Skip to main content

View Diary: Reports: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev confessed before Miranda rights, then fell silent (226 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  For political reasons, of course (36+ / 0-)
    why are guys like Graham so eager to suspend the rule of law?
    They want to make Democrats look weak and pro-terrorist.

    They love power more than they love the Constitution.

    Republican tax policies have led to financial conditions which have caused Republicans to demand cuts to programs they have always opposed.

    by AppleP on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 07:36:33 AM PDT

    •  They also like the idea of people getting hurt. (6+ / 0-)

      The only thing that makes them happier is people getting killed.  The only thing Republicans, all Republicans,  want more than money is people being hurt.

      We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

      by owilde69 on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 07:52:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bullshit (3+ / 0-)

      I'm a Democrat and I supported the decision to not Mirandize him. Was I looking to make my own party look week and pro-terror?

      The reality was that we didn't know what else that kid knew, and it was a hell of a lot easier to find out this way than reading him his rights and then watching him, predictably, go silent.

      I'd also like to mention that the poster above you refers to the "rule of law". The law is established on this one: imminent danger allows an exception here. It was legal to do as was done. We followed the rule of law. It may not be the system that some people like, but it is the law as currently interpreted.

      This isn't exactly torture or waterboarding. He wasn't sent to Gitmo. He's getting a trial in civilian court -- something I wouldn't give him if I were in charge, as he committed what I consider an act of war (blowing up bombs) in addition to acts of crime (obstruction, fleeing, shooting at cops, conspiracy to commit the crimes, probably some federal wire/mail frauds, etc).

      •  Strange argument (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sturunner, tikkun, NancyK, Oh Mary Oh

        It's not consistent.  First, you say he wasn't sent to Gitmo.  Then, you continue to say that's what you'd do if you were in charge.

        If you didn't try him in the regular way, just where would the prisoner go?

        Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

        by yet another liberal on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:13:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's a consistent argument: (0+ / 0-)

          He says that the treatment of the suspect was in accord with current constitutional standards for civilians, and consistent with public safety.

          He also says that treatment of the suspect as a combatent is permissible.

          You can choose to not address the first assertion, but why not?

          That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

          by Inland on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:21:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I thought I did address it (0+ / 0-)

            He pointed to what actually happened, and then said  that isn't what he would do (if he was king).

            And they were at odds with another.  Either you try him in a civilian court or you ship him overseas where the courts can't meddle into it.

            Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

            by yet another liberal on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:23:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Not Reading Him His Miranda Rights (17+ / 0-)

        doesn't remove them.  Questioning him before reading them creates a bigger problem than using due process.

        Newt 2012. Sociopath, adulterer, hypocrite, Republican.

        by tikkun on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:18:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  the Quarlles exception applied (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JerryNA, Avila, jilikins, berrieh

          the public safety threat remained. Sixteen hours is a bit long for it unless he couldn't, quite literally, respond for some portion of that due to medical necessity or unconsciousness.

          LBJ, Lady Bird, Van Cliburn, Ike, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

          by BlackSheep1 on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:43:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  If I understand the "public safety exception" (7+ / 0-)

          correctly, what the accused person says before the police read him his rights is allowed in court if the police have a genuine imminent public safety concern, i.e. "Do you have any other guns?" In this case, I don't see how the police argue that there's any imminent safety issue after the first few minutes of his capture — some government spokesperson said publicly that the danger was over — so what Tsarnaev said would not be admissible. And if it's not admissible, the police shouldn't have done it. This was a political decision, and a bad one for long-term public awareness of rights.

          Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

          by Simplify on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:51:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, “some government spokesperson” (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jilikins

            might have said that, but that wouldn't stop the police from being sure.

            Code Monkey like freedom / Code Monkey like peace and justice too
            Code Monkey very nerdy man / With big warm fuzzy bleeding heart
            Code Monkey like you!

            Formerly known as Jyrinx.

            by Code Monkey on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:54:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  IF you think the public safety (0+ / 0-)

            exception applies then not sure it's either a political decision or that you'd be concerned or focused on the long-term public awareness of rights.

            I think the debate about this has done plenty for the long-term public awareness of rights.

            If they are wrong, AND they try to use any evidence that flows from his statement against him, they strongly risk that evidence being barred.

            If they are wrong, AND they don't try to use any of that evidence, then they have not at all violated his constitutional rights.

            So there is little risk to his rights save a string of "wrong" court rulings I suppose but that's always a danger when you arent using perfect entities to decide these things.

      •  Do you also believe bombers of abortion (14+ / 0-)

        clinics should be hustled off to GITMO?

        "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

        by tardis10 on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:19:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  "blowing up bombs" (20+ / 0-)

        what makes that an "act of war" any more than a clinic bomber?  It doesn't, so don't be ridiculous.
        This screwed up teenager is an American citizens, and is entitled to all the rights of any other American citizens.  We don't get to pick and choose which citizens get Constitutional rights.

      •  It's always a hell of a lot easier (9+ / 0-)

        to deny people rights.  

        I agree the police should have some latitude when there is a clear and present danger to public safety.  But there is a difference between public safety and political expediency and at least some Senators don't want the public to be able to tell the difference.  But sure, if there was any chance other devices had been planted, they had a reason to ask so I'd give them some latitude.  

        I also think that considering a bomb an act of war in the same country where we consider combat assault rifles something every good citizen should have just in case is absurd.  Legal maybe, but absurd.   Of course the NRA might argue that had it been easier, they'd have acquired the assault rifles instead of pressure cookers and killing 30 instead of 3 at the race, and they wouldn't have had to kill the cop to get a gun.   But it still makes no sense.  

      •  It would be a lot easier to "find out" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tommymet, Oh Mary Oh

        whether your typical person accused of a crime did it, if we coerce the information out of him before he knows his rights. But then...

        Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

        by Simplify on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:39:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  We followed the rule of law (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tommymet, JerryNA, bdop4, Oh Mary Oh

        http://supreme.justia.com/...

        "We conclude that the need for answers to questions in a situation posing a threat to the public safety outweighs the need for the prophylactic rule protecting the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. We decline to place officers such as Officer Kraft in the untenable position of having to consider, often in a matter of seconds, whether it best serves society for them to ask the necessary questions without the Miranda warnings and render whatever probative
        Page 467 U. S. 658
        evidence they uncover inadmissible,
        or for them to give the warnings in order to preserve the admissibility of evidence they might uncover but possibly damage or destroy their ability to obtain that evidence and neutralize the volatile situation confronting them. [Footnote 7]
        In recognizing a narrow exception to the Miranda rule "

        quarles was IMHO bad law and it talks only about seconds,

        what the FBI is doing here is exactly what Stevens warned of in his dissent

        " More significantly, and in direct conflict with this Court's longstanding interpretation of the Fifth Amendment, the majority has endorsed the introduction of coerced self-incriminating statements in criminal prosecutions. I dissent."

        We don't know if what they did is legal because it hasn't been subjected to Judicial review, but, anyone who believes in the constitution should be horrified.

      •  Really? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jilikins
        The reality was that we didn't know what else that kid knew
        If you have information that the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. doesn't have you should be contacting them.

        Otherwise you are guessing.

        No offense, but I will trust their judgement more than your guess.

        Republican tax policies have led to financial conditions which have caused Republicans to demand cuts to programs they have always opposed.

        by AppleP on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 09:23:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Word. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Oh Mary Oh

      Miss Lindsey doesn't seem very keen on the Constitution’s pesky protection of rights for felony suspects, at least not when those suspects "terrorists", even if they are also naturalized US citizens.

      Anyhoo...James Madison said that Constitutional rights are only for good people, meaning Christian land-owning white males of course. I read that on the internet so it must be true.

      •  LOL (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Oh Mary Oh
        I read that on the internet so it must be true.
        Reminds me of that commercial where the girl goes out with the "French model".

        So far none of the "No Miranda" proponents on this site has addressed whether the abortion clinic bombers should be Merandized or sent to Guantanamo.

        My guess is it is a Muslim thing.  They don't believe the Constitution applies to non-Christians.

        Republican tax policies have led to financial conditions which have caused Republicans to demand cuts to programs they have always opposed.

        by AppleP on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 06:23:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site