you.

If there were any violations, I hope the aggrieved file a complaint. I would hope they would win easily, because the rules seem pretty well established.

If your fears are based on the assumption that there were widespread, but unreported, violations of a common rule, that's not rational.

That's just paranoia.

how many search warrants were signed by some judge?

Tom Wilkinson
04-20-2013, 02:54 PM
how many search warrants were signed by some judge?

How many had to be? If the were consensual searches it isn't necessary. How many people have complained that their home was searched without a warrant? I don't see where anyones rights were violated per our constitution yet.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2013/04/boston_bomber_manhunt_is_the_watertown_door_to_doo r_search_by_police_for.html

Phillip Allen
04-20-2013, 02:55 PM
How many had to be? If the were consensual searches it isn't necessary. How many people have complained that their home was searched without a warrant? I don't see where anyones rights were violated per our constitution yet.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2013/04/boston_bomber_manhunt_is_the_watertown_door_to_doo r_search_by_police_for.html

of course you wouldn't 'see' it... what was I thinking!

Tom Wilkinson
04-20-2013, 02:57 PM
Did you read the article Phil? Show me where it's wrong. Who has complained about illegal search? Or are you just swinging blindly?

Here it is again. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...olice_for.html
Perhaps you could point out where it is wrong.


Can the Police Search My Home for a Bomber?
Why the door-to-door manhunt for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev doesn’t violate the Constitution.
By Katy Waldman|Posted Friday, April 19, 2013, at 3:43 PM

313 Tweet

Residents watch as police officers search house to house for the second suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings in a neighborhood of Watertown, Mass., on Friday.


Photo by Brian Snyder/Reuters
SWAT teams descended on the Boston suburb of Watertown on Friday morning to conduct a door-to-door search for the Boston Marathon bombing suspect left alive after a convenience store robbery, car chase, and shootout Thursday night. Is it legal for the police to search your house without a warrant?

It can be. Under the Fourth Amendment, a judge issues a warrant if police can demonstrate that a search is “reasonable”—that there is “probable cause” to investigate a house, car, or backyard for evidence. But there are plenty of circumstances under which police can perform searches without invoking probable cause.

If you consent to a police search, officers do not need a warrant to enter your home. If you have a housemate, he or she can allow the police to rummage through common areas, such as the living room or the kitchen, but not private areas, such as your closet or bedroom.

. In exigent circumstances, or emergency situations, police can conduct warrantless searches to protect public safety. This exception to the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause requirement normally addresses situations of “hot pursuit,” in which an escaping suspect is tracked to a private home. But it might also apply to the events unfolding in Boston if further harm or injury might be supposed to occur in the time it takes to secure a warrant. A bomber believed to be armed and planning more violence would almost certainly meet such prerequisites.

Furthermore, police may enter a private residence to provide emergency assistance to an occupant—which may include apprehending a suspected terrorist who also happens to be inside. And if they plan to make an arrest in someone’s home, they can undertake a “protective sweep” of the dwelling first to confirm that no weapons or accomplices are stashed away where they can do damage later.

Should these justifications fail, the police could also just conduct a search that violates the Fourth Amendment, knowing that whatever evidence they turn up might not be admissible in court. If their first priority is securing public safety, such a bargain doesn’t seem too awful.

Bonus Explainer:

What if the cops are searching my house for bombers and they find a brick of cocaine on my coffee table?

You’re in trouble. According to the “plain view” doctrine, if police already have a right to be in your house and they notice evidence of a crime, they are entitled to seize that evidence for use against you in court. Of course, the SWAT teams searching for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev probably have more on their minds right now than illegal drug use

Phillip Allen
04-20-2013, 02:59 PM
Did you read the article Phil? Show me where it's wrong. Who has complained about illegal search? Or are you just swinging blindly?

we aboth know that intimation can be used to gain entry... too many houses for it to have worked as slick as you would have us believe... I consider the law of averages alone to come to my conclusion

Tom Wilkinson
04-20-2013, 03:02 PM
Can you show just one Phil??

Phillip Allen
04-20-2013, 03:06 PM
Can you show just one Phil??

not without visiting the same houses... didn't you know that?

hokiefan
04-20-2013, 03:09 PM
Did you read the article Phil? Show me where it's wrong. Who has complained about illegal search? Or are you just swinging blindly?

Here it is again. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...olice_for.html
Perhaps you could point out where it is wrong.

...




we aboth know that intimation can be used to gain entry... too many houses for it to have worked as slick as you would have us believe... I consider the law of averages alone to come to my conclusion


Can you show just one Phil??


not without visiting the same houses... didn't you know that?

So you really are just swinging blind... imagine that.

Tom Wilkinson
04-20-2013, 03:12 PM
not without visiting the same houses... didn't you know that?

So it's simply speculation on your part.

Since that argument has no basis in fact, maybe you would care to speak to the article about why this type of search did not violate constitutional rights and how specifically that has happened. All accounts I have heard from friends in the area is that it was all conducted well.

I wouldn't want to be the guy that let the bomber off because of an illegal search I performed to find him. I cant find any reporting thus far that says it was conducted in any way other than above the board. Can you?

Fairly well known you have a bias against cops Phil. I'm no fan, but they certainly appeared to do this by the book.

Phillip Allen
04-20-2013, 03:37 PM
So it's simply speculation on your part.

Since that argument has no basis in fact, maybe you would care to speak to the article about why this type of search did not violate constitutional rights and how specifically that has happened. All accounts I have heard from friends in the area is that it was all conducted well.

I wouldn't want to be the guy that let the bomber off because of an illegal search I performed to find him. I cant find any reporting thus far that says it was conducted in any way other than above the board. Can you?

Fairly well known you have a bias against cops Phil. I'm no fan, but they certainly appeared to do this by the book.

speculation is your word... I said the law of averages...

"May your eyes be opened by experience"

Tom Wilkinson
04-20-2013, 03:46 PM
speculation is your word... I said the law of averages...

"May your eyes be opened by experience"

More dumb ass semantics. Law of averages is simply a tool that you use to speculate. Care to comment on the article that speaks to constitutionality of the searches? Obviously not.

ljb5
04-20-2013, 03:52 PM
More dumb ass semantics. Law of averages is simply a tool that you use to speculate. Care to comment on the article that speaks to constitutionality of the searches? Obviously not.

In this case, the average appears to be zero.

It's almost as if Phillip is convicting the police of a crime precisely because no one seems to have complained. :rolleyes:

ljb5
04-20-2013, 04:03 PM
Just out of curiosity, Phillip, what exactly is your point?

Are you saying the police shouldn't have even conducted a search?

Even with the consent or at the request of the homeowners?

They should have done nothing because you think that the homeowners weren't competent to grant or withhold their consent?

TomF
04-20-2013, 04:15 PM
Another successful terrorist attack on American democracy...Yes. I'm appalled with Obama on this.

Durnik
04-20-2013, 04:21 PM
Yeah?, Well What About Bush?

Sorry it took me so long.. BTW, I see (the) Donn got the punctuation wrong.. ;-0!



I noticed a couple of things.

One; Anyone foolish enough to think they are going to defend themselves against a rogue police state by using a handgun or rifle and a stockpile of ammunition should study this carefully and just give it up right now.

Two; It seems remarkable restraint was used to capture this person alive. I have to assume there were orders from high up the chain of command. Usually the police just wait for the criminal [sic] to bleed out. I am interested in who was pulling the strings on these two and hopefully we will learn something of value.
Do you think we will have to waterboard him? Just in case?

One; A big 10-4.. tho I suspect the previously non-thinking will continue to not astound us with their inabilities.




Of course, the SWAT teams searching for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev probably have more on their minds right now than illegal drug use

Keeping in mind that swat teams have mini cams recording _everything_, to be perused later.

As for the original query - I hate nearly everything about it (the situation) - but I never expected otherwise. Anguished cries of the Ridiculous Right not-withstanding, Obama & his administration are center right, not center left - NTM, he has to deal with a country/Congress/MIC which is far to extreme right. People expected other than this? That's irrational. I'm more surprised the righties are so quiet about the fact that the kids appear to be far right 'terrorists'..

Yeah, right. I'm completely unsurprised.

enjoy
bobby

Phillip Allen
04-20-2013, 04:23 PM
Yes. I'm appalled with Obama on this.

I'm not... it's what I expected

JimD
04-20-2013, 04:29 PM
Its one thing to not tell a suspect he doesn't have to talk if he doesn't want to, and something else to torture him until he does talk. Hopefully he will want to talk, regardless.

skuthorp
04-20-2013, 04:35 PM
I think the decision was a mistake. He's an American citizen, a civilian, and strict process should have been followed no matter how much that upsets some people.

ljb5
04-20-2013, 04:38 PM
I'm not... it's what I expected

I don't think you even understand what it means to use an exception to the Miranda rule.

It does not mean that he will be tortured.
It does not mean that he will be sent to GITMO.
It does not mean he will be tried by a military tribunal.
It does not mean that he is labeled an 'enemy combatant.'
It does not mean that he will be tried without a lawyer.

Can you explain what you think it means? Or do you have any idea?

TomF
04-20-2013, 04:48 PM
I'm not... it's what I expectedExpectation has nothing to do with it. I was appalled when Bush trampled on your Constitution too, and I expected that.

TomF
04-20-2013, 04:52 PM
I don't think you even understand what it means to use an exception to the Miranda rule.

It does not mean that he will be tortured.
It does not mean that he will be sent to GITMO.
It does not mean he will be tried by a military tribunal.
It does not mean that he is labeled an 'enemy combatant.'
It does not mean that he will be tried without a lawyer.

Can you explain what you think it means? Or do you have any idea?
It is certainly true that I haven't gone into any research depth at all about the exception to the Miranda rule. From where I sit though, America needs to be about the rule of law - perhaps especially when it is possibly inconvenient.

Making exceptions to this via one or another set of legal reasoning intended to put security above rights is precisely what got the whole Gitmo situation underway. This is not at the same level of behaviour as that, IMO, but I do not understand why these guys are not simply to be treated as criminals. Your existing laws - and your existing sets of rights - are plenty strict enough. Abrogating them when it is inconvenient to do otherwise weakens America's stature.

JimD
04-20-2013, 05:21 PM
A little ironic perhaps that the residents of the house with the boat where the suspect was found were complaining that the police had not searched their home.
Irony #2, unrelated, that the suspect apprehended became a US citizen on September 11 of last year. He did not pick the day which appears to have been arbitrarily assigned. Or so it was reported by cnn yesterday during the live coverage.

Phillip Allen
04-20-2013, 05:27 PM
Expectation has nothing to do with it. I was appalled when Bush trampled on your Constitution too, and I expected that.

slippery slope...

Oysterhouse
04-20-2013, 05:39 PM
Making exceptions to this via one or another set of legal reasoning intended to put security above rights is precisely what got the whole Gitmo situation underway. This is not at the same level of behaviour as that, IMO, but I do not understand why these guys are not simply to be treated as criminals. Your existing laws - and your existing sets of rights - are plenty strict enough. Abrogating them when it is inconvenient to do otherwise weakens America's stature.

Yep,Y>

Chris Coose
04-20-2013, 05:40 PM
. Lindsey Graham remains an idiot.

Yep.

The Bigfella
04-20-2013, 05:42 PM
Hang on a minute.

Weren't these two dudes, American citizens, members of an organised militia?

It seems they had a gripe against the government.

Doesn't the 2nd cover pressure cookers?

PhaseLockedLoop
04-20-2013, 05:42 PM
I don't think you even understand what it means to use an exception to the Miranda rule.

It does not mean that he will be tortured.
It does not mean that he will be sent to GITMO.
It does not mean he will be tried by a military tribunal.
It does not mean that he is labeled an 'enemy combatant.'
It does not mean that he will be tried without a lawyer.
Can you explain what you think it means? Or do you have any idea?

What it means is that he will be questioned without legal representation.

As far as I know, he's still entitled to be silent, and entitled to legal representation, but the interrogators can pretend he isn't, and no one will know what or how they asked.

Why don't they just give him a lawyer? Then Miranda would be moot.

Chris Coose
04-20-2013, 05:44 PM
I am amazed these two were not Southies but actual Islamic scum. The one left living shouldn't be afforded any rights at all.

Cambridge residents and the live one, a citizen. Cambridge is about 1.5 miles from Southie.

hokiefan
04-20-2013, 05:47 PM
Hang on a minute.

Weren't these two dudes, American citizens, members of an organised militia?

It seems they had a gripe against the government.

Doesn't the 2nd cover pressure cookers?

Actually only the younger brother Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was a US citizen. The older brother Tamerlan was legally here with a green card, but was reported not to be able to obtain citizenship because he was arrested for hitting a girlfriend. Matters little to him now, as he is the dead one.

Bobby

Chris Coose
04-20-2013, 05:53 PM
Fixed that for me. Thanks.

George Jung
04-20-2013, 06:12 PM
Why not let him 'lawyer up'? My suspicion (remember, I could be wrong) is that the fear is - there's more of these folks out there; perhaps moving on to the next targets. Remember the angst and wailing when the govt didn't catch up to the 9-11 bombers before they acted? Under that scenario, their actions make a bit more sense, even if we don't like it.

TomF
04-20-2013, 06:15 PM
Why not let him 'lawyer up'? My suspicion (remember, I could be wrong) is that the fear is - there's more of these folks out there; perhaps moving on to the next targets. Remember the angst and wailing when the govt didn't catch up to the 9-11 bombers before they acted? Under that scenario, their actions make a bit more sense, even if we don't like it.I'm sure you're right. But as I said at the time about Bush's equivocations, America is either about the rule of law, about the democratic and rights-based institutions you've created (and which several administrations have allegedly fought wars to export), or it's not.

You only know when you're pushed up against it. In my view, Obama's failed a test ...

JimD
04-20-2013, 06:18 PM
...Why don't they just give him a lawyer? ...
Its the new normal. Only certain criminal suspects are entitled to lawyers according to the Justice Dept. Some justice.

Tom Montgomery
04-20-2013, 06:22 PM
I would imagine that any kid raised in the USA since the age of 9 would have watched enough American TV to know what his Miranda rights are regardless of the exception. All he has to do is insist, "I've got nothing to say. I want a lawyer." And there would be nothing for the interrogators to do but comply with his request for a attorney.

That is the scenario Senator Lindsey Graham despises. He wants the suspect declared an "enemy combatant," spirited off to Gitmo, interrogated by "harsh techniques," and tried within the military justice system.

ljb5
04-20-2013, 06:22 PM
What it means is that he will be questioned without legal representation.

The police are already allowed to question a suspect without legal representation (at least since Montero, if I remember correctly.)

The only concern is whether or not that portion of the interrogation is admissible in court.

In the Boston case, I don't think the prosecution's case hinges on the suspect's self-incriminating testimony. It would seem they have a pretty strong case against him, regardless of whether his testimony is admitted or excluded.

The public safety exception to Miranda has been to the Supreme Court at least once already --- and upheld. This is within our laws. This is not some cocked up novel new theory.

This is not like sending someone to GITMO.

George Jung
04-20-2013, 06:28 PM
Given what this case involved, the implications of acting slowly/inappropriately, and of taking a different approach to someone intent on causing mass casualties, rather than the 'usual' rights for those committing 'simple murder' - I'm surprised anyone has reservations about this. I'm quite pleased with Obamas' approach. I think it's the correct one. Graham - not so much.

seanz
04-20-2013, 06:30 PM
This is not like sending someone to GITMO.

Is that still open?

Chris Coose
04-20-2013, 06:34 PM
Good news is that the kid's medical condition isn't allowing him to speak (at least that's what they are saying). People taking some time to collaborate on the law, rather than making up law as they run some kind of military agenda is likely, a good thing.

seanz
04-20-2013, 06:34 PM
I am amazed these two were not Southies but actual Islamic scum. The one left living shouldn't be afforded any rights at all.


God, give me grace to accept with serenity
the things that cannot be changed,
Courage to change the things
which should be changed,
and the Wisdom to distinguish
the one from the other.
Living one day at a time,
Enjoying one moment at a time
,Accepting hardship as a pathway to peace,
Taking, as Jesus did,This sinful world as it is,
Not as I would have it,
Trusting that You will make all things right,
If I surrender to Your will,
So that I may be reasonably happy in this life,
And supremely happy with You forever in the next.
Amen.

JimD
04-20-2013, 06:36 PM
...This is not like sending someone to GITMO.If there's no else in the room acting as the suspect's legal advocate and witness while the CIA interrogates him its a hair splitting difference. I'm not familiar with all the rules of your public safety exception. Will there anyone else in the room?

seanz
04-20-2013, 06:40 PM
Yes...and there are vacancies. Would you like to make a reservation?

I hear there is plenty of extra food.


Not up for nuance this morning?

John Smith
04-20-2013, 06:43 PM
I suspect the danger is over in this case. I also see Miranda being overturned sooner rather later of the sake of the country.:)

I suspect we have no idea whether or not the danger is over in this case. A little patience can be a good thing.

One opinion I will offer: catching these guys as quickly as we did may well lessen whatever danger may have still been in the works. If I suspect anything, it is they did not expect to get caught, let alone this quickly.

John Smith
04-20-2013, 06:45 PM
On another thread, I mentioned how Graham is, indeed, an idiot.
But... if it was proved that the suspect became a U.S. citizen under false pretenses in order to enbed himself in U.S. society and commit acts of terror against U.S. citizens, could his U.S. citizenship be revoked and he charged as a enemy combatant?
I have no idea. Would be an interesting legal question.

As for the 'shelter in place' issue. Perhaps we should have gone the Wayne Lapierre route and sent millions of citizens armed with assault rifles out to hunt down the bomber. What could have possibly gone wrong with that?

Where does the constituion allow for "enemy combatant?"

John Smith
04-20-2013, 06:46 PM
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun". He was talking about you and me being armed to the teeth and taking out the bad guys ourselves.
To my knowledge, he's made no comment about this incident, not did I say he did. But, it is the way the man thinks.

The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a bomb is a good guy with a bomb?

seanz
04-20-2013, 06:48 PM
It's early evening here, and nuance leaves me cold, most of the time.

Just before Noon on a rainy Sunday here, onto the second cup of coffee. Hope your garden has fully recovered this Spring. Took a heavy mower to the remains of our vegetable patch last week, not my finest moment as a gardener. It'll be replaced (partially) by a wide border garden of stones, cabbage trees and kowhai. At least that will be better to look at than weeds.


On with the show.......this is how I learn American 'civics'.
;)

John Smith
04-20-2013, 06:52 PM
we ALL seem to be perfectly willing to make excdeptions to law for our own purposes... so much for the rule of law!

So true. Maybe I missed it, or haven't gotten to it yet, but I'd like someone to address the trouble the right gave Obama because he did give the underwear bomber Miranda rights.

I remember Gingrich, among others, getting on his case for this even after it was pointed out Bush gave Miranda to the shoe bomber. Gingrich justfiied his hypocrisy by saying the shoe bomber was an American citizen, which was not true.

In this case, just to pose a simple question of timing, did they arrest this guy or simply take him to the hospital? Present answer may depend upon network one is getting news from.

The Bigfella
04-20-2013, 06:55 PM
Actually only the younger brother Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was a US citizen. The older brother Tamerlan was legally here with a green card, but was reported not to be able to obtain citizenship because he was arrested for hitting a girlfriend. Matters little to him now, as he is the dead one.

Bobby


I think he could have been deported for that episode...and this would never have happened.

Perhaps with a conviction.... but just an arrest for suspicion of assault? Or are the two synonymous for you?

The Bigfella
04-20-2013, 07:07 PM
It seems that the Russians warned the FBI about the elder brother. This from uncle Rupert:

THE Russian FSB intelligence security service told the FBI in early 2011 about information that Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of the brothers suspected in the Boston marathon bombings, was a follower of radical Islam, two law enforcement officials say.


Tamerlan Tsarnaev died in a shootout, and his younger brother Dzhokhar, 19, was captured alive.

They were identified by authorities and relatives as ethnic Chechens from southern Russia who had been in the US for about a decade.

According to an earlier FBI news release, a foreign government said that based on its information, Tsarnaev, 26, was a strong believer and that he had changed drastically since 2010 as he prepared to leave the US for travel to a region in that country to join unspecified underground groups.

The FBI did not name the foreign government, but the two law enforcement officials identified the FSB as the provider of the information to one of the FBI's field offices and also to FBI headquarters in Washington DC.

The Bigfella
04-20-2013, 07:19 PM
According to Judicial Watch (http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2013/04/boston-bomber-could-have-been-deported-after-2009-conviction/), it doesn't matter it it's an arrest or a convection.

A convection eh? Now you want to cook them?

Tom Montgomery
04-20-2013, 07:21 PM
Oops! :D

The Bigfella
04-20-2013, 07:26 PM
There's some hugely murky territory surrounding these things. If everyone starts going down the path of deporting people for minor infractions (not suggesting domestic violence is minor, per se) then the airlines will be making a fortune.

Gerarddm
04-20-2013, 07:35 PM
and nuance leaves me cold, most of the time.

Ya think?

bogdog
04-20-2013, 07:38 PM
There has to be a conviction(s) of certain crimes to deport a greencard holder.

The Bigfella
04-20-2013, 07:40 PM
Pretty limp. Can't think of anything to say...but have to say something anyway?

Sorry mate, I can't help with your limpness. See a doctor.

Was tempted to say a lot more, but chose not to. I'm collaborating on a book at present, one chapter of which details a pretty sorry series of events in this country - the false imprisonment of a kid who refused to spy on a more radical chap who attended the same place of worship. Over-reaction in the shadows of 9/11. Another time, perhaps.

htom
04-20-2013, 07:56 PM
Just like Hollywood physics isn't real physics, Hollywood history isn't real history, Hollywood ... anyway, Hollywood law isn't real law. Ken White, at Popehat, is a real former federal prosecutor who turned his coat a decade or two ago, becoming a real criminal defense lawyer in the federal courts. He's collected discussion from others who practice there at Popehat: brave-new-world-miranda-roundup (http://www.popehat.com/2013/04/20/brave-new-world-miranda-roundup/)

Cuyahoga Chuck
04-20-2013, 09:31 PM
how many search warrants were signed by some judge?

A cop doen't need a warrant if there has "probable cause". That law enforcement 101. Of course if a judge says the the cop was wrong anything the cop dug up would go out the window.

Cuyahoga Chuck
04-20-2013, 09:40 PM
If there's no else in the room acting as the suspect's legal advocate and witness while the CIA interrogates him its a hair splitting difference. I'm not familiar with all the rules of your public safety exception. Will there anyone else in the room?

It's not soley the CIA. It's a specially trained group of half dozen or so interogaters with members from each of the relevent federal law enforcement groups. What they are after is information about any ongoing terrorist campaigns, immenent threats, etc., not why did you do what we think you did. It may be that what they discover may not be admissible in court. But I don't know that for certain.

McMike
04-20-2013, 10:51 PM
If the guy is an American Citizen then he has certain rights. If his rights are dependent on the situation and circumstances--- than so are mine and yours. It's the proverbial slippery slope, and this has the possibility of being on the edge.

Bilge Disclaimer: I think that Law Enforcement did an excellent job in this case, they had to contend with apprehending these folks while under immense pressure and scrutiny from all sides, and do it in a highly emotional charged urban environment. They walked a fine line, and did it well.

My concern is that some of their actions may become precedent for increased militarization on the part of our law enforcement agencies when dealing with lesser crimes and criminals---another step toward a Police State. As Bobby (hokiefan) has said before "when your a hammer, everything looks like a nail".

I wish I could have expressed myself like this. +1

Oysterhouse
04-20-2013, 10:58 PM
I wish I could have expressed myself like this. +1

You did, I was very impressed with your post in the beginning of this thread.Y>

George Jung
04-20-2013, 11:01 PM
Legitimate concerns. But as we have no way of knowing all that law enforcement/govt knows about this, consider another scenario. Rather than taking advantage of this current law, they mirandize/he says nothing - and there follows a series of strikes by what turns out to be an extensive network of like-minded individuals, with carnage that makes 9-11 look like childs play. Do you give the govt. a pass - after all, they've followed the letter of the law as you see it - or are you critical. Buyers remorse? Or - that's the cost of freedom.

mikefrommontana
04-20-2013, 11:02 PM
It's not soley the CIA. <snip> It may be that what they discover may not be admissible in court. But I don't know that for certain.

Odds are the information they seek is something they want to keep OUT of court. I suspect it would be to the favor of the Justice Dept/et al. that the suspect be convicted in a court of law--but finding other operatives/natures of the operation/outstanding ops is their primary concern at this stage.

McMike
04-20-2013, 11:07 PM
You did, I was very impressed with your post in the beginning of this thread.Y>

Thank you sir.

Nicholas Carey
04-21-2013, 12:41 AM
The police are already allowed to question a suspect without legal representation (at least since Montero, if I remember correctly.)

The only concern is whether or not that portion of the interrogation is admissible in court..
Not strictly true. Precedent and common law both require that at the point somebody claims their 6th amendment right to counsel all[/] questioning must stop, until such counsel is present and that person has had reasonable time for consultation with the same. All of which has nothing whatsoever to do with Miranda &mdash;which is all about being [b]informed of one's constitutional rights , at athe time of arrest, prior to questioning.

The problem with the "public safety" exemption is that is is quite limited in scope. The Executive branch is trying to stretch it past its elastic limit. They can't deny one's rights under the public safety exemption for, say, 4 months: the exemption has to do with immediate public safety. The Executive branch is trying to stretch "immediate" way past any reasonable interpretation.

hokiefan
04-21-2013, 01:09 AM
Not strictly true. Precedent and common law both require that at the point somebody claims their 6th amendment right to counsel all[/] questioning must stop, until such counsel is present and that person has had reasonable time for consultation with the same. All of which has nothing whatsoever to do with Miranda &mdash;which is all about being [B]informed of one's constitutional rights , at athe time of arrest, prior to questioning.

The problem with the "public safety" exemption is that is is quite limited in scope. The Executive branch is trying to stretch it past its elastic limit. They can't deny one's rights under the public safety exemption for, say, 4 months: the exemption has to do with immediate public safety. The Executive branch is trying to stretch "immediate" way past any reasonable interpretation.

Well, until the subject is physically able to talk they aren't stretching anything. After that point, the whole thing makes me uneasy. Don't know enough law to know the legalities, but I don't like it.

Cheers,

Bobby

Nicholas Carey
04-21-2013, 01:12 AM
According to Judicial Watch (http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2013/04/boston-bomber-could-have-been-deported-after-2009-conviction/), it doesn't matter it it's an arrest or a conviction.

You might want to read 8 USC 1227 - Deportable aliens (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1227). You won't find a single mention of "arrest". The pertinent sections are:


[hr/]
(2) Criminal offenses
(A) General crimes
(i) Crimes of moral turpitude Any alien who&mdash;
(I) is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years (or 10 years in the case of an alien provided lawful permanent resident status under section 1255 (j) of this title) after the date of admission, and
(II) is convicted of a crime for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed,
is deportable.
(ii) Multiple criminal convictions Any alien who at any time after admission is convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude, not arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct, regardless of whether confined therefor and regardless of whether the convictions were in a single trial, is deportable.
(iii) Aggravated felony Any alien who is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission is deportable.
(iv) High speed flight Any alien who is convicted of a violation of section 758 of title 18 (relating to high speed flight from an immigration checkpoint) is deportable.
(v) Failure to register as a sex offender Any alien who is convicted under section 2250 of title 18 is deportable.
(vi) Waiver authorized Clauses (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) shall not apply in the case of an alien with respect to a criminal conviction if the alien subsequent to the criminal conviction has been granted a full and unconditional pardon by the President of the United States or by the Governor of any of the several States.
(B) Controlled substances
(i) Conviction Any alien who at any time after admission has been convicted of a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of title 21), other than a single offense involving possession for one&rsquo;s own use of 30 grams or less of marijuana, is deportable.
(ii) Drug abusers and addicts Any alien who is, or at any time after admission has been, a drug abuser or addict is deportable.
(C) Certain firearm offenses
Any alien who at any time after admission is convicted under any law of purchasing, selling, offering for sale, exchanging, using, owning, possessing, or carrying, or of attempting or conspiring to purchase, sell, offer for sale, exchange, use, own, possess, or carry, any weapon, part, or accessory which is a firearm or destructive device (as defined in section 921 (a) of title 18) in violation of any law is deportable.
(D) Miscellaneous crimes
Any alien who at any time has been convicted (the judgment on such conviction becoming final) of, or has been so convicted of a conspiracy or attempt to violate&mdash;
(i) any offense under chapter 37 (relating to espionage), chapter 105 (relating to sabotage), or chapter 115 (relating to treason and sedition) of title 18 for which a term of imprisonment of five or more years may be imposed;
(ii) any offense under section 871 or 960 of title 18;
(iii) a violation of any provision of the Military Selective Service Act (50 App. U.S.C. 451 et seq.) or the Trading With the Enemy Act (50 App. U.S.C. 1 et seq.); or
(iv) a violation of section 1185 or 1328 of this title,
is deportable.
(E) Crimes of domestic violence, stalking, or violation of protection order, crimes against children and
(i) Domestic violence, stalking, and child abuse Any alien who at any time after admission is convicted of a crime of domestic violence, a crime of stalking, or a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment is deportable. For purposes of this clause, the term &ldquo;crime of domestic violence&rdquo; means any crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of title 18) against a person committed by a current or former spouse of the person, by an individual with whom the person shares a child in common, by an individual who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the person as a spouse, by an individual similarly situated to a spouse of the person under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction where the offense occurs, or by any other individual against a person who is protected from that individual&rsquo;s acts under the domestic or family violence laws of the United States or any State, Indian tribal government, or unit of local government.
(ii) Violators of protection orders Any alien who at any time after admission is enjoined under a protection order issued by a court and whom the court determines has engaged in conduct that violates the portion of a protection order that involves protection against credible threats of violence, repeated harassment, or bodily injury to the person or persons for whom the protection order was issued is deportable. For purposes of this clause, the term &ldquo;protection order&rdquo; means any injunction issued for the purpose of preventing violent or threatening acts of domestic violence, including temporary or final orders issued by civil or criminal courts (other than support or child custody orders or provisions) whether obtained by filing an independent action or as a pendente lite order in another proceeding.
(F) Trafficking
Any alien described in section 1182 (a)(2)(H) of this title is deportable.
[hr]

There is an exception, however, a bit further down...


[hr/]
(7) Waiver for victims of domestic violence
(A) In general
The Attorney General is not limited by the criminal court record and may waive the application of paragraph (2)(E)(i) (with respect to crimes of domestic violence and crimes of stalking) and (ii) in the case of an alien who has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty and who is not and was not the primary perpetrator of violence in the relationship&mdash;
(i) [1] upon a determination that&mdash;
(I) the alien was acting is [2] self-defense;
(II) the alien was found to have violated a protection order intended to protect the alien; or
(III) the alien committed, was arrested for, was convicted of, or pled guilty to committing a crime&mdash;
(aa) that did not result in serious bodily injury; and
(bb) where there was a connection between the crime and the alien&rsquo;s having been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty.
(B) Credible evidence considered
In acting on applications under this paragraph, the Attorney General shall consider any credible evidence relevant to the application. The determination of what evidence is credible and the weight to be given that evidence shall be within the sole discretion of the Attorney General.
[hr]

Judicial Watch didn't read the statute apparently, or if they did, they did it at a Dan Quayle level of comprehension: if one actually reads the statute, the statutory exemption gives the Attorney General discretion to NOT deport certain aliens convicted of crimes of domestic violence.

This is America, after all, innocent until proven guilty and all: until you stand convicted, you're innocent. To allow deportation merely for having been arrested is to give J. Random police officer an enormous amount of discretion.

The Bigfella
04-21-2013, 01:46 AM
exactly

skuthorp
04-21-2013, 03:57 AM
Of course to deport a person you have to have an acceptable country to deport him to. The Chechens might like him back but would you want to send him there? Iran? Anyhow it'd academic really isn't it, he won't be going anywhere if convicted. But the principles should still apply and due process followed.