Miranda Rights Won't Be Read For Boston Bombing Suspect: Justice Official

[Hawkmoon]

I don't like the whole "enemy combatant" concept. To me, it's nothing but a convenient excuse to suspend habeus corpus and do an end run around the Constitution. If this kid is/was an "enemy combatant," precisely what enemy entity did he represent? He is an American citizen, who committed a mass murder and assault in the United States of America. He broke plenty of laws -- he's a common murderer and should be dealt with as such, not glorified like some sort of James Bond-like undercover agent or guerrilla warfare specialist. And he didn't engage in "combat" -- he set off a bomb.

Don't glorify him.

I wasn't happy about the concept when they polished it up to persecute John Walker Lindh ("the American Taliban"). If you recall, they called him an "enemy combatant," too. I followed that case fairly closely at the time, and me best understanding of the facts available to the public was that the kid never lifted a finger against the United States. He was in Afghanistan and allied with the Taliban, who were (like it or not) the recognized government of the country at the time. The United States didn't invade Afghanistan -- we supplied a bunch of thug warlords loosely cooperating as the so-called "Northern Alliance" to do the fighting for us. So the reality was that Lindh was assisting the then-government of Afghanistan to resist an internal insurrection. How that in any way makes him an "enemy combatant" against the United States I have never been able to figure out.

I'm rather simple-minded. If someone is wearing a uniform and representing another country while shooting at our soldiers, he's an enemy combatant. If someone sets off a bomb in an American city, he's a common criminal who should be dealt with by the criminal justice system.

[Jamisjockey]

I don't like the whole "enemy combatant" concept. To me, it's nothing but a convenient excuse to suspend habeus corpus and do an end run around the Constitution. If this kid is/was an "enemy combatant," precisely what enemy entity did he represent? He is an American citizen, who committed a mass murder and assault in the United States of America. He broke plenty of laws -- he's a common murderer and should be dealt with as such, not glorified like some sort of James Bond-like undercover agent or guerrilla warfare specialist. And he didn't engage in "combat" -- he set off a bomb.

Don't glorify him.

I wasn't happy about the concept when they polished it up to persecute John Walker Lindh ("the American Taliban"). If you recall, they called him an "enemy combatant," too. I followed that case fairly closely at the time, and me best understanding of the facts available to the public was that the kid never lifted a finger against the United States. He was in Afghanistan and allied with the Taliban, who were (like it or not) the recognized government of the country at the time. The United States didn't invade Afghanistan -- we supplied a bunch of thug warlords loosely cooperating as the so-called "Northern Alliance" to do the fighting for us. So the reality was that Lindh was assisting the then-government of Afghanistan to resist an internal insurrection. How that in any way makes him an "enemy combatant" against the United States I have never been able to figure out.

I'm rather simple-minded. If someone is wearing a uniform and representing another country while shooting at our soldiers, he's an enemy combatant. If someone sets off a bomb in an American city, he's a common criminal who should be dealt with by the criminal justice system.

But.....but.....but....freedom!  'Murica! USA! He's a terrist! 

[Jamisjockey]

I don't like the whole "enemy combatant" concept. To me, it's nothing but a convenient excuse to suspend habeus corpus and do an end run around the Constitution. If this kid is/was an "enemy combatant," precisely what enemy entity did he represent? He is an American citizen, who committed a mass murder and assault in the United States of America. He broke plenty of laws -- he's a common murderer and should be dealt with as such, not glorified like some sort of James Bond-like undercover agent or guerrilla warfare specialist. And he didn't engage in "combat" -- he set off a bomb.

Don't glorify him.

I wasn't happy about the concept when they polished it up to persecute John Walker Lindh ("the American Taliban"). If you recall, they called him an "enemy combatant," too. I followed that case fairly closely at the time, and me best understanding of the facts available to the public was that the kid never lifted a finger against the United States. He was in Afghanistan and allied with the Taliban, who were (like it or not) the recognized government of the country at the time. The United States didn't invade Afghanistan -- we supplied a bunch of thug warlords loosely cooperating as the so-called "Northern Alliance" to do the fighting for us. So the reality was that Lindh was assisting the then-government of Afghanistan to resist an internal insurrection. How that in any way makes him an "enemy combatant" against the United States I have never been able to figure out.

I'm rather simple-minded. If someone is wearing a uniform and representing another country while shooting at our soldiers, he's an enemy combatant. If someone sets off a bomb in an American city, he's a common criminal who should be dealt with by the criminal justice system.

[slingshot]

He's an American citizen.  He should be read his Miranda Rights. I don't like the idea of American citizens located here being considered enemy combatants.  If he was not a citizen, then I favor the best approach to keeping him locked up or executed.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

His citizenship isn't an issue with regards the ruling they are using.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[SteveS]

I don't think Miranda does what some people think it does.  Read the decision.  It is a good read and besides being an important case, it details the history of what was allowable prior to that decision, which was pretty much anything.

For the most part, Miranda says that the prosecution may not use statements that were made involuntarily.  Statements made this way could be excluded from the trial.  It does not mean that the police have to universally read the suspect "their rights" like it happens on TV.  It is certainly in their best interest to do so, but there are situations where it wouldn't be necessary:

1.  They don't need the statements to get a conviction.  It is possible that they have a ton of other evidence and they don't need a confession.  They may just want other information for investigatory purposes, such as if they had help from other groups or individuals.  If they don't plan on introducing the statements at trial, it doesn't matter if he got his Miranda warning.  See Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003).

2.  If the suspect knows what their rights are.  This doesn't happen very often, but if the prosecution can show that the statements were made voluntarily, then it doesn't matter if he was read his rights.  Granted, this becomes more difficult if they don't acknowledge it in some way, but statements made without a Miranda warning are not automatically thrown out 100% of the time.

[zxcvbob]

Whether they read him his rights or not, don't those rights still exist?  I don't care about inadmissibility of statements; they don't need a confession to get a slam-dunk conviction.  But holding him without charges and with no access to an attorney kinda sounds to me like a denial of habeus corpus.  It sets a *really* bad president precedent.

[birdman]

Whether they read him his rights or not, don't those rights still exist?  I don't care about inadmissibility of statements; they don't need a confession to get a slam-dunk conviction.  But holding him without charges and with no access to an attorney kinda sounds to me like a denial of habeus corpus.  It sets a *really* bad president precedent.

It is the denial of habeus corpus, same with what we did with Padilla and lindh.  So the precedent has already been set.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

don't you have to be conscious to be mirandized?
and to mount a legal defense including a writ?

as funny as the miranda nonsense the habeus corpus stuff should be a side splitter

[SteveS]

But holding him without charges and with no access to an attorney kinda sounds to me like a denial of habeus corpus.  It sets a *really* bad president precedent.

That is a whole different issue.  I was just commenting on how this applies to Miranda and confessions. 

There are supposed to be time constraints before the defendant must be presented to a judge, if they are trying him in federal court.  See Corley v. United States (2009), and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-10441.pdf

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_5

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

whens clock start if the guys unconscious?  he hasn't been charged yet has he?

[Tallpine]

The surviving suspect remained hospitalized and unable to speak with a gunshot wound to the throat.

He has the right to remain silent 

[T.O.M.]

Gotta say that I find this whole Miranda thing vaguly amusing.  The press are making a huge deal out of the fact that he hasn't been read Miranda.  Obviously, these people have been watching movies and not reading lawbooks.  Miranda rights apply only when a person is being subjected to custodial interrogation.  A failure to advise a subject of Mmiranda and obtain a waiver renders subsequent statements subject to suppression.  No, it doesn't render the arrest invalid.  No, it doesn't mean that the charges must be dismissed.  No, it doesn't mean that he gets a walk for all of this.  It only means that if he's interrogated, any answers may be inadmissible.  What's it all mean?  Too early to tell.  Maybe the case is good enough that they don't plan to question him for evidentiary purposes.  aybe they're considering options now since he's still critical with throat injuries, and they aren't getting answers now anyways.  Relax for now guys, this isn't anything to worry about yet.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

article says he might never talk again  that the shot went in his mouth mighta been self inflicted

[Perd Hapley]

It is the denial of habeus corpus, same with what we did with Padilla and lindh.  So the precedent has already been set.

Wasn't that precedent set at least as far back as the Civil War?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

at least
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus_in_the_United_States

[MicroBalrog]

It's purposeless to Mirandize a man who's in no state to answer questions, or comprehend the Mirandizing.

[BlueStarLizzard]

So what happens if he wakes up and says "I want a laywer" and nothing else?

That's what concerns me. It's not the reading of the rights, it's what else are they going to deny him.
I don't like this at all.
I understand the need to find out if he has any valueble information, but I also don't like the idea of any Amercian Citizen being forced to talk without the option of someone looking out for that persons intrests.

[Perd Hapley]

Despite a serious throat wound preventing him from speaking, the surviving Boston Marathon bombing suspect is beginning to respond to questions from investigators, federal officials tell NBC News.

Nearly 48 hours after he was taken into custody following an intense gun battle and manhunt, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, was communicating with a special team of federal investigators at Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital. He was responding to questions mostly in writing because of the throat wound, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/21/17848814-badly-wounded-boston-marathon-bombing-suspect-responding-to-questions?lite

[Hutch]

article says he might never talk again  that the shot went in his mouth mighta been self inflicted

I thought that would happen.  Any new news on this?

[HankB]

As a naturalized citizen, he does have rights - or is supposed to. It's not the same as bombing a US citizen who's actively helping the enemy overseas - this guy was caught HERE.

Even Timothy McVeigh had a lawyer - and in his case, justice was ultimately served.

Now I saw on TV they're thinking of charging him with use of a " . . . weapon of mass destruction." 

I've always understood WMDs to be nuclear, chemical, or biological; so nukes and dirty bombs, poison gas, germ warfare, etc. would qualify as WMDs, whereas a common explosive would not. Don't like this expansion of the definition of WMD.

As to what this guy gets charged with . . . three counts of Murder 1 with special circumstances (if the provision is in MA law), MANY counts of attempted murder, aggravated assault, assault with a deadly weapon, possession of destructive devices, etc., probably even Treason if a connection with foreign terrorist organizations can be shown. Seems to be PLENTY of opportunity to legitimately hit him with half the penal code for what he did without any WMD nonsense. In general terms, they should just proceed the way they did with McVeigh.

[T.O.M.]

I can't see the DOJ denying him counsel, throwing him in a cell as an enemy combatant, and denying him all of the rights enjoyed by a US citizen.  The spotlight on this is too bright.

Or, maybe they will, and this will be the spark that blows the Patriot Act and all of that crap out of the water.

As an aside, there are strategic purposes for deliberately not informing a subject of Miranda when questioning the person.  I've been involved in that type of situation before.  It's a way of gathering information and protecting the source by guaranteeing that person what they say won't be used against him/her.  The way it happened when I was involved, the whole affair was recorded on two tapes.  Counsel was present.  At the start, the person was handcuffed (one hand) to the chair...creates custody.  No one mentions rights.  At the end, a copy of the tape is given to the subject to show it was done in violation of Miranda.  It's kind of a transactional immunity, when you need information from a criminal, and you're willing to overlook that person's crimes to go after something else.

[mtnbkr]

This thread makes me feel good after what we saw in the early days of the "War on Terror", though I wonder how much of the change in opinion is due to the sitting president (he's not "our" guy after all):

So he [Padilla] had no rights.  So what?
He forfeited them by taking up arms against the U.S. without donning the uniform of a foreign combatant.  He wasn't covered under Geneva.  He wasnt covered under civil law.
Too bad.  Must suck to be him.

<div class="quoteheader">Quote from: RileyMc on September 12, 2007, 11:51:46 AM</div><div class="quote">I don't give a *expletive deleted* about Padilla.  Wait until President Hillary {shudder} arrests the President of the NRA for some bogus terrorist conspiracy charge.  Or the president of GOA.  Or NRA members, for that matter.  Think it's a stretch?
</div>   Yeah, I do.

If anyone else ever does what Padilla did, then I would expect (nay, demand) any future President to do to them what Bush did to Padilla.  

<div class="quoteheader">Quote from: Hawkmoon on September 22, 2007, 06:45:45 PM</div><div class="quote">They don't need any laws to know what's "torture" and what's not. </div>
Law is about written rules, not common sense or personal decisions. It is not unreasonable for the executive to ask the legislative to do their job and provide laws by which the government can function, especially when the legislative uses the vacuum to take political potshots at the executive.

<div class="quoteheader">Quote</div><div class="quote">All they have to do is apply the "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" principle. If the "interrogation technique" under consideration is one to which we would object if an American were subjected to it by a foreign military ... there's a good chance we probably should not be utilizing it ourselves.
</div>
The golden principle works very well for men in uniform. That is why things like the Geneva Convention are a good idea. There is parity. "We treat your uniformed regular soldiers the way you treat our uniformed regular soldiers."

But, terrorists dressed as civilians are not afforded the same protections, and cannot be. They do NOT play by the rules of civilized warfare, and thus are not protected by them either. <span style="text-decoration: underline;">We should never equate a terrorist to a uniformed GI, neither ethically nor technically</span>. Terrorists are NOT foreign military either.

If there is any parallel to be drawn, perhaps the closest is spies during the Cold War. If you get captured, you should expect torture to reveal the information you possess. Those are not rules for uniformed civilized warfare. The terrorists are lower than spies and saboteurs on the civility ladder. It is beyond ridiculous to think of them as POW's and afford them any privileges.

Not me!

<div class="quoteheader">Quote</div><div class="quote">Anyone want to wait until this reaches court before they issue the guilty verdict</div>
Send em to gitmo for some waterboarding, or hang em.

Trials and fairness are for regular criminals not bloodthirsty moronic terrorist who are not US citizens

I'm also happy to see that my own responses even then were more consistent with not witholding rights from others, especially US Citizens.

Chris

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57580640/boston-bombing-suspects-likely-planned-more-attacks-police-chief-says/

lil followup

[Tallpine]

Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis told "Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer that authorities found an arsenal of homemade explosives after Friday's gun battle between police and the two suspects.


"We have reason to believe, based upon the evidence that was found at that scene - the explosions, the explosive ordnance that was unexploded and the firepower that they had - that they were going to attack other individuals," Davis said. "That's my belief at this point."

So police found this "cache of weapons" at the scene of the shootout, ostensibly after they hijacked the SUV....

So before that they were just carrying this "cache" around with them on foot

I always thought a "cache" was a place where you, well - cache things, not something you carry around with you. 

Is the police chief just blowing off his mouth or is he really that dumb, or do I repeat myself?