Skip to main content

View Diary: Miranda Games: Tsarnaev Repeatedly Denied A Lawyer (396 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes, so... (5+ / 3-)
    It is unclear when, if ever, the Justice Department was going to Mirandize Tsarnaev.
    So let's speculate that it was NEVER and the Gubmint is EBIL!!1!1!!
    As a former Justice Department attorney, I am particularly incensed when the Justice Department abandons its commitment to justice in favor of cheating to get exact its pound of flesh.
    Yes, I imagine you are incensed.  You should steal Tsarnaev's emails and send them to Michael Isikoff too.  That will definitely help the case.
    Tsarnaev is accused of a violent crime. So was Jeffery Dahmer, the BTK killer, and numerous other serial murderers, whose rights we had no qualms about upholding in order to bring them to justice.
    The BTK killer was charged with using a weapon of mass destruction?  There was grave concern that while Dahmer was in custody others were still at risk of being eaten to death?  Odd, I don't recall that.....

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 07:05:24 AM PDT

    •  If you're going to put him through the criminal (4+ / 0-)

      justice system, there are rules, right? There are exceptions to the rule. This was a "crime in progress" as far as authorities knew, therefore they talked to him sans Miranda. Suspect apparently knew his rights, asked for lawyer. "Tell what you know re situation". Suspect incriminates himself during the questioning. What does the judge do with that testimony?

      Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

      by the fan man on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 07:17:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  See Don Midwest's comment below nt (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Words In Action, gerrilea, poligirl
      •  Tsarnaev has his fair trial (7+ / 0-)

        but the government's first job before any and everything is to ensure the public safety.  We had no way of knowing if there were more bombs or more bombers, if he was coordinating with overseas groups to carry out larger attacks, etc.

        Tsarnaev wasn't tortured or physically coerced.  But we can and WILL establish that the people of Boston are safe from harm and slaughter before we transition into a criminal prosecution.  If the investigators overstepped the boundaries with their questions then the judge is free to disallow any piece of evidence gleaned in such fashion.  

        He now has a lawyer (that you and I are paying for), he has exercised his right of silence, his defense has been given weeks of proper notice before the next step of his due process (I think he has a hearing schedule for May 30th).  He has a right to a jury trial if he wants it (McVeigh was convicted by jury) and everything else.  I am 100% okay with this because he is a US citizen.

        But there is no obligation for us to sit on our hands while he asks for a lawyer when we have very good reason to suspect and fear that another bomb is about to go off in our cities.  

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 07:48:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

          •  Im sure there were several questions (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Be Skeptical

            How long would it take you to answer them when you are just out of surgery with a bullet hole through your head?

            Maybe they had to go check on things he said/wrote.  Maybe he lied at first.  Maybe he wasn't making sense through the pain meds.  I have no idea.

            If there is evidence that seems suspect under the public safety exemption, don't you think his lawyer will bring that up in court?  I'm curious to see the judge's ruling on these things, but I'm not going to sit here arm-chair lawyering this and decide the government must clearly be agents of tyranny here because JOHN ADAMS! or some shit.

            Angst-farming, that's all this is.  These aren't closed back-room tribunals in Gitmo.  Hell his arraignment hearing transcript was published same day.  He is going to have the right to trial by jury.  I expect a 24/7 cable news circus show that will make the OJ Trial look like an NPR pledge drive.

            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

            by Wisper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 08:03:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The suspect invoked his right to counsel (27+ / 0-)

              And it was disregarded.  You don't find that problematic?

              And the arraignment hearing is a public event; interrogations are not.

              •  No. Not in an on-going bombing investigation (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BlackSheep1, Be Skeptical, Quicklund

                I recognize that interrogations are not public, but if the State tries to use anything from those questions they will have to introduce it in court and the defense can challenge at will.  And those evidentiary motions should be public.

                He wasn't tortured (unless you are hearing allegations that I am not).  He wasn't secreted away and subjected to some one-off procedure in a back room.  He was questioned about the bombing and imminent threat as soon as he was coherent enough to communicate.

                If the questions went off the rails into places it shouldn't than a) shame on the interrogator for jeopardizing the case and b) the judge should toss them.

                But I have no problem with the investigating team (with blood still coagulating on the sidewalks of Boyleston Street) making the first priority ensuring that more attacks were not in progress.

                If they stopped the questioning and waited while counsel was brought in and he maintained silence and then a pre-planted bomb went off in a Boston subway station, I would be first in-line demanding the jobs of every single officer and politician and hoping everyone was personally sued into penury and carried the guilt of that blood on their hands to their GRAVES.

                Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                by Wisper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 08:25:23 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  And my argument is ... (18+ / 0-)

                  ... that sixteen hours of interrogation pretty much requires going beyond imminent threats into other areas into which the Holder memo seeks an expanded exception but which no court has recognized.

                  •  How are you so sure? (6+ / 0-)

                    The guy is recovering from multiple gun-shot surgery including one that went completely through his head, he's on who knows how many drugs, he can't even speak he has to write, and it was over two sessions.

                    I'm not about to pretend to know what was discussed, but I think the questioning continues until we're sure we are safe.  Maybe if he was coherent and uninjured it would have been no more than 90 minutes.

                    Maybe he started out panicked and completely lying.  Maybe his first answers DID suggest more bombs and then we found out that wasn't true.  I (just like you) have no earthly idea.

                    Again, if they are off topic, the judge will have no problem making that ruling.  Why are we in a rush to guess what we think something does or does not "pretty much require"?

                    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                    by Wisper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 08:38:16 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm aware of a throat injury. (6+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      gerrilea, rb608, poligirl, JesseCW, marina, PhilJD

                      Was there also one to the skull?

                      Fully agreed that medical concerns come first, and that he may not have been able to respond quickly.  No one's rushing here, but it doesn't look great in terms of a narrow exception being applied.

                      •  The bullet (0+ / 0-)

                        entered his mouth and exited the back of his head.  I do not know details about the throat/skull/spine/palate injuries.

                        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                        by Wisper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 09:08:46 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Just dont get the harping on time (0+ / 0-)

                        Allen v Roe in the 9th circuit again related to a lost gun, the defendant tried to argue the fact that the time lapse between commission and interrogation was too long for Public Safety to apply.  The court rejected it and stated that the argument "missed the point".

                        “[i]f the gun was discarded in a public place, it posed a continuing immediate danger because anyone could have found the gun at any time. Moreover, the danger posed by the gun does not dissipate over time."
                        That was for a single missing GUN... not even a potentially ticking shrapnel bomb in a crowded city.

                        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                        by Wisper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 09:15:16 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  the length of the interrogation in Allen: (5+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          rb608, poligirl, JesseCW, marina, Dianna

                          Not 16 hours:

                          After Allen was identified by Danker, Officers Hahn and Martin took custody of Allen, and escorted him back to the crime scene.   They did not give Allen Miranda warnings, but while in the police car, Officer Martin stated to Allen that “the weapon used was supposedly a gun,” but that no gun had been found.   The officer then told Allen that “if the wrong person found the gun, it could hurt someone else.”

                          Upon arriving at the crime scene, the following conversation took place between Allen and Officer Martin:

                          Allen:  How is he?   Is he going to make it?

                          Officer:  I don't know.

                          Allen:  I want to go see the body.   He's not supposed to die.

                          Officer:  I can't do that.   The body is at UCD Med Center.

                          Allen:  Is he still alive?   Just tell me he is still alive.

                          Officer:  I don't know.   As far as I know, he is.

                          Allen:  I think I can show you where the gun is.

                          Officer:  Will you try?   If not, someone can get hurt with that same gun.

                          Allen:  I'm not positive because I blacked out, but I am pretty sure I can.   If you and maybe one other officer go with me, I'll try. We have to walk.   Its [sic] about 20 to 30 minutes [sic] walk from here.   Tell me my son is not going to die.   He's not supposed to die.

                          Officer:  At this point he's being worked on at the Med Center.   What his condition is, I don't know.

                          Allen:  I don't want this to happen to someone else.   I think I can show you.   The gun is in a black backpack.   We have to start at the bridge on Northgate south of the levee.

                          •  See my comment below though (0+ / 0-)

                            in Zalevsky the questioning was EIGHT STRAIGHT HOURS and was not anywhere near ending except that they found the victim's dead body.

                            I posted other citations in a response to the person who is still upset that I don't like Jesselyn Radack with examples where the PSE was used for DAYS of interrogation after the commission of a crime (though admittedly not continuously.. though even here there were at least two sessions)

                            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                            by Wisper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 09:28:50 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It wasn't eight hours. (5+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rb608, aliasalias, poligirl, JesseCW, Dianna

                            You appear to be relying on a law review article which got it wrong.  Read the opinion, do the math.

                          •  From time of arrest or time of interrogation? (0+ / 0-)

                            I think I only have the appellate ruling handy.... I closed that window.

                            So how many hours was it?  And the other cases where interrogation continued on and off for days?

                            My point here is not exactly how long Gregory Zalevsky was interrogated, its the court's ruling that "public safety" is not on an egg-timer.  It continues, unabated, until such a time that the danger is removed and the emergency ended.  At that point the suspects rights have to be honored completely.

                            Look at the Zalevsky appeal... the courts actually agreed that the statements from when the detectives were notified that the victim was dead until they left the room to go to the crime scene SHOULD be suppressed.  Everything else before that:  A-OK.

                            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                            by Wisper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 09:46:19 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Here's what I can tell. (6+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rb608, aliasalias, poligirl, JesseCW, marina, Dianna

                            trial ct opinion:

                            4pm arrest
                            4:15pm: interrogation starts
                            At some point: defendant gives up real address, dead body found. Interview ends.
                            9:43pm: New interview, defendant Mirandized.

                            I agree that the exception can continue as long as there's a pending imminent emergency. Where we part ways is on the likelihood that it took 16h to determine there was no such emergency.

                          •  I must be reading this wrong then (0+ / 0-)

                            From your link (last paragraph)

                            For these reasons, defendant's statements will not be suppressed. In any event, defendant was given his Miranda warnings by the detectives at 9:43 PM, about four hours after his initial interview and again at 2:30 AM by the assistant district attorney some nine hours later, after which he made statements orally and on videotape.
                            And the paragraph above it (my emphasis):
                            As was stated in State of Arizona v Londo, __ P.3d __ " while life hangs in the balance, there is no room for admonitions concerning the right to counsel and to remain silent."

                            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                            by Wisper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 10:06:09 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You are. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            poligirl, Dianna

                            Initial, un-Mirandized interview: 4:15p-5:45p, more or less; new interview at 9:43p, Mirandized.  

                          •  I think were just detail mining (0+ / 0-)

                            and I stated my larger point in my other comment, but now I am actually curious.

                            I see the citation of 4:15 to begin after a 4:00 arrest. I see not a single reference or 5:45 or any claim of "an hour and a half".

                            Rather I see a chronology where he gives an address, one officer leaves, another continues questioning, a third one returns from Ryker's Island and joins in and at some point his father is brought in to help gain his cooperation... the first officer calls saying its the wrong address, he gives another, she goes to THAT address, finds the dead body and calls back to let them know.

                            All that happens in 90 minutes?

                            Admittedly Adam, I am trying to do about three things at once here at work so I assure you I am not trying to dispute this or pick on a detail but I didn't see it in the record.

                            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                            by Wisper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 10:18:14 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's by deduction (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            poligirl, Dianna

                            If the second interview takes place four hours after the first (good catch), and it started at 9:43p, then ~5:45p is when the first one had to have ended.

                            Moreover, it's an officer in the field (Murriel) who was at the first location then went to the second; according to Google Maps, the two locations were 0.4 miles apart -- a one-minute drive.

                          •  ah. I see what you did (0+ / 0-)

                            Wow..., I wasn't about to google map the layout.  Did you photoshop a mock-up of the crime scene too? :)

                            Okay, I just wanted to understand.  I'm not sure I agree as you have no way to determine the time lapse between the 4:15 start of interrogation and the departure of Officer Murriel.  That could have been hours of questioning right there.

                            But I see how you are doing the math now.  Thank you.
                            Thought maybe I was just being blind.

                            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                            by Wisper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 10:39:14 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It doesn't matter when she left (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            poligirl, JesseCW, Dianna

                            Because the "four hours later" tells you the length of the gap between interviews.  FWIW, the 60th Precinct is also very much nearby.

                    •  Note the terminology (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Adam B, JesseCW, marina, Dianna

                      This is a limited exception to the Miranda rule, granted only in the interest of public safety.  It is not a rule that permits the government to do whatever it chooses before Mirandizing, so long as they can make any claim that public safety is at issue.  Under a constitutional system, this exception should be as narrow as possible; that is why it is an exception and not the rule.  Under your reading, the exception swallows the rule and Miranda is nullified.  

                      •  Not at all (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Be Skeptical

                        Remember, whatever evidence they get has to then be introduced in Court.  If the interrogations was out of bounds regarding public safety then the judge would have no problem dismissing them.

                        It is absolutely limited to public safety, I am not and have not argued otherwise.

                        My argument, in light of several Federal cases that have made such rulings, is that in a legitimate PSE situation, the suspect's 6th Amendment right to counsel is equally suborned as their 5th Amendment right to silence up until the public danger is properly mitigated.

                        And there are cases where this extra-miranda/no-attorney interrogation has gone on for days and still been found legal provided that the State can stipulate a legitimate concern for Public Safety to justify their actions.

                        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                        by Wisper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 11:42:46 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Exclusion is not enough to protect (0+ / 0-)

                          against a violation of constitutional rights.  (This is a huge problem in the unlawful search context- the case law involves only circumstances where the suspect is tried.  Cases involving innocent victims are relegated to the civil sphere, if they are pursued at all.)  

                          Ultimately, you make my point.  I am surprised that you would go so far as to say the right against self-incrimination does not exist in a PSE context.  This extends much further than allowing no Miranda warning.  In your view, is there any limitation to the tactics the government may use during a PSE interrogation?  If you don't have a right to remain silent, may the government then constitutionally coerce you to speak?  

                          Can you provide the cites for the cases where a PSE interrogation went on for days?  Thanks.

                          •  The questions are limited to public safety (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            marina

                            we've established that.  There is also precedent where questions were allowed to extend to accomplices under a PSE.

                            I am not advocating coercion any more than I am advocating open-ended interrogation under a misapplied exception.  The case law supports that the exception ends the second the emergency is over.

                            Adam B and I were debating a NY case (People v Zalevsky) where a suspect we questioned under a PSE while they were looking for a kidnapping victim.  A detective finally called in from the suspects apartment having located the victim's dead body.  THe court held that all the PSE questioning was admissible without miranda rights up until that phone call came in and that the conversations that happened in the brief time between the detective being informed she was dead and then leaving the room to go to the crime scene should be specifically suppressed.  Its that specific.... down to the minute.

                            If the agents here strayed from Public Safety questions in questioning Tsarnaev the judge should apply the same measure.

                            As for your citatation, try Trice v United States.  PSE interrogation four days after the crime because the missing weapon was potentially accessible by children so the courts allowed it.

                            Lastly, since you mention unlawful search, there has been some questions about how the Police were entitled to do a house by house search in Watertown without warrants.  Again... public safety.  They were not gathering evidence or information on any of the home owners, but they had a compelling safety interest to verify that the buildings were not being used by the fugitive to lie in wait in order to conduct more attacks.  

                            If they would have found something like pot plants or unregistered guns or something, that should ABSOLUTELY be thrown out of court if charges were brought against a home owner.  ...I think we agree on that, right?

                            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                            by Wisper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 12:53:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The Trice case does not hold (0+ / 0-)

                            that a PSE interrogation can go on "for days."  You have misread the case.  In Trice, defendant was arrested at home four days after the crime.  During the arrest, the officer asked where the gun was out of an expressed concern for the safety of the children in the home.  The interrogation included only that question, which was asked after invocation of rights, but within an hour of contact with the defendant.  Indeed, the court stressed that the passage of time may be a mitigating factor.  

                            The Trice case is governing law only in the District of Columbia.  I would argue that it is wrongly decided and would cite Marshall's dissent in Quarles as the correct reasoning.  However, the facts of Trice are less troubling because the defendant was asked only one question, at the time of arrest, while in the home with children present.   I do think the police used PSE as a pretext and would not have allowed the statement to be admissible.  Even O'Connor (of the revisionist Bush v. Gore history) objected to Quarles's allowance of the custodial statement prior to the recitation of Miranda warnings.  I assume she would have reached the same result in the post-Miranda context.

            •  John Adams or some shit? (7+ / 0-)

              You haven't noticed that evidence has been suppressed, secret hearings have been held, and other various violations of our Constitution and treaties in recent years?

              The Bill of Rights applies to everyone, not just citizens.

              I would also argue that our first duty is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, as in the government oaths of office. Not the safety of the people.

              In times of national crisis a nation is most at risk of losing its way toward justice, and it's even more necessary than normal to follow a strict legal framework and not give in to fear, hysteria, and retribution.

              •  we disagree (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Keone Michaels
                The Bill of Rights applies to everyone, not just citizens.
                How does that work legally?
                I would also argue that our first duty is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, as in the government oaths of office. Not the safety of the people.
                We disagree.  These are not mutually exclusive, but the safety of its citizens from imminent harm comes first.  There are centuries of jurisprudence supporting this, in times of national crisis and otherwise.

                Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                by Wisper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 09:10:41 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The Bill of Rights (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  marina, aliasalias, JesseCW, poligirl

                  is not a grant of protections (as sadly far too many Americans believe, in large part because politicians often make such claims). but a recognition of certain rights that no government has the right to infringe.  Accordingly, non-citizens have the same rights, although the SC has not always heeded the principle underlying the bill of rights.

                  •  Hmm... I think we disagree (0+ / 0-)

                    If this were true than why can't immigrants vote?  That is the fundamental right of citizenry in America.

                    I do agree with your stipulation that the BoR is a list of proscriptions placed on the power of government, however the treatment of non-citizen residents is a policy decision not a legal one and is therefore the jurisdiction not of the Courts at all, but of Congress..

                    As Justice Frankfurter once wrote in a case regarding political deportation:

                    The conditions for entry of every alien, the particular classes of aliens that shall be denied entry altogether, the basis for determining such classification, the right to terminate hospitality to aliens, the grounds on which such determination shall be based, have been recognized as matters solely for the responsibility of the Congress and wholly outside the power of this Court to control.

                    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                    by Wisper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 12:33:50 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well, the right to vote (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      marina

                      is not enshrined in the Bill of Rights.  I did state that the SC has on occasion declined (wrongly, I would argue) to extend certain rights to non-citizens.  However, the basic principle regarding the Bill of Rights is really not debatable.  Those rights were deemed by the framers to exist beyond the reach of any government.  It's a truly profound Enlightenment principle.  It's a shame it's not generally understood.

                •  You disagree? You do NOT believe that (5+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  poligirl, marina, Dianna, triv33, Don midwest

                  non-citizens are Persons under US Law?

                  Wash. Judge Tells Cops To Return Man’s Marijuana Or Be Found In Contempt

                  by JesseCW on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 12:32:48 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Jesse (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    joesig, Be Skeptical, sviscusi

                    I would have ever-so-much more admiration for your obvious passion on all these issues if, for once, you actually posted a link or made a cogent argument (for or against) ANYTHING.... anything at all.... instead all you do is yell and insult.

                    Would you like to point out why American jurisprudence justifies embodying Constitutional rights to non-citizens?  Could you provide an example of when we've done this in the past?  Was there a previous issue in American history where this was the case, regardless of outcome, that I am overlooking?  

                    Anything.  I'd be happy respond, even admit I was wrong,  but you've got to bring something to the argument here man.

                    Shit just gets old.

                    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                    by Wisper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 12:44:19 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  isn't this a bit the pot calling the kettle black: (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      marina, JesseCW, triv33
                      instead all you do is yell and insult.
                      given your insertion of Michael Isikoff in your comment up higher? your insult had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of the diary. just saying.

                      and all Jesse is doing is asking you a question, with one word emphasized. that's not yelling.

                      also you say:

                      Would you like to point out why American jurisprudence justifies embodying Constitutional rights to non-citizens?  Could you provide an example of when we've done this in the past?  Was there a previous issue in American history where this was the case, regardless of outcome, that I am overlooking?
                      (emphasis mine)

                      Zacarias Moussaoui

                      Ahmed Ressam

                      and that's just 2 fairly recent ones. i am sure there are probably more in the past - even the recent past. shall i find you more?

                      The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

                      by poligirl on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 01:05:01 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  It was a reply to the surprising (0+ / 0-)

                        self-made admission of being a "former DOJ employee".  I have a 50-lb bag of salt that I'd need to take the diarist's exposition of the proper reaction of a DOJ official, all things being equal.

                        I would quibble with the Moussaoui trial, there were quite a few aspects of that regarding the CIA's handling of evidence and invoking of National Security claims that I think still puts that outside the scope of how a citizen (see: Tsarnaev) would be treated.

                        But your Ressam case is a valid point.  Although, we assisted France in trying Ressam in absentia after our conviction.  Would we have ever done that with one of our own citizens?  I don't know the answer to that, I merely ask the question.  Regardless, I think your example is apt.

                        I guess I was looking for things outside of purely criminal proceedings and more in line with the larger philosophical point being made (at least in how I read it) of the inalienability of the rights described in our documents.  That they were intended to address all of mankind, not just citizens of the US.

                        I still hold, as described in many rulings, that non-citizens can only seek succor in their treatment by the government through acts of Congress whereas we as citizens are entitled to judicial review of our rights.

                        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                        by Wisper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 01:16:58 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  wait - are you confusing Jesse with Jesselyn? (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          LaEscapee

                          you say you were responding to the self made admission of being a former DoJ employee...

                          JesseCW and Jesselyn are not the same person just in case you did not know that.

                          The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

                          by poligirl on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 02:45:55 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Now I'm confused (0+ / 0-)

                            I realize they are two people.  JesseCW is the asking why I consider myself a Democrat, equating me to John Yoo and suggesting some kind of " I'm afraid so I want to give up my rights" mentality to my comments and was chiming in here to insult my response to a comment about legal rights of non-citizens.  

                            Jesselyn is the diarist with a questionable track record as an attorney but considers herself a whistleblower.  

                            Where is the confusion here?   Was I unclear; I did not mean to be.

                            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                            by Wisper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 03:34:39 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I want to apologize for equating you with John (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            poligirl

                            Yoo.

                            Do you know his e-mail adress?

                            Wash. Judge Tells Cops To Return Man’s Marijuana Or Be Found In Contempt

                            by JesseCW on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 05:03:59 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's on his Berkeley page (0+ / 0-)

                            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                            by Wisper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 06:07:06 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  If you can't answer the question, I guess you (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      poligirl, triv33, Nada Lemming

                      can go look for naked pictures of me on the internet.

                      Wash. Judge Tells Cops To Return Man’s Marijuana Or Be Found In Contempt

                      by JesseCW on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 01:40:06 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  I just don't get why you're calling yourself a (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  poligirl, Dianna, triv33, Don midwest

                  Democrat.

                  You're in lock step with John Yoo.

                  Wash. Judge Tells Cops To Return Man’s Marijuana Or Be Found In Contempt

                  by JesseCW on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 12:33:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  John Yoo was never on the Supreme Court (0+ / 0-)

                    and there are a LOT of rulings on this, long long before any kind of scary War on Terror.

                    What Yoo is infamous for is his justification for subvert standard criminal processes under the guise of warfare regarding a loosely defined class of "enemy combatants".  

                    That has nothing to do with the matter at hand.  I'm talking about decades of laws regarding peaceful non-citizens.  The Courts have long recognized that it is the power of Congress to legislate how these people are to be treated outside of the review of the Supreme Court, unless the specifics of the case dictate otherwise.  The quote I linked above was from the SCOTUS over 60 years ago.

                    (and in the current Boston case, the point is moot because Obama has rightly made the point that Tsarnaev is a citizen and therefore WILL be processed through civilian criminal court just like you or I would (assuming you are a citizen)).

                    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                    by Wisper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 12:39:08 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  I wouldn't be so sure. Do you really think it (0+ / 0-)

              isn't likely that they insisted the doctors withhold some of his meds in order to ensure that he remain conscious in order to answer their questions (and provide an incentive to, as in "tell us what we want to know and you get your morphine)?

              You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

              by Throw The Bums Out on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 09:06:28 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  he went into hospital with gunshot wounds (0+ / 0-)

            and after having spent more than 12 hours holed up, bleeding, dehydrating, not eating, etc., all of which contributed to a general physical condition preventing ready conversation.

            Do you not consider that he may have had medical treatment before questioning or during same that further interfered with his answering those public-safety-related questions during that 16-hour interval? In other words, they had to wait for him to get out of surgery and wake up afterward before they could ask him the questions, let alone read him his rights?

            Remember also that had this man not run over his own brother with a stolen SUV in his haste to escape police, we might have recovered both these bombers alive -- and maybe been able to get some answers to the question of  

            WTF were you trying to do, you jerk,

            out of the one now being painted in the media (ugh; why can't they stop trying this case in the theatre of media attention and let it go to court properly? Oh, right: they'd have to admit how tiny their brains, and their other "attributes," as Londo Mollari called such organs, really are...it would bruise their widdle fee-fees to STFU until facts could be presented. They're media giants -- not the same thing as actual investigators, let alone thinking humans, never mind citizens of a nation they work night and day to terrify into betraying its own ideals for the sake of the almighty dollar --  so bruising their widdle fee-fees must be avoided at all costs. Therefore they get to make crap up and spew it on the air and be treated as though that's actual, you know, news coverage) as the radicalized mastermind ... when what we really know about him is at 26 he's dead, leaving a widow and child behind.

            That really is all we know about the older brother. Speculation in / from the media aside, it may turn out to be all we ever know. For which I blame the younger brother.

            I for one am not going to wring hands for the lack of tenderness shown the surviving bomber.

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

            by BlackSheep1 on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 09:02:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

              •  Doesnt matter (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BlackSheep1

                We wouldn't have let him invoke them if he wanted to... not during the PSE.  Not until we know people are safe.

                People v Zalevsky, NY case 2011... the Court allowed the police to question Zalevsky for eight hours STRAIGHT without allowing rights to silence or counsel trying to determine the location of a kidnapping victim.  The only reason it stopped was because officers finally found her dead body and therefore no PSE could be claimed.  The questioning stopped, he was mirandized and prosecuted.  All evidence was admissible and he was convicted.

                The court wrote:

                "Given the legitimate concern of the police for the safety of the victim, the questioning of the defendant regarding the victim's whereabouts was lawful....Once the police found the victim's body in the defendant's apartment and ascertained that she was dead, and after that information was communicated to the detectives questioning the defendant, the emergency no longer existed."

                Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                by Wisper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 09:25:52 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's inaccurate (5+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  rb608, aliasalias, JesseCW, poligirl, triv33

                  First, because when you read the lower court opinion, it's clear the interrogation was much shorter than your claimed "eight hours."

                  Second, obviously, there was a known victim at the time, about whom he was not forthcoming.  Whether Tsarnaev had left other bombs was unknown and, I've argued, could likely be confirmed in well short of 16 hours.

                  Third, not all evidence was admissible:

                  Once the police found the victim's body in the defendant's apartment and ascertained that she was dead, and after that information was communicated to the detectives questioning the defendant, the emergency no longer existed. The statements the defendant made following the discovery of the body and before the detectives left the interrogation room for the scene of the crime should have been suppressed (see People v Krom, 61 NY2d at 200; People v Molina, 248 AD2d at 490). Nonetheless, the admission of these statements constituted harmless error in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt and the fact that there was no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the defendant's conviction (see People v Paulman, 5 NY3d 122, 134 [2005]; People v Krom, 61 NY2d at 201; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237 [1975]).
                  •  Adam, we are cross-streaming here (0+ / 0-)

                    I am going to ignore the other threads and only respond here because I think we are having a very legitimate argument.

                    My point is not how many hours and minutes Zalevsky was interrogated it is the court's stance that there is no timer.

                    Like the Allen court held in the case of a single missing handgun : "The danger posed by the gun does not dissipate over time".

                    In Trice the courts allowed FOUR DAYS of intermittent interrogation finding that, because it was accessible to children, the danger the lost weapon (again a missing gun) posed outweighed the defendant's rights.

                    I'm not arguing that 16 hours is absolutely the right thing to do, or that the government is 100% right in refusing the attorney for as long as they did.  I don't know the facts.

                    My argument is that people, not you specifically but look up and down this thread, are so focused on the Law & Order sanctimony of the Holy Miranda Rights that they think they can just jump to some conclusion of tyranny and mean old government bad guys disrespecting the law, when in fact there are LOTS of precedents of withheld Miranda rights, disregarded requests for counsel and prolonged interrogations under the guise of the PSE for things much more mundane than terrorist bombings.  And that furthermore these things have been subjected to judicial review (often multiple times via the appellate process) and not only stood up to scrutiny but led to successful convictions.

                    So I guess my point is that if there are these specific cases highlighting any and all aspects of this supposed trashing of god-given rights in cases properly adjudicated where we know ALL the facts... how the hell are people basing the angst-farming sturm and drang on a case where we clearly know almost NOTHING?

                    It is nothing short of ethically irresponsible and/or intellectually lazy.  But I guess it feels good to howl at the moon and talk about how EVIL the Government is.

                    Islamic terrorist being tried in open civilian criminal courts and afforded his rights as a citizen.  Yeah... its just like the old days under Bush.  Maybe even worse.

                    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                    by Wisper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 10:01:40 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm not going to engage on the broader question (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      JesseCW, poligirl, triv33

                      Here's the narrower concern here: how long did it take to establish that no imminent threat remained in the greater Boston area?  Because I will agree with you that if such a threat were known to be out there, then a lengthy public safety interrogation is warranted (though, again, I don't know what you do with Tsarnaev's independent invocation of his rights).  But we know there wasn't another bomb out there.

                      •  okay, we will stay narrowly focused (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Be Skeptical
                        Here's the narrower concern here: how long did it take to establish that no imminent threat remained in the greater Boston area?
                        There is absolutely no way of knowing that without hearing the questions.  Again, what if Tsarnaev started off by lying (like Zalenov giving a fake address) requiring police effort to eliminate false statements?  What if his answers at first made no sense and they decided to stop and come back to re-ask the same questions when he was more coherent?  

                        I think it a very low bar to imagine a theoretical situation that could require 16-hours of questioning, particularly given the physical state of the suspect.  Whether or not the specifics of this case justified a prolonged un-mirandized interrogation will be a matter for the court to settle, and even then, only if the State feels the need to even use the evidence thus gained.  Otherwise, this whole point is moot.

                        I view Tsarnaev's 6th Amendment invocation as irrelevant given that we were already operating under a PSE situation.  In light of the fact that there are numerous cases where the lack of afforded counsel (even after it was explicitly requested) was allowed to stand in court, it seems permissible to assume the government agents were operating under the assumption that rights to counsel were to be coupled with his right to silence and deliberately suspended until the matter of public safety was satisfactorily resolved.

                        I do see that Columbia case study you referenced up thread and their comment is poignant on this specific subject matter:

                        As just explained, cases involving suspected terrorists will always involve the FBI, making it almost certain that these cases will be in federal court. The federal judiciary’s treatment of explosive devices as regards the PSE is, thus, particularly relevant. The federal judiciary is willing to apply the PSE even more broadly, including cases in which it becomes apparent, after the fact, that there was never any real threat to public safety in the first place.

                        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                        by Wisper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 10:31:51 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Is it your position that the government may coerce (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          aliasalias, JesseCW, Don midwest

                          a statement from a witness so long as they can claim a PSE?  Doesn't such a position obliterate the protections we all are granted under the constitution?

                          •  No.. the Courts specifically exclude coercion (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Be Skeptical

                            I dont have the language in front of me... Adam B had me researching something else earlier... but it was something along the lines of "overcoming the resistant will of the suspect" (I am very much paraphrasing here).

                            Absolutely illegal.  I don't have time to do research right now but outside of Bush-era interrogations (which were in special courts anyway) I cant imagine a lot of case law where physical coercion would not be ruled out.

                            And please note, by the very fact that we are invoking and parsing out rights and clauses of the 4th, 5th and 6th amendment's, this means that the matter must be in a US criminal court before a sworn judge.  

                            The accused suspect is free to present any motion to have specific evidence or entire charges dismissed on grounds of Constitutional violations.  If Tsarnaev's attorneys think something was done illegally they are entitled, if not outright compelled, to bring it up to the judge.

                            These rights are not that it can never happen ... its that the State can't do them and then use them against you.

                            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                            by Wisper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 11:30:27 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What about non-physical coercion? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            poligirl, marina

                            That is, if the suspect invokes her right against self-incrimination or requests counsel, is it your view that the government has the power to ignore these invocations?  If so, doesn't the interrogation become per se coercive?  The suspect during that time would exist in a limbo in which the constitution of the US no longer governs.  How is that any different than Gitmo?

                            I appreciate your efforts to research the issues as the discussion develops.  Your statement about voluntariness is  accurate.  The voluntariness requirement exists to prevent the government from using its power to violate a suspect's 4th (consent to a search), 5th and 6th amendment rights.  If the government is permitted to use the PSE as a reach-around these protections, what remains of the constitution?

                          •  I've made clear (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            enemy of the people

                            and cited cases to support, that a suspect's 6th amendment right to counsel is subject to the same restrictions or obviations as their 5th amendment right to silence in the face of a compelling public safety issue.

                            We can, should and have ignored requests for counsel until we can verify that the public is safe.  The courts have affirmed this for things as mundane as a single misplaced handgun or a potential liquor store robbery.  Police are allowed to get limited information they need to protect other citizens.

                            This is all done under the scrutiny of the courts.  There is a Hawaii case State v Kane where an officer finds an illegal explosive in a man's fanny pack.  The man explained it was an explosive packed with BB's.  

                            The officer then started interrogating the man while he was in handcuffs in the patrol car.

                            The court threw out the evidence because the officer had no reason to believe the device was at any risk of being detonated and had no evidence that other explosives posed a risk to the public.  And that

                            Unlike the police officer in Quarles, Officer Veneri had ascertained the location of Kane's device and was aware that it was an explosive. Armed with this knowledge, Officer Veneri did not require additional information from Kane in order to verify the need to call the bomb squad. Accordingly, Officer Veneri's questions cannot be said to have been designed solely for the purpose of addressing the danger posed by the explosive. The "public safety" exception to Miranda being inapplicable to this case, we hold that Kane's answers to Officer Veneri's questions pertaining to what the explosive was and why Kane was in possession of it are inadmissible in evidence.
                            These things don't apply to the Boston case because bombs HAD been detonated, it involved multiple bombers, there was clear evidence of bomb-making capabilities and a suspected intent to carry out further attacks had they not been caught.

                            (I would also not that the Kane case is the ONE and ONLY case where PSE evidence regarding an explosive device has ever been disallowed from Federal Court)

                            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                            by Wisper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 01:07:16 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It is not done under the scrutiny of the courts (0+ / 0-)

                            On what do you base this claim?  The fact that the courts may deny admission of certain statements does not mean the court is scrutinizing the interrogation itself.  

                            If the potential existence of a gun "somewhere" is enough to abrogate constitutional protections, then those protections are merely chimerical.  Window dressing.  However, the cases do not hold for this proposition.  I cannot assert I have read all of the cases on PSE, but the gun cases I have read involved "immediate" circumstances of concern- eg, is there a gun in this room?  is there a gun within the reach of children?  To adopt the position that the existence of a gun used in a crime is enough of a public safety concern to abrogate the constitution is chilling IMO, given the proliferate use of guns to commit crimes.  Other than in a context where there is an immediate threat, as opposed to a "suspected" or potential threat (is there really any temporal limitation on the latter forms?),  the protections afforded to US citizens under the US constitution should not be abrogated.  

                            If a mere "suspected intent," which you raise, is enough to undermine citizens' fundamental rights (which caselaw does not support), then we should stuff the constitution in our worn out shoes for all the value it holds.  

                            I would like to point out as well that the post-Quarles cases are lower court decisions.  They have no precedential value outside of those jurisdictions.  There are plenty of troubling cases on 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment rights.  That does not mean that we, as progressives, should happily endorse them.  

                            Finally, this discussion concerns both what the law is (which is unclear, since the SC has not opined yet) and what it should be.  I think you have extrapolated too freely from the past decisions and have often gotten the holdings wrong.  But the larger question to me is:  how do we as citizens respond to the erosion of our protections?  Do we accede to what the powers that be dictate or do we push to preserve our rights with vigilance?  I opt for the latter.

                            I have enjoyed this discussion.

              •  I know 'em by heart. I used to be a cop. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                rb608, Quicklund, marina

                You wanna talk piss-poor police work?
                Entrapment.
                Laziness.
                Corruption.

                Starts with the cop who winks and lets the pretty female in the low-cut top go, instead of writing the exact same ticket as for a foul-mouthed unwashed male? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe the pretty female behaved better, and the circumstances warranted a warning; or maybe that's a cop unconsciously reacting to simple prejudices based on how the other person in the situation treated the cop.

                Now if the cop offers to kill the citation for a kiss ... that's corruption. Suspension without pay, fine or probation for the cop.
                If it gets dirtier than that, you have reason to dismiss with prejudice and prosecute that cop, 'cause it's sexual assault under color of authority.

                But a bunch of cops at the end of a nerve-wracking high-profile case, having to cool their heels while a suspect wakes up from surgery so they can say "hey are there more bombs? hey are there more bombers?" That's not corruption. That's not laziness.

                And a judge worth the black robe will know whether there's entrapment or not, and how to throw that out before trial.

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

                by BlackSheep1 on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 09:32:50 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  And 2 seconds to deny. (0+ / 0-)

                He repeatedly asked for a lawyer.  What's important isn't just reading him his rights, it's actually respecting them.

          •  If I was in the room I might know (0+ / 0-)

            What is significant about the arbitrary value, 16 hours? I am at sea here.

          •  Does it require denial of the right to counsel and (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Adam B, poligirl, marina

            is there any precedent that would allow the denial of counsel?

            Wash. Judge Tells Cops To Return Man’s Marijuana Or Be Found In Contempt

            by JesseCW on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 12:28:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  obligation (7+ / 0-)

          But there is no obligation

          But, there is an obligation. It's the law. He has a right to an attorney and he asked for one.

        •  Re (5+ / 0-)
          but the government's first job before any and everything is to ensure the public safety
          No, it isn't.

          (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
          Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

          by Sparhawk on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 11:09:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The President doesn't swear an oath to make (6+ / 1-)

          sure no frightened cringing thing that values only personal safety feels immune from any blowback when demanding the ongoing bombing of villages halfway around the world.

          The President swears to uphold the Constitution.

          The Constitution does not allow the denial of the right to counsel.

          Wash. Judge Tells Cops To Return Man’s Marijuana Or Be Found In Contempt

          by JesseCW on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 12:28:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Now that was obnoxious (0+ / 0-)

            Why don't you take your bloated outrage over Americans who just went through another terrorist attack over to a jihadist training camp in Waziristan and explain to them how many. many Americans actually love them dearly and who are also embarrassed for their crybaby countrymen?  

            We'll all chip in later for your ransom money, or your burial, depending.

            •  yeah! F$#@ the Constitution! go Amerka!... (4+ / 1-)
              Recommended by:
              buddabelly, Hastur, orestes1963, LaEscapee
              Hidden by:
              Be Skeptical

              where our leaders can pick and choose when it applies! yay!

              /snark

              gawd sometimes the people here remind me so much of the GOPers i grew up with...

              The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

              by poligirl on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 02:08:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Now that was bizarre (0+ / 0-)

                and thoroughly obnoxious.

                and not unlike the silly desperate flailing and distortions the worst of the  GOPers are so good at.

                Birds of a feather...

                •  Why is this HRd? first, it's clearly noted (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Nada Lemming

                  snark. second, you are in conversation with me and that's a big no no.

                  i will ask the reasoning for the HR before i decide to contact admin about what seems like blatant HR abuse - i know you added it hours after you replied to me.

                  The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

                  by poligirl on Wed May 01, 2013 at 09:44:28 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  see below for short answer (0+ / 0-)

                    Or, to belabor it:
                    You were both being unpleasant assholes/dicks.  It is extremely rare for me to do an HR--but in this case your comment stood out in its distinct, unwarranted dickishness and I realized my response was inadequate to get your attention (true, as it turned out).

                    But to waste my time and take your points:

                    Only the first part was labeled "snark".  Even so, the concept of snark refers to a parody of an external entity, not to the views of another participant.  In that case it is just grotesque misrepresentation.  Both you and JesseCW employed ad hominen and straw person arguments (if they can be said to rise to that level).

                    Further, I was not in "conversation" with you or JesseCW when your HR-able comments were made.  I already noted my reason for the timing of my HRs.

                    Please remember to include the contents of the entire thread if it you gives you a feeling of pleasure to report it.  But really, why waste the admins' time?  Why don't you just become a more gracious and pleasant participant and go striding into the future with a new attitude?

                    •  and you don't think your comment was dickish? (0+ / 0-)

                      about telling Jesse to go to Afghanistan and that you would chip in for ransom money or burial money?

                      so you think it's ok to tell a kossack to go get kidnapped or killed - which you acknowledge would be the outcome - but you're not being a dick?

                      you are possibly one of the least self aware people i've encountered here. you dish it but you can't take it. and then you go and HR two people which you are arguing with - a big no no... i suggest you familiarize yourself with the Troll Rating portion of the FAQ and especially read Hunter's how to's and what's HRable.

                      and so be it. you, who are in a disagreement with me, decided to HR me cuz you, who are actively disagreeing with me, think i'm being dickish, cuz you are so objective in this case, lololololol....

                      that's exactly why you aren't supposed to HR people you are conversing with.

                      and clearly, no one agrees with you on the HRableness. not only that, but apparently you didn't think it was HRable when you replied. that makes you look like you went searching for a reason to get back at me and Jesse.

                      this is a poster example of why the rule stands...

                      and one HR from a guy that was being dickish (cuz you were), i just use my HRs a LOT more wisely than you do. and i've only had maybe 5 comment in my kossack lifetime that have gotten HRd, so my record speaks for itself.

                      ciao rule breaker!

                      The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

                      by poligirl on Wed May 01, 2013 at 11:03:40 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  The schoolyard taunts are sociopathic. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Be Skeptical

            "Eh, you're scared, you're a scaredy cat" isn't an argument when faced with a conspiracy to kill and maim in a public place.

            Only a sociopath would denigrate the efforts to uncover the extent of the conspiracy and placement of other possible bombs as coddling cowardly citizens who are impliedly getting what they deserve.

            "We're now in one of those periods when the reality of intense pressure on the middle class diverges from long-held assumptions of how the American bargain should work" --James Fallows

            by Inland on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 03:29:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  True, Jesse's was a truly sick comment (0+ / 0-)

              Belongs down there with the Worst of Kos.

              •  that's rich, coming from you who just said... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LaEscapee

                this above:

                Now that was obnoxious (0+ / 0-)

                Why don't you take your bloated outrage over Americans who just went through another terrorist attack over to a jihadist training camp in Waziristan and explain to them how many. many Americans actually love them dearly and who are also embarrassed for their crybaby countrymen?  

                We'll all chip in later for your ransom money, or your burial, depending.

                honey - if you want to dish it - you best be able to take it. and judging by your illegal HRs of people you are in conversation with cuz you don't agree with them and the "ransom money...or your burial" comment, show that clearly you want to dish it out, but you certainly can't take it...

                The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

                by poligirl on Wed May 01, 2013 at 08:55:00 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  HR for pure dickishnees (0+ / 0-)

                  easily earned by both of you.  Congrats.

                  •  and you don't think your comment was dickish? (0+ / 0-)

                    really? ummm no... matter of fact - if you had thought it was truly dickish - you would not have needed to think on it for hours.

                    and the fact that we were in this heated convo, as well as you were in the one with JesseCW, this applies (from the FAQ):

                    Do not troll rate someone you are actively having a fight with. If you are in a heated argument with someone, you should not be judging whether or not what they say is trollworthy. Leave it to others to decide what behavior is or isn't over the line.
                    also, this:
                    If you're the only one troll rating something, and most other people aren't, you might have your calibration off. If you're troll rating a user who has been here since the early days of Internet cavemen, you might also have your calibration off.
                    just sayin', you may want to peruse the FAQ and related blog posts.

                    The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

                    by poligirl on Wed May 01, 2013 at 11:08:17 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  you've previously demonstrated (16+ / 0-)

      your disdain for radack, and for her whistle-blowing, but i'm not sure what those have to do with her post here today.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 07:30:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Bill of Rights is the Bill of Rights. (10+ / 0-)

      We either have a Constitution or we don't. "Weapon of Mass Destruction," my ass. It was 2 crude kettle bombs that killed 3 people. An AR-15 is a bigger weapon of mass destruction.

      If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people. --Tony Benn

      by rhetoricus on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 07:43:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We have a Constitution (6+ / 0-)

        and we have centuries of binding jurisprudence to interpret the specifics of it.  The "public safety exception" has been a fact of law for 29 years (17 years before 9/11).

        This is not some new tyrannical over-reach eroding our rights in the name of Executive power.  Its a common sense exception recognizing that imminent public safety concerns trump criminal prosecution rights.

        And its not like its a closed book now.  Anything the government gained from questioning him without giving him his Miranda rights or denying him access to an attorney still has to be introduced into a court of law.  The judge may find all or part of them inadmissible, or maybe she won't.

        You and I don't know what exactly was asked, and there are definitely things that are "in" and "out" of bounds for this, but I don't think its arguable to say that the first priority of that entire investigation team, the second that kid woke up from surgery, was not to make sure that another explosion wasn't being planned inside or outside of Boston.

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 07:56:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wisper: I'd go further. This isn't "24" or "NCIS" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Be Skeptical, Quicklund

          either one.
          This is how you make sure those ... individuals ... haven't got more of those pipe bombs or pressure cookers full of Al Qaeda recipes for shrapnel shoved somewhere out of sight set to go off during the morning commute.

          You ask questions. You check the answers.

          You can't ask questions in surgery. The docs won't put up with it even if the patient's not knocked colder than a wedge as part of emergency lifesaving procedures and surgical treatment of injuries.

          Wounds to the throat requiring surgical repair mean anaesthesia.
          Anaesthesia means recovery time, and as anybody who's ever been told not to drive home from their own arthroscopy or appendectomy knows, even when you think you're awake you're not fully fit to function.

          Sicteen hours does not strike me as excessive -- but that's because I estimate subject's wakefulness in that period as less than the full 16 hours. Absent facts speculation runs rampant, and the speculation in this diary is not the kind I prefer to indulge.

          Also, the (repeating) contention that an AR-15 is more like a WMD than a bomb ???  That's hyperbole taken to hysterical levels.

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

          by BlackSheep1 on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 09:10:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Except for the past ten years (6+ / 0-)

        when it isn't.

        And there are many who were previously opposed to that who have come to embrace it because Obama, which is the number 1 reason it's still the case.

        Frankly, I'd rather take down Exxon or Goldman Sachs, the way we're taking down RushBeckistan, than elect another "better" Democrat who's going to wind up singing for the bankster choir.

        by Words In Action on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 08:00:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  First thing Obama said about this guy (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BlackSheep1, Be Skeptical

          (once he was in custody)

          was that he would be prosecuted in civilian criminal court.  That he was NOT an enemy combatant.  That military tribunals are not an option and that he has rights as an American citizen.  (and the public safety exception is a ruling from the 80's not part of the GWOT or PATRIOT ACT or something)

          Even after Senators started chirping all kinds of "Tuff on Terror" bullshit and trying to make claims about why he SHOULD be treated as less than a citizen, who shut that down?  

          Okay, technically the answer to that last question is "Jay Carney" but.....

          Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

          by Wisper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 08:11:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Nope.. (7+ / 0-)

      This isn't happening again.

      If you want to argue against the diary, then please try to do so, but stop attacking the diarist personally.  This is the same shit that fou and edrie do regularly in Jesslyn's diaries and it needs to stop.  Address the diary or get the fuck out.

      As an aside, you have already proven yourself to be clueless about the issue at hand here (hint: the public safety exception doesn't include the ability to disregard requests for counsel).  So maybe it is best that you go read up on the topic before you post here again.

      •  However (9+ / 0-)

        I don't think the comment you just HRd warrants that, and it is inappropriate to HR a comment in this diary due to past problems with some other comment in some other diary.

        “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

        by Catte Nappe on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 08:25:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The comment clearly attacks Jesslyn for... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          snoopydawg, aliasalias, JesseCW, poligirl

          her previous whistleblowing ordeal at the DOJ (the comment about the stealing of documents) and it fits in perfectly with Wispr's previous comments about how he thinks Jesslyn should have been disbarred.  Given his past bevahior, my threshold for his bullshit is non-existent.

          •  Regardless of your personal threshold w/Wisper (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Quicklund, jazzence

            The HR, and your reasons, are still inappropriate.

            Wispr's previous comments ....his past bevahior,
            Rating in this diary should be based on the current comment in this diary.

            “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

            by Catte Nappe on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 09:24:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And a prolonged campaign of personal attacks (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poligirl

              should be ignored because....

              Beuller?  Beuller???

              Wash. Judge Tells Cops To Return Man’s Marijuana Or Be Found In Contempt

              by JesseCW on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 12:39:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  There are options other than HRs you know (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Adam B

                Comments don't seem to be rationed or in short supply. Ignoring seems to be effective in some, but not all, cases.

                “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

                by Catte Nappe on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 02:43:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  the Isikoff comment is meant to rile and has (0+ / 0-)

          absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter of the diary. it's specifically there because the commenter has an ax to grind with the diarist.

          i didn't HR it this time but i made my point pretty clear in the last diary he pulled the personal grudge match in.

          The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

          by poligirl on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 02:55:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Lawrence Lewis did a good job with the issue (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            poligirl

            No HR, brief comment pointing out prior animosity to diarist, and moved on.

            “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

            by Catte Nappe on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 03:08:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  yeah, but having that Isikoff portion... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Catte Nappe

              does make an HR within reason. had he left that part out, i would agree that it was prob not HRable...

              The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

              by poligirl on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 03:23:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Here's another comment (0+ / 0-)

        HR Away.  Retaliatory HR's amuse me.

        Are you dredging up an argument from a previous diary AND linking to a hidden comment?

        tsk, tsk, tsk..... these things are frowned upon Brady.

        Please keep your rebuttals to the topic at hand.

        kthxbai

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 08:31:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There's nothing to rebut... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JesseCW, poligirl

          You have such a supreme ignorance of the public safety exception that your comments here are laughable.

          •  You are so cute (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BlackSheep1, Be Skeptical, Quicklund

            Not sure if you have a caselaw account but since you like to use big words like "Supreme Ignorance" try searching Trice v. United States.

            The court allowed the Public Safety Exemption to be used despite the suspects repeated requests for counsel and the fact that the interrogation continued FOUR DAYS after the commission of the crime.

            ..and why?  Was it about terrorism?  Weapons of Mass Destruction?!?  Nope... just the fact that the missing gun the defendant refused to identify was potentially accessible to children.

            or People v Zalevsky where the public safety exemption was approved for 8 hours of continuous interrogation about the location of a kidnapping victim.

            or People v Palmer when the defendant ALREADY had been given counsel when police became alarmed that an accomplice had tried to communicate with him to schedule a robbery that night.  The police then interrogated him without his lawyer and refused his requests for his attorney to be present present for hours and the courts admitted ALL OF IT as evidence under the public safety exemption.

            Meh.. but what the hell do I know?  My comments are laughable.

            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

            by Wisper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 09:06:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  As I understand the norms here (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rb608, poligirl

          You can link to, but not republish, a hidden comment from somewhere else, but it better be relevant to the diary.

          •  It's relevant to the current personal attacks. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            poligirl

            It's fucking disgusting that sort of slut shaming shit Wisper engaged in there drew no sanction, btw.

            Wash. Judge Tells Cops To Return Man’s Marijuana Or Be Found In Contempt

            by JesseCW on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 12:43:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  it's not relevant to the diary; it's only relevant (0+ / 0-)

            to the commenter's grudge against the diarist which he brought into discussion full in another of the diarist's recent diaries. and one he was roundly HRd for.

            the Isikoff shit is simply throwing bombs.

            The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

            by poligirl on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 02:59:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hey now (0+ / 0-)

              I never said anything in her diary that wasn't related to her own content.  

              The factual comments you are referencing we're in a different diary trying to use her as a credible reference.

              This is turning into a bit of diary hacking, is it not?  I thought this was why there were rules against rearguing stuff.  

              I mean, I'm happy to but this diary was about Miranda rights.  

              Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

              by Wisper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 04:14:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  no. this is your first standalone comment in THIS (0+ / 0-)

                diary:

                Yes, so... (5+ / 3-)
                It is unclear when, if ever, the Justice Department was going to Mirandize Tsarnaev.
                So let's speculate that it was NEVER and the Gubmint is EBIL!!1!1!!
                As a former Justice Department attorney, I am particularly incensed when the Justice Department abandons its commitment to justice in favor of cheating to get exact its pound of flesh.
                Yes, I imagine you are incensed.  You should steal Tsarnaev's emails and send them to Michael Isikoff too.  That will definitely help the case.
                Tsarnaev is accused of a violent crime. So was Jeffery Dahmer, the BTK killer, and numerous other serial murderers, whose rights we had no qualms about upholding in order to bring them to justice.
                The BTK killer was charged with using a weapon of mass destruction?  There was grave concern that while Dahmer was in custody others were still at risk of being eaten to death?  Odd, I don't recall that.....

                Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                by Wisper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 09:05:24 AM CDT

                (emphasis mine)

                the bolded part of your comment serves no purpose but to throw an insult at the diarist and is not relevant to the diary whatsoever. it is however, related to your grudge.

                The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

                by poligirl on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 06:38:36 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  when you mentioned Isikoff, you lost the ability.. (0+ / 0-)

          to say someone else brought old shit in.

          just sayin...

          The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those that speak it. ~George Orwell

          by poligirl on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 02:56:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Wisper has proven himself the most informed of us (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        stellaluna
        As an aside, you have already proven yourself to be clueless about the issue at hand here
        As an aside, this is one big case of fail. I expect you do not agree with Wisper but to state he is uniformed is to ignore your own eyes.
    •  You obviously know nothing (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aliasalias, JesseCW, poligirl, Don midwest

      about Jesselyn's whistleblowing case. Your ignorance is on display.

      •  and your sig line (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Quicklund, sviscusi, stellaluna

        clearly immunizes you from any bias.

        Do not pretend to know what I do or do not know and to devolve into details of Ms. Radack's past, as sordidly entertaining as that may be, would be a major diary hijack in a thread regarding Miranda rights and the PSE as it relates to 6th Amendment rights to counsel.

        My comment was in response to her casually stated "as a former DOJ employee" which admittedly I found surprising to be included and was listed directly following the block quote of said line.

        www.IThinkWisperIsRight.org

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 10:10:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (132)
  • Community (63)
  • 2016 (46)
  • Elections (38)
  • Media (35)
  • Environment (35)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (33)
  • Republicans (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Law (28)
  • Barack Obama (28)
  • Iraq (27)
  • Civil Rights (25)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Jeb Bush (24)
  • Culture (24)
  • Economy (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • Bernie Sanders (18)
  • Senate (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site