Skip to main content

Boston Marathon bomb suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
Associated Press:
Sixteen hours after investigators began interrogating him, the surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings went silent: he'd just been read his constitutional rights.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev immediately stopped talking after a magistrate judge and a representative from the U.S. Attorney's office entered his hospital room and gave him his Miranda warning, according to four officials of both political parties briefed on the interrogation. They insisted on anonymity because the briefing was private.

Before being advised of his rights, the 19-year-old suspect told authorities that his older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, only recently had recruited him to be part of the attack that detonated pressure-cooker bombs at the marathon finish line, two U.S. officials said.

This is consistent with a report on Tuesday from The Boston Globe:
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev admitted to authorities Sunday that he and his brother were behind the Boston Marathon bombings, according to a senior law enforcement official.

Tsarnaev made his admissions to FBI agents who interviewed him at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, where he is being treated for multiple gunshot wounds. He had not yet been given a Miranda warning.

What the AP's report adds to the story is that Tsarnaev apparently went silent after being read his Miranda rights. Surely, this will cause serious heartburn on the part of folks like Sen. Lindsey Graham who believe that the proper response to attacks like the Boston Marathon bombing is to suspend the Constitution, because terror, and We. Must. Be. Afraid. But from everything we know so far, reading Tsarnaev his Miranda rights done nothing to jeopardize the case against him (there was already plenty of evidence against him, so a non-admissible confession is not the big deal it might first appear to be) or put the country at risk. It makes you wonder: why are guys like Graham so eager to suspend the rule of law?

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Guys like Graham are eager to suspend (50+ / 0-)

    the rule of law because they detest the rule of law except as it pertains to their own lock on power.

    I can only imagine what is in the minds of the Democrats who have given their approval to such ideas in the past.

    What is truth? -- Pontius Pilate

    by commonmass on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 07:35:16 AM PDT

    •  In all honesty (15+ / 0-)

      I don't think that's it at all.

      I mean, I know this is the lowest hanging fruit on the interpretation-of-other-people's-actions tree, and it is the most satisfying in terms of how it confirms most of our observations about the opposition's behavior, but in this case, I think the Boston Globe nailed it with their editorial  that was highlighted in (I believe) Monday's APR:


      Suspend the rule of law on this the continued level of hyperbolic terrorphobia is necessary to sustain in order for those who overreacted after 911 not to look bad.  And also for those who made a career-enhancing leap into public recognition as Graham did -- he became the media's go to guy on extra-legal terror questions -- it vindicates his so-called "expertise".

      It keeps him relevant.  When the world and events pass your expertise by you have to make a whole lot of noise to keep being noticed.

      It's all bluster, but not so much for evil purposes (i.e. authoritarian power grab cough Dick Cheney cough), but for much more pedestrian, narcissistic ones (I like it when the media call me up).

      Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

      by a gilas girl on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 09:11:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He's a military minded power freak (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      commonmass, jilikins, Matt Z, Oh Mary Oh

      Lindsey Graham would like martial law.  George Will wrote a very good op-ed on what goes wrong when we've circumvented the constitution or the SCOTUS has made really bad biased rulings.  Graham and his gang of three showed their hand in the Hamdan play they made to the SCOTUS that pissed off, at least Justice Kennedy, trying to keep that man from having any rights.  Is it some sort of Napoleon Complex with these guys?  At this point Putin is making more sense than Graham.  Putin pointed out that when the people the US supported in the War in Chechnya were blowing up people in Russia, the US called them rebels, not terrorists.  In this country, perhaps we should retire the word terrorist.  The word criminal is good enough.  The word "rebel" if it applies is good enough.

      Shine like the humblest star.

      by ljm on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 10:48:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The whole thing is just fucking stupid. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jilikins, Matt Z

      Why even worry about Miranda in this case? The evidence against him is overwhelming. They have him dead to rights. Johnny Cochran couldn't get him off with an all black jury and David Duke as lead prosecutor.

      Completely unnecessary. They're just doing it to do it.

      You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

      by Eric Stratton on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 10:58:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Does anyone have a source for this thats NOT AP? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ginny in CO

      All the stories that I can find quote AP as the single source for the "Tsarnaev stops talking after Miranda warning." Hasn't a "government official" talked to any other news outlet and said this? Makes me suspect that this is APs interpretation of questioning ending when Magistrate showed up.

      Could it be that the HIG got what it wanted and called in the USA and Magistrate, and then left Tsarnaev to stew for a while?

  •  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:

            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

        "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:
        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 ]

  •  Conservatives treat laws as their tools... (23+ / 0-)

    ...which they can use (or not) simply as THEY choose, based on THEIR preferences.

    Wall Street banker screws the economy? No need to prosecute him, he's feeling enough shame as it is.

    Zimmerman kills an unarmed kid after tracking and following him? It was...self defense!

    Someone bombs abortion clinics or kills doctor performing abortions? That was freedom of religion!

    Conservatives believe that laws are like people: there to serve THEM!

  •  Because Lindsy Graham is nothing more than (23+ / 0-)

    a fear mongering racist. Who's trying to get reelected while avoiding a primary challenge in the process.

  •  An admissible confession (20+ / 0-)

    would just be icing on the cake. The video of them placing the bombs, the clothes found in his room, and the testimony of the carjacking victim, along with all of the other evidence that we may or may not know about at this point will probably be enough to throw him in jail forever if not get him the death penalty. A confession might just make things go faster.

  •  Muslim hatred has reached a fever pitch on (18+ / 0-)

    the right. They feel that they're not allowed to hate blacks, gays, Jews and latinos anymore and they have to hate somebody.

  •  the rule of law is inimical (9+ / 0-)

    to the rule of money,  you have to spend way too much money to get around laws.  Ultimately it is cheaper to buy the politicians that make the laws and sit on the bench (looking at you Justice Thomas with your memory lapses on hundreds of thousand in payments to your wife)  and destroy the rule of law from the inside.

  •  I find it interesting (17+ / 0-)

    that the very people who espouse that the second amendment is sacrosanct and should not be violated are the same people who seem to be determined to undermine all the other parts of the Bill of Rights.

    Its not about fear though, at least not totally. Its about creating an atmosphere of control. Its totalitarianism and it is expressly the opposite of what the founding fathers, whom the right says they revere, intended.

    “Fairy tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten.” ― G.K. Chesterton

    by bayushisan on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 07:41:34 AM PDT

  •  I know you're right in principle, Jed, but . . . (9+ / 0-)

    There are a lot of Americans who don't think long and deeply about the news, and all its implications. To them, the simple moral will be, we shouldn't read Miranda rights to dangerous monsters.

    In the long run, Dzhokhar will probably admit all he would have - he'll just take longer to do it. But this will be used as an anti-Mirandaizing cudgel by the right for even longer.

    "Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth" Samuel Johnson

    by Brecht on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 07:41:53 AM PDT

    •  yes, that's my take here (5+ / 0-)

      Oh noes!  As soon as the Miranda warning was given, the suspect shut up.  That means there shouldn't be a Miranda warning!

      •  Also notable: They only read him his rights (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        yella dawg, OldDragon, gramofsam1

        after they were satisfied they had gotten all they would get out of him to prevent further attacks. Mirandizing him lost them nothing.

        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 08:43:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Let them cudgel away (5+ / 0-)

      Miranda rights are even more important in situations like this.

      Barack Obama for President

      by looty on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 07:53:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well it isn't about admitting culpability. (0+ / 0-)

      The concern is about preventing other terrorist attacks. Thinking deeper about this brings up hypotheticals such as the idea that there is a coordinated attack and we capture a bomber that knows where other bombs will go off. Does he/she have the right to remain silent? If we capture a terrorist before the bomb they planted goes off does that terrorist have the right to remain silent?

      Laws of war apply when nations are at war no matter if the enemy is in uniform or not. It is up to the President to decide if the laws of war will be used. But he has that right.

      President Lincoln treated confederates as prisoners of war for the duration of hostilities and I don't think anyone believes he had to read all captured rebels their rights and give them trials during a Civil War.

      The first rule of government should be "Do no harm." The urge to act can frustrate the desire to help.

      by Common Cents on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 07:57:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That is what "public safety exception" is for (5+ / 0-)

        There is no question that if we capture a bomber we have the right to question them about immediate threats without Mirandizing them; it has been upheld by SCOTUS.

        The question whether we can use what we learned through that pre-Mirandized questioning to build a case again said bomber is, I think, not nearly as clear.

        Barack Obama for President

        by looty on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:10:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But I'm not talking about building a case. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          The issue here is not about exceptions in a criminal case in the US system.

          The question is if we are at war or not. That is the only issue that matters. If the detained man is an enemy combatant waging war against the United States then he can be treated as such.

          If you don't think the war on terror is a legally cognizable one then we can have that discussion. If you think the war on terror is cognizable, but that this fellow was not a part of it, that is an argument we can have.

          However, if the war on terror is a war that triggers the ability to treat participants as prisoners of war AND this fellow was waging war against the United States, then there is no legally troubling issue with not reading him his rights because he is a prisoner of war.

          We did not read the Confederates their rights. They were held without trial in prison camps because they were prisoners of war. They were held often until the hostilities were over with no due process.

          This was legal because the Confederates were waging war and we treated those US citizens as prisoners of war.

          If the terrorist in question is a prisoner of war he has no Constitutional rights. If the war on terror isn't a war in your view or he isn't a participant in that war, then he has Constitutional rights.

          But terrorism is either war or just another criminal activity. THAT is where the debate is, but so few actually talk about it in that sense. Both sides are making assumptions without confronting those assumptions which leads to both sides demonizing the other.

          The first rule of government should be "Do no harm." The urge to act can frustrate the desire to help.

          by Common Cents on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:26:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Seems legally fairly clear through Quarles (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Code Monkey, Brecht, Loge

          The Quarles exception is definitely for allowing the evidence to be admissable.

          It seems to me and from what I've read, even without the exception, the police technically have the right to question suspects without Miranda. Why it's not done is that they don't have the right to utilize that testimony or - generally - evidence generated from it ("fruit of the poison tree" so to speak) in a court of law. That's why it's not done - no use getting an unusable confession in most cases. I'd argue in this case there may be a use - as it's likely not needed for a strong case and is needed for other purposes.

          Using the information in the service of public safety is a different matter. What Quarles does is make that evidence admissable - which I find suspect but which is the law of the land.

          •  They do have the right (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            they just can't use the statements otherwise.  The public safety exception exists to protect the police from impossible situations, of choosing between securing a conviction from preventing additional harm.  Put another way, the right against self-incrimination is not a right to facilitate ongoing crimes by engaging in silence.  But Miranda doesn't create new rights, it's an application of the right against self incrimination in custodial questioning.  If someone invokes a right to counsel without a Miranda warning, that must be honored, and if someone is silent, that must be honored, too; the only issue is whether the person in custody would face additional liability for not acting to prevent conspired acts when he had the chance.

            Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

            by Loge on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 09:13:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  The Laws of War thing just muddies it up (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I mean, OK, I'll give you Bin Laden and the professional career terrorists but as others have said elsewhere I'm not so sure this is all that different from Columbine or the DC sniper.  You probably have a psychopathic spree killer and his sidekick.  The motivation could be jihad but it could be a thousand other things.  

    •  MOst Americans don't support the Bill of Rights (7+ / 0-)

      actually support for the principles in the Constitution is well below 50% in most of the BoR, so it's no surprise most or many Americans don't support the fifth.

      Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

      by Mindful Nature on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 07:57:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, what's up with that? (0+ / 0-)

        The public apathy jn the face of the ongoing assault on the Bill if Rights has amazed me.  Have people just been brainwashed, or are they terrified, or did they just forget, or what?  

  •  The confession is probably admissible anyways (8+ / 0-)

    If the questioning itself was okay under the public safety exception, the answers are admissible, even if those answers themselves did not relate directly to potentially imminent threats to public safety.

    •  Precedent for this argument? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LordMike, commonmass

      I'm no lawyer so it's not clear to me, though I suspect there isn't a way in hell that this SCOTUS would throw out any confession.

      •  Thats what the public safety exception is about (7+ / 0-)

        Without the exception anything he says can't be used against him... with the exception what he said is 100% admissible.

        The limit to this is that the pre-Miranda questions have to be about public safety.. like "Are there bombs planted elsewhere in Boston?"  "Are there other individuals working to carry out other attacks?" "Are there any connections overseas that are planning attacks inside or outside the US?" etc.  

        What they can't do is use the "public safety exception" and start asking him things like "Was this your idea of your brothers?"  "Where did you buy the weapons we found in your apartment?"  "When did your brother start talking about Jihad?" ....stuff like that.  That would be tossed out if he hadn't been Mirandized.

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 07:58:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You'd actually be surprised. Criminal procedure (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        issues really don't fall along the typical left/right spectrum.  Some of the leading (and most liberal/pro-privacy) 4th Amendment cases in recent memory have been written by Justice Scalia.  

        •  confrontation (0+ / 0-)

          Scalia has been a big defender of the right of the accused to confront their accusers, including medical and scientific experts and the experts who do things like DNA and blood tests.
          Although I think he wrote the recent majority opinion that limited the use of a drug sniffing dog.

      •  The current majority (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        has no respect for the constitution one way or the other.  Neither do most Americans....except for being able to take out the government with a violent revolution should the fancy strike them.  In fact, most Americans have no idea what is in the Constitution.

        Newt 2012. Sociopath, adulterer, hypocrite, Republican.

        by tikkun on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:29:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'd probably disagree (0+ / 0-)

      That would certainly be the argument, but how far and how long that exception lasts is still really murky.  We are probably stretching it pretty close to its limits here.  And in an argument about the defendant being drugged and foggy on narcotics at the time of the confession and you'd have a tough road to argue admissibility on that one.  It's possible, but I'd be doubtful.

      In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

      by Cixelsyd on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 07:56:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  on the other hand (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    certainly there is more I would like to know.
    And it's not like he's being tortured.
    Maybe they could have held off for a couple days.

    Obama 2012...going to win it with our support!!!

    by mattinjersey on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 07:43:46 AM PDT

  •  Will the fact that the media broadcast (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass, 88kathy, tikkun, mayim

    the (presumably) now-inadmissable confession all over the world mean that the only jurists they will be able to find who hadn't heard about the confession will be complete numb-nuts?

    The best way to prevent abortions is to arm fetuses.

    by Flyswatterbanjo on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 07:43:52 AM PDT

  •  No free passes to any national pol on this (7+ / 0-)

    ... Lindsey Graham is foaming at the mouth, yes, and he should be taken to task hard for his rabid, fearmongering, power-consolidating politics.

    But 'rule of law' under the current president (for whom I voted, and I don't regret my vote ... look at the alternative!) has continued to mean that it's okay to kill lots of civilians for every 'high value' target in drone strikes.

    And the vast majority of pols in D.C. have a hand in the fact that Guantanamo is still open, still incarcerating people who have been 'cleared' for release but, well, there they are, starving themselves because what the hell else can they do.


  •  Would a terrorism trial ever be by jury? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass, tikkun

    If so, wouldn't leaking an alleged confession from before he was read his Miranda warning--thus making it inadmissable--pretty much destroy his ability to get a fair trial anywhere?

    Not that I think it will make much difference in a case like this, but the principle of it--plus for potential future cases--worries me.

  •  It isn't about conviction. It is about prevention. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The reason him falling silent matters is that you can't find out who else might be involved. Who might have financed an attack.

    The real question is if you can wage war against the US and the Constitution and still use the Constitution as a shield. I think laws of war can be used when an enemy combatant is captured. They are at war with us even if you aren't at war with them.

    The first rule of government should be "Do no harm." The urge to act can frustrate the desire to help.

    by Common Cents on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 07:53:48 AM PDT

    •  Unconstitutional. (17+ / 0-)

      A US citizen was arrested on US soil and stands accused of commiting a heinous act. There is no war or warzone. He is a criminal defendant, not an enemy combatant.

      Our government does not get the option of treating some citizens as POWs, even if they think it expedient or easier.

      "She was very young,he thought,...she did not understand that to push an inconvenient person over a cliff solves nothing." -1984

      by aggressiveprogressive on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:04:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So a Confederate required rights be read? (0+ / 0-)

        When you wage war against the US, you can still avoid the consequences of being treated as an enemy combatant?

        What we need is an honest debate about the real issue here. The real issue is, "Are we at war or not?"

        If we are at war and a US citizen wages war against the US, then that person can be treated as an enemy combatant legally without any Constitutional concern. If we aren't at war and/or the suspect in question was not at war with the US, then he must get read his Miranda rights.

        The first rule of government should be "Do no harm." The urge to act can frustrate the desire to help.

        by Common Cents on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:21:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph and (6+ / 0-)

          the other abortion bombers were read their rights.  They ALL declared war on the US with their actions.

          Plus, the Civil War was a long damn time ago....seems we might have refined some of our laws since then, no?

          Listening to the NRA on school safety is like listening to the tobacco companies on cigarette safety. (h/t nightsweat)

          by PsychoSavannah on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:47:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The abortion bombers weren't declaring war (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kentucky DeanDemocrat

            against the U.S. Since McVeigh targeted a federal building, he's the closest example we've got here to an individual “declaring war” somehow.

            Fuck the neocons, and fuck them sideways, for convincing America that laws of war apply so fantastically broadly.

            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 08:51:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  We had yet to be in a war on terror at that time. (0+ / 0-)

            The war on terror began after 9/11 and has been continued under President Obama.

            Now, you are right to point out laws of war have changed since the Civil War. Indeed laws of war have expanded greatly to deal with enemy forces like terrorists who wear no uniform, fly no flag, and ignore the laws of war.

            I think we are at war. I think he is a prisoner of war. I don't think he committed a crime, but rather committed an act of war and is a prisoner of war.

            I don't want to shred the Constitution. I just think we are dealing with the laws of war in this case.

            The first rule of government should be "Do no harm." The urge to act can frustrate the desire to help.

            by Common Cents on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 09:36:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Look up "war" in the Constitution (0+ / 0-)

              Maybe then you'll know which "law" to apply.  (Hint:  we're not at war unless Congress "declares" it.) (Second hint:  if we call it "war" every time some splinter group, or individual, or pair of brothers with a cause commits a crime, we can kiss the primacy of civilian law over military power goodbye.)

              I don't personallly want to live in a police state, and a decent respect for the U.S. Constitution will guarantee I don't have to.  People like you worry me.  a lot.

            •  We have a "War on Drugs" too (0+ / 0-)

              but it's not the same kind of war as what the Constitution considers a war legally. The War on Terror is not a Constitutional war; it's a figure of speech.

        •  THERE IS NO WAR OR WARZONE. (5+ / 0-)

          *sigh* This never had to be shouted when Bush was President. It was self-evident that there was a difference between criminals throwing bombs around and actual fucking warfare. It was Bush that got the country started conflating the two.

          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 08:48:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  See this is the debate worth having. (0+ / 0-)

            Because I think everyone agrees that if there is a war and warzone then Miranda Rights are not applicable.

            I think people see 9/11 as the beginning of a war and Boston was a warzone.

            But that is the discussion worth having. Arguing about this sort of thing in an obtuse way where neither side even acknowledges the assumption that is actually driving the fight is pointless.

            The first rule of government should be "Do no harm." The urge to act can frustrate the desire to help.

            by Common Cents on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 09:30:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  People who think Boston was a warzone (5+ / 0-)

              are wrong. I don't fucking care how prevalent a view that is, they're wrong.

              If it had been a war, it wouldn't have been police and the FBI sent in. It would've been the military. You know, the people who fight wars.

              Even 9/11 is suspect (though less so) as an act of war; IIUC this is because it was waged by non-state actors (also if it had been clearly an act of war, the AUMF wouldn't have been necessary). Certainly I think we lionized the terrorists more than they deserved by calling them warriors rather than criminals and thugs, which is what they are. Making them warriors is the first step toward making them the transcendental superhuman forces of evil that the right wants us to think they are.

              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 09:37:51 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  The Confederate States attempted to (7+ / 0-)

          seceed from the Union. They raised armies, formed a government, issued currency and took possession of US property and territories. That was indeed a war.

          I fail to understand how the Tsarnaev's acts can be defined as a war. With whom would we be at war? 2 guys, one of whom is dead?

          In my opinion, it is much better that we adhere to the Constitution and give the defendant his rights as an American citizen. It might be more difficult than simply "disappearing" him to Guantanamo. But our rights should not be subject to convenience. As President Kennedy reminded us, "The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened." If we deny this defendant his rights as a citizen, then my rights, and yours, are indeed diminished.

          "She was very young,he thought,...she did not understand that to push an inconvenient person over a cliff solves nothing." -1984

          by aggressiveprogressive on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:50:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This is a great point. (0+ / 0-)

            As the laws of war have evolved we've had to expand ideas of what constitutes an enemy combatant and a war because of irregular forces.

            Just because a conflict does not include uniformed sides and currency and a flag does not mean there is no war.

            But I like how you are approaching this issue because what you are talking about here is the crux of the argument.

            If you believe we are at war with terrorism and this fellow is a soldier for the enemy then it makes no sense to even discuss Miranda because he is a prisoner of war under a different set of rules.

            If you think of terrorism is a criminal act then he absolutely must have Miranda rights.

            But no one is wanting to shred the Constitution. That is just absurd.

            The first rule of government should be "Do no harm." The urge to act can frustrate the desire to help.

            by Common Cents on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 09:32:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  It's not war (5+ / 0-)

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

          by Simplify on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:55:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think the President disagrees. (0+ / 0-)

            And I disagree as well.

            However, I think this is the debate to have. If you don't think we are war with terror then, it makes sense to read him his Miranda rights. Because it is just another criminal act.

            But if you think we are at war and he is an enemy combatant then he didn't commit a crime per se and is not entitled to Miranda rights. He is a prisoner of war.

            The first rule of government should be "Do no harm." The urge to act can frustrate the desire to help.

            by Common Cents on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 09:34:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Technically Miranda wasn't around during the Civil (0+ / 0-)

          War, so no - nobody read anyone rights back then. Didn't know them? Hope somebody tells you, I guess. That was the point of Miranda - that we evolved the law to facilitate a fair criminal justice system.

          However, if a self-declared secessionist Confederate was arrested today for a crime, yes, he would have the right to Miranda.

          Confederates weren't "arrested" by the Union Army when captured alive (they were captured as POWs - no ambiguity about it on either side) and the war was a very clearly declared war with acknowledgement on both sides and full military organization so your comparison falls far short.

      •  Well said aggressive progressive !! (0+ / 0-)

        Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

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

        [ Parent ]

    •  "Enemy combatant" is the whole problem. (2+ / 0-)
      The real question is if you can wage war against the US and the Constitution and still use the Constitution as a shield.
      No, the question is if you can wage crime and still use the Constitution as a shield. And the answer is yes, generally, as it has always been in domestic terrorism cases.

      Frankly, I'm not sure war criminals should be treated differently if captured by our criminal justice system anyway. Seems to me the Constitutional laws would apply then too and were meant to from they way they're written as "persons" not "residents" or "citizens" in most cases. In an actual war zone, some rights are obviously suspended. What happened in Boston was tragic but it did not create a warzone.

      I think laws of war can be used when an enemy combatant is captured. They are at war with us even if you aren't at war with them.
      What they? That's the whole problem. From what we know, there is a very small "They" here and half of them are dead.
  •  I don't see why we're blaming Graham (5+ / 0-)

    for doing more or less what the Administration and its enforcement wings are doing already.

    Remember, upon Tsarnaev's arrest, the POTUS issued a statement that called them terrorists.  I guess trials are no longer necessary, just as no such thing was necessary for him to declare that Bradley Manning "broke the law."

    Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

    by corvo on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 07:53:49 AM PDT

  •  "why are guys like Graham so eager to suspend (3+ / 0-)

    the rule of law?"
    They allowed and supported the suspension of the rule of law for BushCheney and if they don't keep that suspension in place, people might start pushing for a review of the BushCheney era violations of the Constitution and statutes.
    Which McCain and Graham are intimately linked to.
    This is still part of the rear guard action of the BushCheney interegnum.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 07:57:45 AM PDT

  •  It seemed to me stupid (0+ / 0-)

    that you wouldn't read him his rights. Everyone knows you have Miranda Rights, right? You have the right to remain silent. Not reading them just screws up the case, makes it stickier. And, I suppose, moves the window of what's allowable, which is rascally.

    Get old and do lots of stuff in the process. Half of the fun is trying everything out. --Noddy

    by Debby on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:00:14 AM PDT

  •  "Rule of Law" in the US (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    To the extent that cops call themselves "The Law", maybe.  Not otherwise.  The Rule of Men Not of Law determines who gets prosecuted and punished for their crimes, like smoking pot, and which criminals act with impunity, like those who order torture.

    Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

    by ActivistGuy on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:00:57 AM PDT

  •  This is probably more BS (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    verdeo, Kentucky DeanDemocrat, cfm, Ender

    Reporting on the entire Marathon Bombing has been atrocious, and rife with misinformation and outright lies.  And, the "official" channels are just as guilty, wandering in the "fog of war" and unaware that they are clueless.

    As information filters out from the after-action reports it becomes clear that what we've been told was inaccurate at best, and outright lies at worst.  After listening to the citizen recording of the first "firefight", I posted in another thread that what I was hearing was poor fire discipline on the part of the police.  It was reported, by a police spokesman, that 200 rounds were fired and that the bombers had "multiple weapons".  We now know that they were armed with a single handgun, a Ruger semi auto, which, incidentally, ships with a 9 round magazine.  At least two hundred rounds were fired, and likely 190 were fired by the police, in a residential neighborhood, with no backstops, and we're lucky none of those rounds killed an innocent citizen.

    The second "firefight" at the boat consisted of dozens of rounds fired--every single one fired by heavily armed police, in a residential neighborhood, obviously at a target that they were uncertain of.  Again, we're lucky no civilians were killed.  But the MSM dutifully reports that the suspect fired shots and the police were returning fire.  Lies, lies and more lies.

  •  nobody is going to care too much. he'll start tal (0+ / 0-)

    king again for a deal, and the Republicans will again look stupid.

    it'd be best for the D side (i can't assume O is on it) to let john stewart keep leading on this issue.  

    and as an aside, and point of humor, he shot hisself in the mouth, in the first place, so falling silent should be mocked.
    one could say he stop pencilling

    what lincoln said

    by rasfrome on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:06:06 AM PDT

    •  I doubt there will be a deal on the table (0+ / 0-)

      No way an Administration plea bargains with the only living suspect of the Boston Marathon Bombings.

      The only question will be if the Feds push for a death sentence, and personally I think they will (especially since Massachusetts can't.  Unlike, say, the DC Sniper who was executed by the State of Virginia).

      No defendant is going to plead guilty to the death penalty.  They will go to court.

      Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

      by Wisper on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:20:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This IS an AP report (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    reddog1, tardis10, yella dawg

    They are not the most reliable source, particularly if the story can be twisted to support RightWing claims that mirandizing terrorists is bad because they stop talking.

  •  Why does it matter (4+ / 0-)

    if he's not read his miranda rights, as long as anything he says isn't used against him? How is that any different from him just remaining silent?

  •  Fascist oppression easier to do than democracy nt (0+ / 0-)

    *Austerity is the opposite of Prosperity*

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

  •  They're more into ORDER than Law... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, yella dawg

    ...  Order in all things.   Without it, their world disintegrates.  Sacrificing law to serve their perception of order is not even a minor inconvenience.

  •  I believe what they attempted to get (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, PsychoSavannah

    out of him before the Miranda Rights were read was not a "I'm Guilty" but rather, "Are there others and where did you get your training?"

    In other words.... They were trying to find out if the brothers were part of a bigger plot.

    His guilt in the bombings is indisputable, IMO.

    -6.13 -4.4 Where are you? Take the Test!!!

    by MarciaJ720 on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:13:14 AM PDT

    •  Yes I think they wanted to make sure those guys (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      acted alone and that there were not co-conspirators out there in Cambridge planning an attack and also to make certain these guys did not plant explosives all over the Boston area. They wanted to discover if there was an immediate threat.

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:37:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Jon Stewart did a great piece on this last night. (3+ / 0-)

    Whether they mirnadize him or not he always had miranda rights. (Couldn't figure out how to embed it.)

    Tracy B Ann - technically that is my signature.

    by ZenTrainer on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:16:07 AM PDT

  •  Boston not giving RWers a lot of traction. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    With respect to Miranda, the suspect will be convicted and sentenced to life, robbing them of the talking point, just as questioning him without Miranda robbed them of a talking point about security.

     Or worse for them, the confession will be admitted into evidence anyway.

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

    by Inland on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:17:26 AM PDT

    •  Imprisoned for life? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      That's not good enough for their blood-lust.  Republicans want him tortured and beat up.  That's what they're thirsty for.

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

      by yet another liberal on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:18:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes once he is convicted and goes off to a federal (0+ / 0-)

      prison for life with the ikes of Terry Nichols, Eric Rudolph,  the Unabomber and other domestic terrorists and wingnuts see he will never get out....all of this will die down and they will move on to bashing liberals and the President and Democrats on other issues.

      They will start holllering about immigration and sealing the borders and they will try to use these bombers as evidence but that is very weak tea.

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:31:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I thought the confession he made before he was (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Mirandized IS admissible, and that this is the whole point of the 'public safety exception'?  That he can be questioned without first being read his rights, and that anything he says during that time CAN be used against him?

    Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.  Jed's article seems to be saying the confession Dzhokar made before he was Mirandized is inadmissible, so I'm obviously not getting something right in my head here.

  •  Are We Going To Become A Country That Supports (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    torture and denying constitutional rights to US citizens?  I hope not because that would be a travesty.  I would bet that Graham was not a very good lawyer in the military.  Maybe that is why he went into politics.  Republicans are always saying they are the party that stands up for the constitution, but in reality they are the first to throw the constitution under the rug.  

    "Don't Let Them Catch You With Your Eyes Closed"

    by rssrai on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:20:53 AM PDT

  •  In Graham's case, it's just a craven effort to (4+ / 0-)

    pander to his base and close off a primary attack from the right.
    It was uttered at the height of the emotional wave over this episode, and now he can refer back to it at a later date and milk a little more emotional response out of it.

    We have no idea what he really thinks.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:21:01 AM PDT

  •  16 HOURS of interrogation? Then he passed out. n/t (0+ / 0-)

    If it ain't broke, break it.

    by tomwfox on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:22:54 AM PDT

  •  Didn't John Dean write a book that speaks to this? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    yella dawg
    It makes you wonder: why are guys like Graham so eager to suspend the rule of law?
    Something about having a need to make society more and more authoritarian and less free.
  •  "After roughly 16 hours of questioning, (0+ / 0-)
    investigators were surprised when a magistrate judge and a representative from the U.S. Attorney's office entered the hospital room and read Tsarnaev his rights, the four officials and one law enforcement official said. Investigators had planned to keep questioning him.

    Who told them to do that? Why did they do it instead of getting the people he already had been talking to for 16 hours do it? Why surprise the investigators like that?

    •  I think Pete Williams said that 16 hours (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      was not believed to be 16 hrs straight as the guy was on a lot of medication, in serous condition, and he would not be alert all of the time.  So I am thinking the 16 hours was not consecutive but I could be wrong, I am thinking it took place over the course of the weekend until the judge went there for the indictment to be read and mirandizing.

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:42:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Who told the AP this? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      yella dawg

      What was the motive for releasing this information?

      Why should we believe them?

    •  They were charging him. You have (0+ / 0-)

      a right to a speedy trial as an American citizen too.  And it had been almost 2 days.  Charge him or let him go....he wasn't going to Gitmo (correctly, in my opnion), so charges had to be made.  They laid them down, read him his rights.  He supposedly clammed up.  But the investigators got a lot of info prior to that the Public Safety Exemption is designed to get:  are there any other threats to the public.  It's the proper way to deal with the theoretical "ticking time bomb" scenario without all the torture.

      This was handled as well as it could be.  

      The right is already off into why the FBI ignored the older brother when he went overseas and Russia called 10 times to warn us about him!!!!!!  That's the scandal du jour.

      Listening to the NRA on school safety is like listening to the tobacco companies on cigarette safety. (h/t nightsweat)

      by PsychoSavannah on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:58:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Surprised? That hospital room is heavily guarded (0+ / 0-)

      I find it very hard to believe that anyone could enter it as a "suprise" and if you read the transcript of the hearing a Doctor is there -- that had to be scheduled.

  •  Just wondering (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    protectspice, jdld

    If he was receiving opoids or meds to cut anxiety while he was questioned is it valid in a court of law?  In the hospital any medicated patient can not give consent to a procedure.  Just wondering

  •  Isn't your headline an argument against Miranda? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    He stopped talking once his civil rights were stated.  Am I missing something here?  Seems like he was singing like a bird when the situation was what Lindsey Graham was advocating.

    "The opposite of faith is not doubt. It's certainty."

    by Simul Iustus et Peccator on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:34:49 AM PDT

  •  Political Hacks (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    yella dawg

    They are demagogues. They only care about their own political power and care nothing for the country.  They are the antithesis of statesmen.

  •  There will always be terrorists but there's only (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kentucky DeanDemocrat, jdld

    one Constitution.
    I know..corny.

  •  If any terror groups/cells aided the brothers (0+ / 0-)

    was and still is the key determination to be made, given that Jahar's guilt is apparently fairly easy to establish from plentiful independently available evidence.

    That the jihadi brothers were out to kill "Americans" becomes evident from the the statement by the carjacked victim that he was apparently let go by the brothers because he "wasn't American" (Boston Suspects' Carjacking Victim: Tsarnaev Brothers Spared Me Because I Was 'Not American'), and that explicitly makes them "enemy combatants" as far as I am concerned.

    In my view, the best approach would have been to somehow extend the PSE as long as possible (since that the brothers were planning to perpetrate more attacks; so, if some jihadist group connections did/do exist, the threat of those attacks now being carried out by some other agents remains alive, and that line of argument could have possibly been  been used as grounds for extending the PSE)  in order to gather as much evidence as possible re. potential terror group ties before charging and reading him Miranda rights, etc.

    The pooch has been screwed badly on this one. No question about it.

    •  Jihadi Terrorism on US soil is the real issue (0+ / 0-)

      to be dealt with. The left needs to be forthright about that in order to be credible on the national security front.

      Making this about Lindsey Graham is a political tactic, but it's a pathetic one.

  •  There is no political win (0+ / 0-)

    on the Miranda issue here for either side. The fact that he went quiet after being read his rights can have multiple interpretations.

    We are better than this.

  •  Lindsey Grahams's mindset as 'splained by office (2+ / 0-)

    staffer a few weeks ago.

    A few weeks ago I called Lindsey's Washington office to complain about Lindsey's war mongering on Iran.

    I linked it to Lindsey's catastrophic vote for the "preventive" Iraq war and the horrific human and financial consequences and the multi trillion dollar price tag.
    And the fact the it was started based on lies connecting 9/11 to Saddam Hussein.

    The person I spoke to blurted out something to the effect of:
     - You don't know what it was like after 9/11.
    We were getting so many phone calls from people shocked and enraged about the attack....


    So it was suggested that Senator Graham and his staff supposedly thought at the time - the public wants justice; let's bomb bomb bomb the hell out of the people of Iraq to satisfy our constituents and stop the phone calls?????????????

    Lindsey Graham is a JAG.:

    He sounds more like a coward to me.
    Scared of mindless political pressure.

    I'm not a courageous person. Scared of my shadow sometimes.
    I would like to think that we can elect to the Senate people who have a sense of honor and duty to the people they serve and to the constitution.

    Lindsey Graham is not such a person IMO.


    Finally people have gotten sick and tired of being had and taken for idiots. Mikhail Gorbachev

    by eve on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:54:04 AM PDT

  •  There are no "Miranda rights" (5+ / 0-)

    There are "Miranda warnings" about constitutional rights. Why does this matter? Because you are not deprived of any constitutional rights when questioned without first being warned. However, if the government attempts to use what you said against you, you might be deprived of your rights to avoid self-incrimination and to counsel. Therefore, the defense will move to suppress the confession, not as taken in violation of your "Miranda rights," but because ADMISSION of the confession will violate your 5th and 6th Amendment rights.

    In this case, the government made a decision, balancing public safety against their need to introduce a confession to get a conviction. The former is important and the latter not particularly so, given other overwhelming evidence. Therefore, it decided to take the RISK of suppression (while intending to argue the public safety exception to the Miranda rule) to protect public safety.

    That is all.

    Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Palate Press: The online wine magazine.

    by dhonig on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 08:54:08 AM PDT

  •  Turns out this was all a mistake. (0+ / 0-)

    Their mom says they were framed.  Where should I send the letter of apology?

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 09:00:10 AM PDT

  •  "You can rouse him now." They woke him up (0+ / 0-)

    to do that?

    “You can rouse him,” the judge told the doctor
  •  He had those rights regardless (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kentucky DeanDemocrat, mayim

    if they were read to him or not.  

    The people saying we should just scrap those rights annoy the fuck out of me.   It's people like that that truly let the "terrorists win".  

    The tent got so big it now stands for nothing.

    by Beelzebud on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 09:09:58 AM PDT

  •  The Miranda exception: "Are there other bombs?" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    As I understand it, a police officer can question a suspect - without a Miranda warning and in a challenging way if appropriate - if the officer reasonably believes her/his safety or of the public is at imminent risk. As in, "Do you have a gun?," a statement which, by itself, might produce an incriminating answer.

    "Do you have any more bombs" strikes me as precisely the kind of question the Miranda cases would allow without a warning as to constitutional rights. Of course, how long such an inquiry goes on, what other questions are asked, etc. get much closer to the edge of Miranda than "Do you have more bombs?"

    But under the facts of Tsarnaev's case as we know them, if I were a judge being asked to rule whether a Miranda warning was timely given, I would accept quite a range of questions about locations of bomb factories and materials, accomplices, etc., before I ruled Tsarnaev's questioning constitutionally improper.

    2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

    by TRPChicago on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 09:11:26 AM PDT

  •  The AP story was written to get clicks... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Don't fall for this crap. It's just red meat for right-wingers.

    It may be technically true that after 16 hours, he had nothing left to say... so they read him his rights... and he didn't say anything more. Because there really isn't much more they have to ask him! And even if they had a couple more questions, not much more he really knows. Who cares about this?

    16 hours is a lot of time for the authorities to figure out whatever they needed to figure out. These two jokers were a couple of idiots anyway... think about it:
    - They made crude bombs from instructions on the internet. bombers in other countries make far more powerful bombs.
    - They didn't realize that at one of the most-photographed events in the world... someone would get a photo of them.
    - They hung around Boston, had no escape plan, and panicked when their pictures were released.

    Does this really sound like the work of dangerous professional terrorists? They were a couple of pissed-off violent young people stuck in a world they couldn't make sense of. Their uncle said it best - a couple of losers.

    Freedom isn't free. So quit whining and pay your taxes.

    by walk2live on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 09:17:08 AM PDT

    •  Yeah.. (0+ / 0-)

      The NY Times story validates the loser thing. IMO,  they wanted a confession they could use in court.  No attorney would allow their client to confess.  They got it and charged him the next day.  

      The issue is really a larger one about denying someone their 5th amendment right.

  •  The carjacking victim's testimony: Hearsay? (0+ / 0-)

    I may have the facts wrong - and facts make a lot of difference here! - but if Dzhokhar Tsarnaev said in the cab driver's presence that he was the Boston bomber, I think the carjacking victim's testimony to that effect is not hearsay. (Styling it as a "confession" is a conclusion. The victim should stick exactly to what he recalled was said in his presence.)

    The hearsay rule (before you get to a host of exceptions) prevents testifying to what someone who is not in court said. The reason for the rule is that the declarant is not available to be cross-examined as to the truth of the statement.

    Here, Tsarnaev is in court. Unless the criminal law is different than civil law in this respect, that Tsarnaev has a constitutional right not to testify does not change the hearsay rule.

    If the statement about being the Boston bomber was made by Dzhokhar's brother, you get into the area of law about accomplices being bound by the statements of the other(s), etc.

    Most important, as several commenters have pointed out, there are plenty of facts in this case that have nothing to do with the hearsay statements (or statements made before the Miranda warnings, for that matter). A prudent prosecutor might well decide it is unnecessary to offer evidence based on that testimony.

    2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

    by TRPChicago on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 09:32:17 AM PDT

  •  This nineteen year old bomber is a calculating (0+ / 0-)

    self-serving creep. They better not take their eyes or ears off him ever.

  •  The framing of the story is ridiculous and wrong (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    He was read his rights at an appearance before a judge and was appointed counsel at the appearance because he couldn't afford to retain counsel. At that point, interrogators/police/prosecutors are not allowed to question him unless they go through counsel. Any decent atty is going to say no or bargain for some sort of concession in exchange. The defense was in no position to do so right as they were appointed. So, he didn't "fall silent" - questioning stopped as it was required to by law. All of this discussion about Miranda deals with the Fifth amendment but there is a Sixth Amendment right which kicked in upon appointment of counsel and a different line of case law. I can't believe the AP didn't have lawyers who could tell them this before they ran the story with that frame (as did Salon this morning, aarrrgggh!)

    •  The law does not require (0+ / 0-)

      questioning to stop.

      "It is easier to fool people, than to convince them they've been fooled" - Mark Twain

      by Sarge in Seattle on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 11:19:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, it does after appointment of counsel (0+ / 0-)

        I've been a criminal defense atty for over 20 years. Read Massiah v United Staes, explained  for lay people here

        As I explained above, at the formal charging in the hospital, the judge explained his rights and appointed counsel - who were present. The govt is prohibited from reinitiating questioning at that point.

        •  That's not the law (0+ / 0-)

          The law says he has a right to counsel. The law says he can be questioned with counsel present. The law says he cannot be questioned without counsel unless he waives the right to counsel, which is also his right. That is very different than a prohibition against questioning after someone is charged.

          "It is easier to fool people, than to convince them they've been fooled" - Mark Twain

          by Sarge in Seattle on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 02:04:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I assume then that you are not a lawyer (0+ / 0-)

            And that you did not read the explanation of Massiah. More important though is my original point - the framing of this article suggests that the govt was wise to not read Miranda rights because the accused stopped talking after he learned his rights. This frame is not correct because the circumstances of the reading were a formal hearing with counsel present which effectively stops questioning unless the accused has really stupid attorneys who acquiesce to further questioning.

  •   Graham is set on enemy combatant status.. (0+ / 0-)

    ..and admits he doesn't care about rule of law -- in an Article 3 court that is.

    It makes you wonder: why are guys like Graham so eager to suspend the rule of law?  - Jed Lewison
    Lindsey Graham On Bombing Suspect: ‘I Could Care Less About The Trial, I Want To Gather Intelligence’ - by Noah Rothman | 9:12 am, April 22nd, 2013 (video of Graham)
    Gretchen Carlson asked Graham to clarify his insistence that Tsarnaev be treated as an enemy combatant.
    “I could care less about the trial – a first year law student could do this trial – I want to gather intelligence,” Graham added. “He’s a potential enemy combatant. He has ties with overseas terrorists. He’s clearly a radical Islamist. I would hold him under that theory when the public safety exception expires.”
    Grahams' law is..
    “Citizenship doesn’t give you immunity from the law of war,” he went on. “If you take up arms or hostile acts against the nation, you can be killed or captured. That’s the law.”
    ..the law of war"

    Dems just don't get that - snark

  •  it's too bad Dzhokhar didn't enlist .. (0+ / 0-)

    .. he might have been a successful soldier, and it would have kept him out of the trouble that his stupid brother got him into. He might have gotten into other stupid trouble, but it would have been sanctioned by his Nation.

    It's too bad Guantanamo is still open, with its policy of indefinite detention without trial. Without a readily available concentration camp, politicians would have a much harder time spewing their treasonous, poisonous filth about interrogation and torture without rights.

  •  Jed, I ask the same question: (0+ / 0-)

    "why are guys like Graham so eager to suspend the rule of law?"

    Why are guys (and some gals with codpieces) in the GOP and TPer parties, who are borderline Libertarians and schizophrenics to boot, so willing to limit the freedoms from OTHER PEOPLE than themselves?


    Because they really do not believe or espouse "freedom" at all. In their language, "freedom" means something else:


    What they really want is "privilege" and all others to be subservient or ancillary to that privilege.


    Ugh. --UB.

    "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Randian Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of West Dakota!"

    by unclebucky on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 03:06:18 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site