Why The DOJ's Decision To Not Read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights Is A Terrible Idea
from the this-is-just-stupid dept
On Friday, while he hunt for Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was still going on (and after his bother, the other main suspect, had already been killed), Senator Lindsey Graham took to Twitter to argue that the US government, if it captures him while he's still alive, shouldn't read Dzokhar his Miranda rights. As you hopefully already know, the Miranda rights are the famous "you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in court, and you have a right to an attorney" etc. The requirement for a statement along those lines (and the name of the "Miranda rights") came from a 1960s case, Miranda v. Arizona, and has since been considered a core part of American due process for those being arrested. And this is a good thing.When Graham made his statement, many got up in arms, and argued that Graham was unfamiliar with the Constitution. While I more or less agree with the basics of that, much of that anger probably should have been directed at the Obama administration, which officially created an exception to the Miranda rules (unilaterally, without court approval) a few years back (apparently in October of 2010, though news about it only came out in March 2011).
And, indeed, after Dzhokhar was apprehended, the DOJ said that it was not reading him his Miranda Rights because it was invoking a "public safety exception" with the argument being that they needed to get him to talk to make sure the public wasn't in danger. As others have pointed out, this is a horrifically short sighted decision that can only backfire.
- Suspending basic rights and due process out of fear is exactly the kind of thing that people attacking the US want to see. Showing that we can't live up to our most basic rights and principles in the face of a terrorist attack gives those who hate us that much more incentive to keep going. It's not just a sign of weakness, but an encouragement for those who seek to undermine our society. In fact, it takes a step in that very direction by showing that the government is willing to throw out the rules and principles when it gets a little scared by a teenager.
- The slippery slope here is steep and extremely slick. There are no rules on when the DOJ can suddenly ignore Miranda. It gets to decide by itself. This is an organization with a long history of abusing its power, now allowed to wipe out one of the key protections for those they're arresting, whenever it sees fit. The whole point of the ruling in Miranda is that it should not be up to law enforcement. A person's rights are their rights.
- The part that really gets me: if anything, this opens up a really, really stupid line of defense for Dzokhar Tsarnaev if he ever faces a criminal trial. His lawyers will undoubtedly claim that the arrest and interrogation was unconstitutional due to the lack of (or delay in) Miranda rights. Why even open up that possibility of a defense for him?
- The guy has lived in the US for many years -- chances are he actually knows the fact that he has the right to refuse to speak. So, we're violating our principles, basic Constitutional due process, and opening up a massive opening for a defense, to avoid telling him something he likely already knows.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: boston, doj, dzhokhar tsarnaev, miranda rights
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Witches are dangerous, therefore torture is acceptable as a means of obtaining a confession prior to burning them.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57579239-83/guantanamo-legal-files-mysteriously-disappear-from-pc s/his other bit of news.
I do have one question though - why would the defense attorneys place their confidential files on computers belonging to the people who want to imprison their clients? That's like suing Google and then continuing to use Google Docs to talk to your lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Stop blaming Obama for everything, please. Expand the knowledge and share the wealth of ideas.
Political dysfunction leads to economic dysfunction and it's not entirely the fault of the president when our legislative branch doesn't represent the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
However; the expansion of the government's and particularly the President's abuse of power against its citizens can firmly be laid at the feet of Abraham Lincoln. HIs suspension of Habeas corpus during the Civil War so he could round up military age men in Maryland because they might support the rebellion set a dangerous president. That it was not seriously challenge at the time (or to this day) and that had he lived he probably would not have been held accountable for his actions set us on the road we're on today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
If the House and Senate wanted to do this there would at least be theoretically a debate and chance to oppose it. By usurping this power the President can do it by fait accompli. There is a reason powers like this were not placed in the hands of one person, so yes Lincoln was in violation of the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"From Article 1 which enumerates the House and Senate's powers, Section 9 :"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended except
> in times of war
Look even closer. That's a power the Constitution grants to Congress, not the president.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It is not Obama that made all these bad laws. IT'S CONGRESS.
The Patriot Act and much of the other crap legislation that flies in the face of the Constitution has been created and signed into law in other administrations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LrbsUVSVl8
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Post it on your FB, people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Worse than Nixon on civil liberties. And you knew that before the end of his first term. But you reelected him anyhow.
�
Worse than Richard Milhous Nixon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Democrats are corporate whores but Republicans are HORRIBLE. I mean, they tried to vote in Reagan a second time. Oh, I'm sorry, Mitt "I'm rich, Biatch!" Romney, the vulture capitalist that wanted to harvest companies and said anything to win.
If you had a better system that implemented third parties, I'm sure you would have a stronger democracy instead of the plutocracy that you see now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only thing Obamas admin did was push to expand the interpretation of that ruling. Not that that's a good thing, but it didn't start with his admin.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_v._Quarles
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some Con Law Prof.
It's like the campaign slogan: Hope and Change.
Obama seems content to shred the constitution as much as the next fundie charlatain bubba.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If the DOJ is not enforcing Miranda Rights, Obama is to blame.
You might argue that others in the past made this possible.
But the choice to not enforce it today lays on Obamas lap, he could easily tell the DOJ to always use Miranda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Miranda v Arizona (1966). Mr. Chief Justice Warren delivered the opinion of the Court:
(Emphasis added.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
of course, this makes it even more stupid not to read him his rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's your good friend, xoxo Anonymous. You might remember me, but it's been a while. I started out posting every time Mike M. said something stupid about patents and then tried to follow along as he branched out and said something stupid in other areas. It's hard to keep up with all the stupid though, having a job and family and all that.
Anonymous Coward comes close to spotting the mistake in your analysis, but it comes down to your assumption that just because you have an opinion, it's educated or worth posting. Guess again.
Miranda says that if you don't read them their rights, you can't use the statements that you collect while they're in your custody. Well, what happens if you don't need those statements for a conviction? What happens if the physical and other secondary evidence in your opinion supports a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt? Then you keep them in custody and interrogate them all you want for valuable intelligence.
Do you see how it's a strategic decision? And not a mistake?
Did it ever occur to you that the attorneys that work for the government might actually understand these issues better than you? Did it ever occur to you that if someone disagrees with you, that it's possible that you're the one that's wrong? I'd love to see an answer to those two questions but, in case you do the obvious thing and backpedal and say something like, "durrrr, freedom," then my follow up question is, "If you're so protective of freedom and Miranda, which doesn't even appear in the Constitution, then where can I find your spirited defense of 2nd Amendment rights, post-Sandy Hook?"
As always I remain, xoxo Anonymous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mike Masnick: Seldom right; never in doubt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do you see how it's a strategic decision? And not a mistake?
Even if you don't need anything gained from the interrogation, why take the chance? Why not have the interrogation as an additional bit of evidence to use if you need it, just in case there is some minor problem with some other piece of evidence? Why give the defense attorney an opening? Even a bad attorney can make a point that if the government is willing to violate a suspect's rights for one thing that same government might be willing to break procedures for other things, such as the handling of the physical evidence the rest of the case is depending on. Why take that chance? Where is the benefit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The arsenal at home, the statements admitting guilt to the carjacker, video evidence etc are all more than enough to obtain a conviction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So what? You don't have to be a prosecutor to understand how to build a case, and more evidence on your side - such as a legitimate confession from the suspect - is better than no confession.
His questioning centers entirely around why he did it, not if.
So, they're looking for motive. I thought that was a key piece in building a case. It's half of that "motive and opportunity" you hear all the time.
The arsenal at home, the statements admitting guilt to the carjacker, video evidence etc are all more than enough to obtain a conviction.
And not following proper procedure and reading a suspect his rights when it is so easy calls into question the conduct of the government in all other matters regarding the case. Do you want to wager on his attorney claiming that as enough for reasonable doubt? Again, why take that chance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> reading a suspect his rights when it is
> so easy calls into question the conduct
> of the government in all other matters
> regarding the case.
It's only 'proper procedure' if you want to introduce the defendant's statements as evidence.
If you don't have any intention of doing that, not only is not proper procedure, it's not required AT ALL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> if the government is willing to violate a
> suspect's rights
Not reading Miranda is not a violation of rights. The Miranda warning isn't in itself a right. It's a procedural requirement which *advises* the suspect of his *actual* rights.
And not reading Miranda isn't a violation of anything if the government doesn't plan on entering any of the defendant's statements into evidence.
Any defense attorney that miscontrues it otherwise is subject to objection and sanction by the court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He lives in this country, the absurd notion that simply not telling him that if he talks we then have ammo to use against him in a trial is stupid. The Miranda rights aren't to tell a criminal he's better off staying silent, it's there to tell a criminal "Hey, we're decent guys. If you don't say anything, we won't kill or torture you or use your silence later as an admission of guilt."
I am on the side of believing that not reading this guy his rights just because we are very scared of him (which means the terrorism works) is the absolutely worst precedent to ever do. If we let this happen, then at any time the government can declare any of us a "public safety exception" and not read us our rights (though why that is necessary at this point...) if they are a bit scared of us.
THIS, unlike the NRA's claim of losing out on giant-sized gun magazines, is the slippery slope of government encroachment that leads to fascism and (dare I invoke Godwins law here) what led to the rise of Nazism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is nothing to defend. No one with any kind of power anywhere in the country ever even once suggested limiting 2nd amendment rights. Regardless of what your leaders and the NRA tell you and you just blindly follow the constitution does guarantee you to own any and all weapons ever made. It was written when the world had nothing but muskets, so until guns have been limited to one shot muskets no one is even coming close to infringing on your rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't take it personally -- 99% of the people I meet "play favorites" with the Constitutional rights they personally approve of, while they happily sacrifice the ones they don't like.
For example, let's take your argument with respect to the 2nd Amendment and apply it to the 1st Amendment, almost word for word:
"Regardless of what your leaders and the [ACLU] tell you and you just blindly follow the constitution does guarantee you to own any and all [forms of speech]. It was written when the world had nothing but [printing presses], so until [the Internet/Television/Radio] have been limited to [300 hundred people that would have received your printed billets] no one is even coming close to infringing on your rights."
Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, please give a principled defense for the difference, besides your preference for the one right and your abhorrence of the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> to the 2nd Amendment and apply it to the 1st
> Amendment, almost word for word:
When it comes to cafeteria-style constitutional rights and the 2nd Amendment, I always like to throw out abortion as a good example.
The very people who are calling for 'common sense' restrictions on the the 2nd Amendment right to own a firearm are usually the very people who will recoil in horror at the idea of putting 'common sense' restrictions on the right to terminate a pregnancy. All the more ironic that the right to a firearm is actually in the Constitution and the right to abort a baby is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So you are telling me that a 19 year old kid living in the US somehow hasn't seen enough movies and episodes of CSI to recognise the phrase "You have the right to remain silent..." but has in fact even planned and executed a bombing without ever wondering what would happen if he actually got caught? Seriously? Somehow refusing to read him his rights will just... magically generate useful intelligence, because now he thinks he has to talk? This, is worth risking a conviction over? Call me crazy if you like, but to me this assumption seems naive to the extreme and really, really stupid.
More likely is that not reading his right is a way to dehumanise the accused, for people to distance themselves, as no one wants to be on the same level as someone with such a scary sounding foreign name.
But, since you seem interested in functional solutions, and perfectly willing to throw due process out the window, how about we just declare him an enemy combatant, ship him off to Guantanamo and simply torture him for a few years? Surely you'll get all the intelligence you want, and it'll do away with that pesky trial and law and stuff.
Land of the free and home of the brave, I think not. These days it's liberty and justice for all, unless you're like... scary or inconvenient.
Leaders of the free world my ass. For shame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Let's be realistic - they're going to hold him for "enhanced interrogation." After they put him in a time machine, of course, because we know President Obama doesn't do that sort of thing.
Do you hear me, drone operators? Obama clearly doesn't do that sort of thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> statements for a conviction? What happens if
> the physical and other secondary evidence in
> your opinion supports a conviction beyond a
> reasonable doubt?
Happens all the time. Personally, I don't arrest anyone until I have enough evidence to independently convict. By the time I'm putting the cuffs on you, what you do or do not say is largely irrelevant.
I can always tell when one of these guys thinks he's got one over on me. The smug smile on his face as he proudly announces to his lawyer that "they ain't got nothin' on me 'cause he didn't read me my Mirandas", and then the way it slowly disappears when I explain to him that I didn't have to read it to him because I have a shit-ton of physical evidence that will convict him ten times over and I don't plan on entering anything he's said into evidence against him. I always like to give defense counsel the opportunity to confirm for his client the veracity of my assertion, which they always grudgingly do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Witches are dangerous, therefore torture is acceptable as a means of obtaining a confession prior to burning them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Except that while anything you learn that way can be used to save lives, in the public interest, such confessions are INADMISSIBLE in court. If you have enough physical evidence to not need a confession, great. If your case comes down to needing that confession or the accused walks away a free man...then the exception means he walks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's what make this an exception. The Miranda "rule" is (roughly) that pre-warning statements are inadmissible. The exception means that that those pre-warning statements would be admissible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's the part I have a problem with. If they don't want to Mirandize him, fine, but they should not be permitted to use any pre-warning statements in a trial. They should have to choose whether skipping the warning is worth losing the testimony; otherwise the incentive for abuse is way too strong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> the warning is worth losing the testimony;
> otherwise the incentive for abuse is way too
> strong.
I'm personally in favor of the Miranda rule being eliminated entirely. It was a ridiculous decision when it was first issued and only gets more ridiculous with each further judicial 'refinement' of the rule.
The U.S. provides criminal defendants with more due process and substantive protections than any other society in the history of mankind. We bend over backward to give the accused every presumption of innocence and put high hurdles before the government to convict.
If you as a citizen can't be bothered to educate yourself on the basics of what your rights are and what burden the government meet to convict you, then that's on you. There ought to be some minimum personal responsibility on the part of the citizen and that's where I'd draw the line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I get what you're saying, and if we could trust law enforcement to follow the rules it would be fine. I think without the Miranda rules not only would some people not know what their rights are, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if police actually told people they do not have any right to remain silent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Popehat roundup of relevant posts
Ken's roundup is worth checking out for further discussion of the topic.
tl;dr version: Yeah, probably a bad idea but far from "fatal" to any eventual case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everyone has the exact same rights as everyone else. It should not matter what they are alleged to have done. Whether it is murder, terrorism, rape, child abuse - everyone should be entitled to the same due process.
I will probably be shot down for saying that but it is how I feel. Those processes are there for a reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A lot of people have forgotten the difference between having an opinion about a person's actions and having facts about a person's actions. I despise real world violence for example but I don't automatically condemn every person who's ever thrown a punch. You have to take things on a case by case basis, which is one of the many reasons due process exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: exact same rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: exact same rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: exact same rights
Prior to conviction, they should have the same rights; after conviction, some rights should be stripped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: exact same rights
> same rights; after conviction, some rights
> should be stripped.
Many rights *are* stripped. Prison would be a massive violation of a person's rights if they still had them when they were sent there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Expect the SWAT to storm into your house, guns blazing while seizing everything. Also, you have no rights because you support terrorism!
Ahem. Sad indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What color is the sky in the little world that you live in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That "theory" is laid to bare in how the Senate is paralyzed unconstitutionally with no filibuster reforms, Congress does not represent people over corporations, and the Supreme Court is extremely conservative in their rulings.
I mean, it really doesn't take a genius to figure out that Obama is conservative himself given how he wants to cut Social Security and goes along with most of the austerity posturing of the extreme right wing.
If you refuse to see that, it's your choice. But it's fairly obvious they're doing things that people are opposed to regardless of if they have a D or R next to their party affiliation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The Department of Justice isn't part of the Senate. It's part of the Executive. The Executive is controlled by the President. Are you trying to tell me that the President is a neo-con? Or that being a closet neo-con, he's packed the DOJ with neo-cons?
In case you didn't notice, 48% of the country didn't vote for the President. What exactly is your theory here? That the 52% that support ObamaCare and abortion and Guantanamo are neo-cons, and they elected the neo-con president? Or the 48% percent that reject ObamaCare are neo-cons and they appointed a lousy candidate for the Presidency to trick people into voting for Obama?
Last point and then you can go back to parroting Jon Stewart's idiocy -- when someone disagrees with you, did you ever consider the possibility that you may not have thought these things through and you might be wrong?
xoxo, Anonymous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Look at his policies. He's supported the conservative/neo-con positions almost whole heartedly.
"In case you didn't notice, 48% of the country didn't vote for the President."
And? He's "the lesser evil" but that doesn't make him any less conservative. If he were not an authoritarian, he would have been more like Hugo Chavez in ensuring more democracy. If he were more like FDR and pragmatic, then he wouldn't be criticized for his conservative positions on anything that has nothing to do with social policies.
"That the 52% that support ObamaCare and abortion and Guantanamo are neo-cons, and they elected the neo-con president? "
Nope. I'm asking you to actually look at his policies besides just the social ones. His policies of appointments are meant to appease the far right who has to appoint him with 60 votes.
His views on copyright are actually conservative positions meant to make Hollywood more conservative and mercantilist.
He wants to support CISPA and he's signed the NDAA. He even repealed the insider trading legislation of last year.
In essence, he's a corporatist. The Democrats en largesse are the corporatists of politics while the Republicans represent the rich more.
when someone disagrees with you, did you ever consider the possibility that you may not have thought these things through and you might be wrong?
Sure, I could be. But when it's obvious that people have very limited views on policies and politics that greatly expand their knowledge, I look to educate them about what has been occurring.
No hard feelings if you don't know. But it just seems that you want to go "But, but... Obama" when everyone's criticizing him for his energy policies, his climate change reversal, and other positions that mark him as more conservative than progressive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) Hugo Chavez insured Democracy Really? care to support that? Because i have been there and have many family and friends that well be more than happy to Punch the living shit out of you for even bringing that up... Chavez is an absolute dictator with secret police, summary executions for anyone not agreeing enough, and would make Stalin blink at some of the shit he has done (it was very common for police to ask ppl questions at random on the street based on the "TV" show Chavez had weekly, get the question wrong your going to jail at a minimum)
2) Next Bullshit you will pull is that Che Guevara is some great supporter of Democracy and not a butcher and madman.
Now I will be happy to agree that neither R nor D means shit anymore and they all have a select few they accept money from and represent... but Chavez didnt do a damn thing to support anything but Chavez and his buddies, and killed anyone who said different!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Chavez was elected repeatedly through large margins by fair elections that were overseen by international bodies. Either you're lying to support a political point or you are parroting news to support your own ideological beliefs.
" Next Bullshit you will pull is that Che Guevara is some great supporter of Democracy and not a butcher and madman.�"
What does Che Guevara and his struggle in Cuba have to do with anything? Do you not know how much the CIA did to undermine him and Cuba during the 60s and 70s?
" Chavez didnt do a damn thing to support anything but Chavez and his buddies, and killed anyone who said different!"
Ah, so you believe the garbage from NYT & Washington Past that says he was a dictator while other news sites explain how he allowed the Carter foundationto observe the elections fairly and just ran with it.
Sorry, but you've been duped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
From what I've heard (I'm no expert) he was fairly elected, but after that paid no mind to any democratic principles. Populist, yes, but not democratic. He was seemingly a contradiction in terms: a democratically elected dictator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Despite producing more than $300 billion of oil wealth between 1958 and 1998, the equivalent of 20 Marshall Plans, the majority of Venezuelans were living in shocking slums (McCaughan, M. The Battle of Venezuela, pp. 29-32). By the 1990s, quality of life indicators for ordinary Caracas residents were slightly below Port-Au-Prince, Haiti. Between 1970-1997, workers' incomes declined by 50%, while poverty doubled between 1984-1991. There was widespread repression, with the previous 3 presidents all using censors and all suspending constitutional guarantees.
...
Given Venezuela's population, that equates to around 9 million people (1/3 of the entire population) pulled out of poverty. Both the United Nations Development Project and the World Bank agree that unemployment dropped from over 11% to under 8%.
That's a big issue. He's helped revolutionize Latin America with Socialist theories that took away austerity measures and improved the lives of millions with the production of co-ops and nationalizing the oil for the people.
What people think of Socialism (a top down organization that tells people how to live their lives) ignores how much he allowed co-ops and people to begin to change their own lives for the better.
Also, the US wanted to destabalize the region as seen here.
Finally, if you want to see what he has to say about Socialism over Capitalism, you can look it up on Youtube
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't disagree with anything you wrote, but it doesn't address whether he was a tyrant. As I said, he was a populist/socialist tyrant, but from what I've heard a tyrant nonetheless. I could be wrong, but I'm not just making it up, I've heard this analysis from people who have researched and investigated his time in power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If he were such a "dictator" why is there evidence that America tried to undermine him for going against their interests?
Further, how exactly would he be a tyrant when he ruled by popular vote?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> have been more like Hugo Chavez in ensuring
> more democracy.
Oh, you mean he would have seized any media outlet that criticized him, like Chavez did?
Or do you mean he would have seized massive mounts of private property in a wholesale campaign of outright theft, like Chavez did?
Is that what you mean by 'ensuring democracy'? (Oh, and I nearly did a spit-take when you said Chavez wasn't an authoritarian. That was a true piece of comedy gold, right there.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I notice a lot of spitfire rhetoric but a lot of ignorance on how US media demonized Chavez because they didn't get what they wanted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/03/05/venezuela-chavez-s-authoritarian-legacy
Under Ch�vez, the government dramatically expanded its ability to control the content of the country�s broadcast and news media. It passed laws extending and toughening penalties for speech that �offends� government officials, prohibiting the broadcast of messages that �foment anxiety in the public,� and allowing for the arbitrary suspension of TV channels, radio stations, and websites.
The Ch�vez government sought to justify its media policies as necessary to �democratize� the country�s airwaves. Yet instead of promoting pluralism, the government abused its regulatory authority to intimidate and censor its critics. It expanded the number of government-run TV channels from one to six, while taking aggressive steps to reduce the availability of media outlets that engage in critical programming.
In response to negative coverage, Ch�vez repeatedly threatened to remove private stations from the airwaves by blocking renewal of their broadcast licenses. In 2007, in an act of blatant political discrimination, his government prevented the country�s oldest private television channel, RCTV, from renewing its license and seized its broadcasting antennas. Three years later, it drove RCTV off cable TV as well by forcing the country�s cable providers to stop transmitting its programs.
The removal of RCTV left only one major channel, Globovisi�n, that continued to be critical of the president. The Ch�vez government repeatedly pursued administrative sanctions against Globovisi�n, which have kept the station in perpetual risk of suspension or closure. It also pressed criminal charges against the station�s president, a principal owner, and a guest commentator after they made public statements criticizing the government.
Embracing Abusive Governments
Ch�vez also rejected international efforts to promote human rights in other countries. In recent years, Venezuela consistently voted against UN General Assembly resolutions condemning abusive practices in North Korea, Burma, Iran, and Syria. Moreover, Ch�vez was a vocal supporter of Syria�s Bashar al-Assad, Libya�s Muammar Gaddafi, and Iran�s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, bestowing upon each of these leaders the �Order of the Liberator,� Venezuela�s highest official honor.
Under Ch�vez, Venezuela�s closest ally was Cuba, the only country in Latin America that systematically represses virtually all forms of political dissent. Ch�vez identified Fidel Castro � who headed Cuba�s repressive government until his health deteriorated in 2006 � as his model and mentor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We're supposed to believe that the press and the courts are packed thanks to Chavez? Are you kidding me?
He was an elected autocrat:
He ain't � wasn't � a dictator. As I said above, he was a hybrid, an elected autocrat. What that means is he won free (though not entirely fair) votes, year after year. He allowed the opposition to organise. There was a vocal privately owned media which railed against him, Fox-like. But he concentrated powers � the courts, armed forces, state oil company, national assembly, all genuflected before the voice of the comandante. Over time he became more repressive: opponents and people he didn't like were accused of corruption and banned from running for office, or jailed. Some fled. But he never became as repressive as some critics claimed. There were no gulags, no death squads, no terror. He was a bully, but not bloodthirsty.
Oh and you might want to check this out where the US had plans to overthrow Chavez that didn't work.
Just recently, the loser wanted a coup but Chavez' successor won fair and square. The same thing that Chavez did 11 times. Whether you liked him or not, Chavez is essentially the Venezuelan FDR with his popularity and he did go further to promote democracy than dampen it when his opponents worked to undermine him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> for everything
Funny, you don't know any such thing.
> and that article is laughable.
You asked for proof. I provided it. You then proceeded to engage in ad hominems. What exactly is inaccurate in that article?
Do you deny that under Chavez, laws were passed penalizing speech that offended government officials, prohibited the broadcast of messages that "foment anxiety in the public," and allowed for the arbitrary suspension of TV channels, radio stations, and websites?
Do you deny that Chavez intimidated and censored his critics?
Do you deny that Chavez created state-run media propaganda organs?
Do you deny that Chavez nationalized (fancy word for 'stole') massive amounts of private property?
Do you deny that Chavez threatened to remove private stations from the airwaves by blocking renewal of their broadcast licenses?
Do you deny that Chavez seized the broadcast facilities of stations which refused to stop being critical of him?
Do you deny that Chavez aligned himself with the most repressive governments on the planet and cozied up to psychopathic dictators on a regular basis?
If you deny any of these things, it's now *your* turn to provide proof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But woe betide that if you do a cost-benefit analysis and found out he did a lotmore good by helping people over profit motives that worked to undermine him constantly.
Let's ignore how he blatantly told Obama that the drug war wasn't working and pushed Latin America in a more Socialist direction.
Let's ignore how he reduced poverty, created a more educated workforce, and helped show how unequal capitalism is by going in a direction that FDR was going.
Instead, one partisan article takes narrow focuses on two parts of Chavez' legacy and decides that it applies to everything he did.
And to answer your questions, he didn't penalize speech. He prevented the poor from losing their voice. That allowed more speech.
He exiled some people but he also allowed them to form their own political parties where they tried to ouster him with US backing.
America tries to bully people along with any other nation so I don't really understand the point here. Yes, he did this, but at this point he allowed the people to decide if he needed to be taken out of office democratically. So obviously, they liked him in overwhelming numbers.
Allocation of private property to public resources is a tenant of Socialism. So it seems you're bitter that he allowed the public to redistribute the wealth to help the nation prosper. That's a narrow view, don't you think?
Finally, the last two questions are repeats but America has laws similar to them like the Fairness Doctrine and the FCC who regulate the airwaves for hateful speech. You might not agree but that was their job before Reagan made up rules for monopolies to form in the broadcasting industry.
Oh, and America allowed the HSBC to launder money to Al'Qaeda and banks to do business with Iran.
Quit throwing stones when your own house is made of glass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> prevented the poor from losing their voice. That allowed more
> speech.
LOL! The typical justification for a dictator's suppression of dissent. "He's just allowing more of the 'good' kind of speech. Yay!"
> Allocation of private property to public resources is a tenant
> of Socialism.
'Allocation'. Another fancy word for stealing other people's stuff. And trying to justify it by saying that stealing people's stuff is a tenant of socialism doesn't do your argument any favors.
> So it seems you're bitter that he allowed the public to redistribute
> the wealth to help the nation prosper. That's a narrow view, don't
> you think?
Yeah, I'm being so narrow-minded when I object to the government "allowing" some citizens to steal from others.
> but America has laws similar to them like the Fairness Doctrine
Wrong. The Fairness Doctrine was repealed during the Reagan administration, and it was never constitutionally tested. If it had been, the Court would almost certainly have overturned it.
> and the FCC who regulate the airwaves for hateful speech
No, they don't. That would be unconstitutional. Hate speech is perfectly legal in America. The only thing things the FCC are legally empowered to prohibit are indecency and obscenity, and it can only prohibit those on the broadcast stations. When it comes to cable stations, premium channels, and the internet, they're powerless to do even that much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like I said, you're partisan. You're convinced of ignoring that issue when it's another country but you'll use it against one you don't like. "Do as I say, not as I do"
I merely said that he's allowed the country to do better than the US with the rules and policies he's implemented and you want to throw that out of proportion.
" Another fancy word for stealing other people's stuff. And trying to justify it by saying that stealing people's stuff is a tenant of socialism doesn't do your argument any favors."
Nope. That's like saying copyright means you're engaging in theft. Excellent way to provide a Hollywood argument but you might want to look at what happens when "private property" is collected in the hands of a select few. Oh wait, no you don't. The 1929 depression along with the 2007 recession are stark reminders.
" I'm being so narrow-minded when I object to the government "allowing" some citizens to steal from others."
Thanks for admitting it when you don't want to understand the booms and busts of the capitalist system.
" The Fairness Doctrine was repealed during the Reagan administration, and it was never constitutionally tested. If it had been, the Court would almost certainly have overturned it."
Wrong. The Fairness Doctrine was practiced until the Reagan administration decided on the argument that companies needed to be bigger for the good of the rest of society which makes absolutely no sense. But obviously, you didn't read much into the Powell Memo that was popular at the time in how to create a plutocratic republic.
"That would be unconstitutional. Hate speech is perfectly legal in America. The only thing things the FCC are legally empowered to prohibit are indecency and obscenity, and it can only prohibit those on the broadcast stations. When it comes to cable stations, premium channels, and the internet, they're powerless to do even that much."
They've gotten weaker over the years due to partisan battles but the FCC of the 70s had a lot more they could do to promote the public good. Nice try though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Me, I'll stay here, thank you very much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That has nothing to do with the argument presented so why don't you actually respond about the topic at hand instead of veering off into rhetorical territory?
And I'll stay in America as I see fit, thank you very much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's because the difference between the 2 are subtle if not non-existent these days, unless you count the bible thumpers on the right as actual representatives of a political party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, you do realize that the extreme far right are people who want less laws not more.
Big government------middle------no government
Today there is little difference between democrats and republicans, they are both responsible for smearing shit on the constitution and your rights.
If you think only big bad Rs are the problem, then YOU are part of the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm talking the actual meaning of left wing, and not the meaningless phrase that right wing media like to throw about when they meet an idea they disagree with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The Republicans (ie conservatives) have been a huge problem with their libertarian, evangelical, and neocon ideas that have caused massive problems for the last century.
Yes, century. They tried austerity in the 20s and that changed us to a welfare state in the US. We got 40-50 years of a welfare state which changed into a private market since the 70s. Now we have eliminated the welfare state for private capitalism and conservatives have lead the way the entire time.
In other words, there IS no left wing in politics. The ones that want the laws right now are the corporations and the rich to support them over the needs of the nation. Honestly, who thinks it's a good idea to destroy Miranda rights for terrorists when Norway didn't have to?
Who thinks it's a good idea to point fingers at Progressives (accept capitalism, want state capitalism) over looking at new economic systems which Socialists and Communists want?
You have to be really ignorant of the class struggle involved here where the rich have the state do their bidding while the poor are left to work hard at the expense of their own well being.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I totally agree, left wing has disappeared from politics. Even parties traditionally referred to as left wing can no longer be given that label. That is why I was so incredulous with that poster as, in the 30 years I have been alive, I have not seen a single left wing government in the Western world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I just think they're working on getting more involved and pushing back against the austerity measures of right wingers.
Here in the US, we have the Progressive Caucus in the Democrats and the Green Party should be challenging the Democrats more as a far left challenger (they still need work but it's far better than being Socialist or Communist now)
Also, New Zealand has been pretty progressive. I mean, a judge had that balls to embarrass the FBI. Think about how Richard Dwyer was treated in the UK versus how Dotcom got rights upheld when he was at his worst.
I'm not calling you ignorant or anything. Just expanding the knowledge that I've collected on these issues as I work to make the world a better place. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A judge following the rule of law causing someone to describe a country as progressive indicates how low standards are.
The NZ example is perhaps a terrible one given that the NZ government colluded with a US government agency to break multiple laws in an attempt to railroad a person living in NZ and despite this being common knowledge and the information to support it being widely available, said person, is still having to struggle against the vicarious and unsupportable extradition proceedings while the people who have committed major crimes are not currently facing any charges at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are actually two axis for government, Left-Right, and Big-Small. Republicans are just as big governments as Democrats.
Governments shouldn't be bailing out corporations; that is crony capitalism. States should be pro-market, not pro-business.
You act like you don't know the 1%. Have you ever been to a doctor? Most rich people don't lie in piles of money laughing. They try and build a product people want. And we pay them for it. If you don't like the millions CEO's receive, don't buy their stuff, don't bank at their banks, don't eat at their restaurants, and don't shop at their stores. This is more democracy than you'll ever see in your lifetime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Further, private sector unions make up SEVEN PERCENT of the workforce. Seven. As in, they aren't non-existent to for the majority of workers. What you're actually referring to is the public sector unions that protect the police from being fired. You know, the ones that ignore how police officers raid pensions and give themselves high bonuses? How about discussing the police state has grown under the last three presidents?
No, it's not the fault of the unions. It's a carefully manufactured support for more authoritarianism.
Finally, if the rich were providing goods and services that people want, why do you support an ideology that looks to deprive people of choices and point fingers? They don't. They look to monopolize markets to ensure that they continue to make money on the misery of others. Whether that's copyright law where people with a financial interest in more copyright make the law, patents where the most patents wins, or destroying political opponents to win elections, the root cause of this is that people at the top look to destroy those below them to ensure their own dominance. That's a dangerous position when people figure it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm confused by the rest of your post. It sounds like you are complaining that the problem with a compound fracture is a tear in the skin. All of your ranting may well be problems we have; however, the solution has nothing to do with them. We have allowed our government to run on autopilot for way too long, to the point where their primary interest is staying in power.
Corporatism is just simple human nature: The CEOs and the congressmen are buddies, and a likely place for them to work when if they don't get reelected. So of course they have their hands in each others' pockets. I know this is a very anti-corporation place, but keep one thing in mind: Kraft can't throw you in jail for not eating their Mac-n-Cheese.
We need to take an active interest in our government. Voting is the bare minimum; we were meant to do much more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Uh... Where. They don't wield power on the national stage as you've just pointed out. Same with the AFL-CIO who has elected to support corporate interests over the people they are paid to protect.
" All of your ranting may well be problems we have; however, the solution has nothing to do with them."
My "rant" wasn't meant to try to solve anything. It was structured to raise awareness of how little power unions have had in society in the last half-century.
" Corporatism is just simple human nature: The CEOs and the congressmen are buddies, and a likely place for them to work when if they don't get reelected.�"
Corporatism is not simple human nature. It comes from an undemocratic structure that allows a select few to make decisions over the many. Before, that was called feudalism. Now, we call it a board of directors in an enterprise.
If a BoD had to live with the decisions of their choices, I'm sure they would decide differently in how they interact with the public. As it stands, the needs of the few outweigh the many and we are seeing the end results of that.
" We need to take an active interest in our government. Voting is the bare minimum; we were meant to do much more."
Interesting stance, bit I would argue that attacking the government is misguided. This is a result of thirty years of rule by the rich. If we can understand that, them we can work to change our economics and politics to a more egalitarian democracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> the 30s
You must not live in California. Unions literally run this state, top to bottom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...private sector unions make up SEVEN PERCENT of the workforce. Seven. As in, they aren't non-existent to for the majority of workers.
Here's who the unions represent from the wiki page:
▪ Age 16�24: 5.0%
▪ 25�34: 10.7%
▪ 35�44: 13.4%
▪ 45�54: 16.0%
▪ 55�64: 16.6%
▪ 65 and over: 9.0%
▪ Women: 11.4%
▪ Men: 13.4%
So I maintain my position that they represent so few Americans as to be non-existent to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, you just self-servingly limited your claim to private sector unions. The public sector unions run California, top to bottom, which is even worse, because public sector unions do it with taxpayer money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How many people they represent is irrelevant. It only matters how influential they are with politicians.
In California, they fund the campaigns of virtually every politician from the governor on down to local mayors and city councils. They get these people elected, who then use their positions to pass laws favorable to the unions, to the extent of raising taxes for the sole purpose of handing the resulting revenue over to the public employee union goons. Not only do the unions run the state, but they have the ability to literally reach into my pocket and take my money from me whenever they like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
btr, MY entire point is about unions on the national level. You've just self servingly limited the point that I raised which is about unions all over the country.
How many people they represent is irrelevant. It only matters how influential they are with politicians.
They aren't. You know what would have happened if there were a strong union? West Texas does not like unions and it's a great example of why regulations actually save lives.
I know you're partisan but this is ridiculous. You have to read my words five ways from Sunday to come to a tortured point when I've argued something entirely different. I haven't seen evidence of the AFL-CIO being able to gain more power because they don't have it. The money for corporations to allow unions comes from the capitalists and they don't want unions hence the 7% number. It's great that you live in California, but I'm not talking about just one state. I'm talking about the entire country.
Congratulations on making a strawman argument but the bigger picture is with the nation hence my point still stands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have a right to an attorney after you tells us what we want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Miranda rights only matter if....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Miranda rights only matter if....
I've yet to see conclusive evidence that these two placed the bombs or hijacked the car and had a shootout while reportedly hurling bombs at the cops in pursuit. I'm not saying that they didn't do it, simply that I don't see any hard evidence. This is extremely dangerous in and of itself because this means that the media is acting in concert with the feds to judge, jury and execute these individuals absent any due process.
Logic please: If you're a wanted terrorist, are you really going to give a confession to the person whose car you stole, much less let him live? Somehow they managed to evade a heavy security presence, plant bombs and evade capture at the marathon, but suddenly became extremely stupid after the fact? Doesn't sit right with me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Miranda rights only matter if....
Certainly you haven't seen enough evidence yet to prove guilt (no one has, 'cept maybe the investigators), but did you expect them to rush over and present it for your review? There is a fair bit of evidence circulated by media (assuming media can be believed (not opinion, that's crap, but the stuff they're reporting as fact)) that certainly implicates these two.
First off it would be a bit odd if that's what the case was hanging off of, but it's not. While the media certainly trumpeted that aspect of this whole affair, the carjacking and gunfight were probably what drove law enforcement to pursue these guys more than the offhand statement in and of itself. Additionally, the statement hasn't even been reported (i.e. what they actually said, that I've seen at least), and I certainly don't put it past two scared, impressionable morons to make self-incriminating, self-aggrandizing statements like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Miranda rights only matter if....
> are you really going to give a confession to
> the person whose car you stole, much less let
> him live?
Many people are stupid. Criminals, even more so. If I based every investigation on what a logical, smart person would do, I'd never catch anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We lost more than we gained
How about the 'Siege of Boston' for one? That they needed 9,000 cops and military to take down 1 lone person is truly terrifying and pathetic at the same time.
There are reports that there were house searches without a warrant, personal searches without a warrant, and an entire city was shut down for 1 stinking person, while the paramilitary troops complete with tanks, helicopters, search dogs, assault weapons and any other assortment of toys did their job.
Then the loss of our Constitutional rights for just one person who was half-dead at the time they captured him.
We must be so proud of ourselves. We just became our own enemy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We lost more than we gained
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We lost more than we gained
Then again, when there are 9000 cops and military roaming the streets perpetuating irrational fear, the fact that people were technically allowed to leave their homes becomes a moot point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We lost more than we gained
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We should be better than that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The purpose of the Miranda rights is to articulate that the prosecutor can not inflict punishment without the approval of another, balancing and neutral, party (a court). The government can inflict punishment on you if you choose to remain silent but only with the prior approval of a court. On the other hand the prosecutor can decide to press for fewer charges and less punishment if you choose to divulge useful information in the interest of public safety.
Where it gets tricky is when the prosecutor attempts to plea bargain people into confessing to crimes that they may have never done under the threat that if they don't the prosecutor may punish them even more. For instance, say crime C > B > A. Say you only did A. The prosecutor may threaten to prosecute you with C if you don't confess to B. If you do then confess to B what a court should then do is recognize what's going on and ensure that you are only being punished for what the government can reasonably prove that you likely did (and sometimes they do that already). If it's obvious to the court that the defendant is confessing to B only to avoid being prosecuted for C but the defendant likely only did A or that the prosecutor can't even come close to proving B then the court should punish the defendant only for A (or even less as a punishment to the prosecutor? Then again, what kinda justice is that. A better solution could be to only punish the defendant for A and maybe fine the prosecutor for being unfair? Maybe the proceeds can go to some charity or to non-profit defense organizations like the ACLU?).
Punishment should never occur without prior court approval, even if the defendant admits to a crime. A court should exercise prudence in ensuring that the punishment fits what the government can reasonably prove even if confessions by the defendant are made. This would solve most of the "prosecute for C to get defendants to admit to B and receive a greater punishment" problem, that greater punishment should only occur after court approval and reasonable court prudence is exercised to ensure that the punishment only fits what the government can reasonably prove and not just what the defendant is confessing to. Courts should still demand proof to what the defendant is confessing to. Then punishments would be a lot more reasonable and likely be a much closer fit to the actual crime.
Then again, I know this solution is not really that simple. It's hard for a court to see a defense that was never made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And that's why terrorists won already. The US is walking quickly towards fascism and dictatorship.
This is an organization with a long history of abusing its power, now allowed to wipe out one of the key protections for those they're arresting, whenever it sees fit. The whole point of the ruling in Miranda is that it should not be up to law enforcement. A person's rights are their rights.
We point at the DOJ but it wouldn't be able to act this way if successive administrations didn't give them a lot of power and room to do so.
Also I couldn't agree more with you Mike, the US have a bunch of coward pussies in the Govt for the last 15 years or so. But wait, that's not about terrorism, it's about control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which could be the last thing the terrorists want. The corporations based in the US are world dominant. They would use American might to protect their interests world wide. This could destroy any and all culture that does not bow down to Mammon, that is make money for the corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That they succeeded at shutting down an entire American city while people's Constitutional rights were suspended (particularly the 4th and 5th...) seems to suggest otherwise. If anything, this event proves that all it takes to destroy freedom is a pressure-cooker and explosives in a backpack.
Shame on this country, but especially shame on law enforcement. They swore an oath to protect our Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic but didn't honor that oath that fateful Friday. Oh yeah, law enforcement sure are brave and courageous when they've got thousands of officers to back them up, equipped with fully-automatic weaponry and bullet-proof vests, armored vehicles and black hawk helicopters, just to go after one severely wounded 19 year-old.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dictators such as Hitler likewise used essentially the same argument/justification you're making for why the people should be submissive to government authority. The German authorities were "just doing their job" of *protecting* the German citizenry, at the greater expense of their rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What they need to know about are any other bombs and/or sociopaths.
As much as I may empathize with various oppressed people (and they are everywhere), terrorism (and killing, for that matter) is never a reasonable tactic. Never.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Trouble is, the word "terror" is open for interpretation, at least for what specific action causing it, i.e. I could be cowering in terror knowing that my Miranda rights can be revoked at anytime without clear explanation/rules as to why. I could be arrested for jaywalking, and some smart ass argues my jaywalking threatens public safety and poof goes my Miranda rights (apparently, he doesn't approve my relationship with his daughter/sister/neighbor/friend/someone across the street/what-have-you).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm
On the other hand, an attack directly meant for a civilian populace by militarily train professions is an act of war, not your normal crime. As an act of war, they should be treated as enemy combatants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clicked submit too soon
What if someone create a bomb and killed 10m people? Would you still say "they need their miranda rights"?
There is a line that is eventually crossed when someone attacks civilians with the intent to just cause mass pain and suffering. How many people must get hurt before you can treat an attack as an act of war or crime against humanity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clicked submit too soon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Clicked submit too soon
> which we waive all decency and respect of
> human rights of the "alleged" perpetrator(s)?
42
(And Miranda warning is not a 'human right'. Don't be so melodramatic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clicked submit too soon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clicked submit too soon
Now what if someone kills dozens of people with, say, a battle axe, and you were accused. Would you want due process?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clicked submit too soon
I think if we were to say that, it would imply that the severity of the alleged crime determines the care and diligence we need to employ in evidence gathering and prosecution. More severe would imply it's less important to make sure we get the right guy and determine without a reasonable doubt that he did what we think he did.
Viewed dispassionately, this seems to be the opposite of what we'd want. I'd think that in the case of a truly horrible and heinous crime, we'd want to be especially confident that we caught and punished the right guy, not just to punish the appropriate person but to assure ourselves that in fact the actual perpetrator isn't -- all assumptions to the contrary -- still at large.
Due process isn't supposed to prove we're a bunch of pussies soft on crime. It's to establish confidence in the justice system and dissuade such things as fear, lawlessness and vigilantism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Clicked submit too soon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clicked submit too soon
Yes, absolutely. In fact moreso. It's especially important in that case(and in this) to make sure the gov't "got the guy", and isn't just railroading some asshole. That's a BIG part of the motivation of due process.
Further, the point of this exception is when there's an imminent or ongoing substantive threat to members of the public, not just because we're all really mad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmm
-- Cicero
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmm
An act of war, huh? What makes this an act of war? What nation-state does the alleged combatant represent?
You can't just say "xyz was an act of war". War means very specific things. McVeigh was tried as a criminal and Tsarnaev should be tried as one, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's common practice..
It's called questioning a suspect, often it is the case that someone is a suspect, they are NOT arrested but are questioned/ interrogated by police or the 'authorities', and of course if they have not been read their right they have not been arrested.
IF during the interrogation it becomes clear that he will be charged, then his rights are read, and the same questions are asked of him again.
But you don't read rights to someone who is just a suspect, and who has not had a case built or evidence to warrant an arrest.
It ALLWAYS HAPPENS LIKE THIS !!!!! but it comes as no surprise that Masnick would not know it.
Also, if any prosecutor tried to charge someone based on a 'confession' alone without ANY physical evidence or supporting proof it would be a silly move.
It is simply 'building a possible case' for charges to be made. If on the basis of this interview and with supporting evidence charges will be made, then at that time should his rights (as someone charged) be made.
If they are searching for this person on what basis are they searching for him for ?
he is probably being searched for, is his assistance in the investigation of a crime, and in alluding police.
I very much doubt that if they find him he will be immediately charged for the crime.
He is at present a suspect, he's not been charged, and as he has not been charged he does not have to be read the rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's common practice..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's common practice..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How do you know that they didn't know in advance but allowed it to happen anyway? Perhaps they were even involved in some way. Anyone who questions the 'official' story is routinely demonized as a tin-foil hat-wearing conspiracy theorist, but let us not forget, this is the same organization that first staged and then thwarted their own terrorist attacks. We need to ask questions and demand answers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Which is lucky as mostly that's exactly what they are.
Those who aren't hold fire until there is evidence that the 'official' story is incorrect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> Ortiz puffing and running for office at the presser.
U.S. Attorneys don't run for office. They are appointed by the president.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Miranda doesn't mean what you think it means
Popehat has a good roundup of posts about this: http://www.popehat.com/2013/04/20/brave-new-world-miranda-roundup/
The first two links in the Popehat article are both great reading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I understand everybody wants revenge \b\b\b justice. But,
an attorney representing Dzhokhar Tsarnaev would actually benefit the government's case against him
because anything he said with an attorney present would be more than admissible in a court, so to speak.
As it stands, the implied part of the Miranda ruling is that anything he say isn't admissible in a court of law
because it's implied that that information/facts was obtained unlawfully (at best, but torture could have been involved).
The only thing the kid can hope for is life, and if he cooperates that's what he should get, one per victim without
parole. Refuse to cooperate, then the death penalty.
So far, law enforcement has shown us how to do it right with his capture, let's not do something we, as a country, will be ashamed of in the future. Miranda was put there by
smarter men and for a reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Questions...
1. Would it not be a waver of those rights when you shoot at a police officer?
2. Can you not be apprehended without the Miranda Rights if you are unconscious?
So here's the thing....the suspect shot at them...they shot back....no time for quoting the Miranda Rights when you are getting shot at.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Questions...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Questions...
He shot first...he also helped blow up the Boston Marathon so yeah, even by the way you tell it....they had no choice but to shoot first not knowing exactly what he would do...oh and by the way, the Boston PD uses semiautomatic weapons and witnesses reported full automatics being fired during the firefight...he had to have shot first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Questions...
He [allegedly] shot first...he also [allegedly] helped blow up the Boston Marathon so yeah, even by the way you tell it....they [allegedly] had no choice but to shoot first not knowing exactly what he would do...oh and by the way, the Boston PD [allegedly] uses semiautomatic weapons and witnesses reported full automatics being fired during the firefight...he had to have shot first.
Fixed that for you. This guy is innocent until proven guilty. This whole episode smells funny and I'm not going to swallow it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Questions...
Oh and the gap in your logic was trying to correct me about the Boston PD's use of semiautomatic weapons...they only use semiautomatics they don't allegedly use them.
Before you play devil's advocate, maybe you should try to do a little more research about your outside world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Questions...
As for a police department only ever using semi-auto weapons, you'll find that an impossible claim to back up. The only evidence comes from what the police say which depending on your opinion of them may hold some or no weight. (it also ignores the possibility of any other department using said weapons)
I'm not sure the testimony of a civilian that it "sounded like" an automatic weapon is sound evidence either for that matter.
Don't convince yourself he did it until a jury of his peers do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Questions...
Not reading him his rights, simply means his statements cannot be used against him in court. But clearly, neither do they need what he says to convict him, they have all the evidence they need to build a case.
so in that regard it makes a great deal of sense NOT to read him his right, and allow him to speak 'off the record.
Prosecution are not going to need that evidence to bring a solid case against him.. and it does not hurt his defence, because nothing he can SAY, is going to greatly dispute the physical evidence.
But it's not for anyone here to determine guilt or not, or if it is a terrorist act or not, school shootings, and school bombings are just as much intended to instil terror as a bombing at a fun run.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Questions...
1) no
2) yes
What you're missing is that those rights are read out some time between apprehension and interrogation. It doesn't matter when but it's quite OK to read them once the suspect is in a cell. There's no requirement for them to be shouted out during a gunfight but once you've got he guy in cuffs why not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Questions...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thanks all those who flagged this comment, it's usually only the flagged ones worth reading. So thankyou again.
Flag away, and promote the comments for us :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just one person
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just one person
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just one person
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yep, the terrorists have won already. We're more like the old USSR than they ever were. I'd bet there are some old Soviets out there who wish they had thought of some of this stuff!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You think this is something new ??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_bombing
"The Wall Street bombing occurred at 12:01 pm on Thursday, September 16, 1920, in the Financial District of New York City. The blast killed 38 and seriously injured 143. The bombing was never solved, although investigators and historians believe the Wall Street bombing was carried out by Galleanists (Italian anarchists), a group responsible for a series of bombings the previous year. "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incorrect assumption by the article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Incorrect assumption by the article
2. He was here on a visa as a "student".
3. Those that carried out the 9/11 attacks were here on visa's as "students"
4. He was indoctrinated to do this.
5. Quit trying to convey innocence for terrorists, you only make matters worse when you do.
6. All my human rights activist friends would agree to throwing him into Gitmo.
7. Under Interpol laws, terrorists are to be put to military trial.
End of story....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Incorrect assumption by the article
He was a US citizen:
Became a naturalized U.S. citizen on September 11, 2012.
Here's a little bio on the guy:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-boston-suspect-bombing.html
Just because you disagree with something, don't lie about the facts...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Incorrect assumption by the article
There is no such thing as naturalized citizenship unless your foreign parents gave birth to you within US borders...be it military base or territory....
Care to try that again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Incorrect assumption by the article
WTF? You can disagree WRT the nature of his immigration status, but your comment about "naturalized citizenship" is demonstrably false.
You won't bother reading this, since it conflicts with your beliefs, but here's what naturalized citizenship means according to the US Citizenship and Immigration Service:
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoi d=d84d6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=d84d6811264a3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCR D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Incorrect assumption by the article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Incorrect assumption by the article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Incorrect assumption by the article
That's kind of Wally's specialty. ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Incorrect assumption by the article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Incorrect assumption by the article
Well, I guess with that assumption, unless you are of native american decent, you sir are not a citizen. They should of deported your relatives all the way back to the times of vikings landing in Canada.
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Incorrect assumption by the article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Incorrect assumption by the article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Incorrect assumption by the article
He's a Chechen terrorist.
He's of Chechen descent, and committed an act of terrorism, but there's no evidence that he was part of a terrorist organization.
He was here on a visa as a "student".
He was here because his family was seeking political asylum, not on a student visa. He has been living in the U.S. since 2002, when he was roughly eight years old. He went to high school at Cambridge Ringe and Latin school, graduated, and was attending college at UMass Dartmouth.
He has been a naturalized citizen - not a "student visa holder" - since 2011.
He was indoctrinated to do this.
We still don't know what his motivations were. Neither he nor his family have any known connection to any terrorist organization.
Quit trying to convey innocence for terrorists, you only make matters worse when you do.
Even the guilty must be treated like human beings with human rights. Not doing this is precisely what will "only make matters worse."
All my human rights activist friends would agree to throwing him into Gitmo.
You know what? I live less than a mile from the Watertown standoff, and live in one of the areas that was on lockdown. One of the bombing victims went to the same college I do. Another one (Krystle Campbell) worked with a friend of mine at the Summer Shack.
And I don't want this kid thrown into Gitmo. In fact, I think everyone who advocates "justice" like this, is a thug who just wants a little armchair vengeance.
Under Interpol laws, terrorists are to be put to military trial.
Obama already said that he is going to be tried in a civilian court of law, and not under a military tribunal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Incorrect assumption by the article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
any trail should be interesting
That is, if he survives.
Could be fun. I'm making popcorn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prosecutorial Zeal
Somehow I think things will be different here, and I recommend that the DOJ find a new leader in Boston.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A really good piece
Is American Nonviolence Possible? - NYTimes.com: "Competitive individualism, insecurity, neoliberalism: the triad undergirding our penchant for violence."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A really good piece
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A really good piece
What does this have to do with the link I posted? Did you read the article? It's about more than just our response to terrorism. It also discusses why we have so many people dying each day from guns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A really good piece
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A really good piece
The article is about violence in our culture. He suggests it is a combination of philosophy (political and cultural) and declining world power. If that is the case, we're probably facing a tumultuous future.
"Competitive individualism, insecurity, neoliberalism: the triad undergirding our penchant for violence."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A really good piece
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A really good piece
I certainly wished we'd all come together, but politically the country seems very polarized these days. I think whatever divisiveness we have in this country is more an internal issue than one stirred up by external terrorists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A really good piece
Now as for your political drive against guns.
The suspect was hiding in a boat undercover. It was a standoff and the suspect was armed....not just with a gun that's lethal in close range, but with explosives and a creaking detonator. They had no choice but to use a frangible round to apprehend him...if they had used a full metal jacket he'd have no head on his shoulders...so the police had to do something to at least incapacitate him with the equipment they were carrying.
Oh and I don't know it you noticed....he bombed the Boston Marathon with his brother! I mean wouldn't you classify him as dangerous.
You tell me what alternative they had against an armed suspect who was inaccessible accept in the boat be was hiding in? Gas would have killed him considering the tight space in which he was hiding.
Now I ask you this....why are you trying to run an anti-gun article when there is currently no place to push your own political agenda? Seriously....what the heck does this accomplish considering there literally was no other course of action?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A really good piece
To the rest of the world, America is an unusually gun-obsessed country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A really good piece
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A really good piece
So there isn't any confusion about what Mike wrote and the piece I am referring to in this thread, here's the link again.
Is American Nonviolence Possible? - NYTimes.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A really good piece
see the problem there ?? it is not YOUR country and "their" country, they are either citizens or 'just visiting' makes no difference, they are in American and they are THE laws, NOT YOUR laws.
IF the are where you are, you are "US", it's not about "them" and "us". It's about the laws of the country your are both in, or international laws.
So he came from another country !!! hey SO DID YOU !!, or your parents, or their parents, you are just as much a 'them' and anyone else.
That is why much of the world look with sadness at the "American Attitude", always trying to make out your 'better' than people from 'other countries', even when you are from "another country" too !!, and if it's not about your country of origin, it's about your beliefs, or the color of your skin, or your age, or what part of America you are from, or if you are gay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A really good piece
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why (before there is even a suspect) is terrorism the first thing we go to when something like this happens?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Terrorism is supposed to be a politically motivated attack. We do not even know what the motive was for the Boston bombings, only whatever the media is spoon-feeding us at any given time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
First, I would like to point out that the Oklahoma City bombing was domestic terrorism and was as such in the finalized reports. A shooting rampage doesn't stem from ideological beliefs as a terrorism case would.
Just a bit of a hypothetical example or 2.
1. Terrorism occurs when the person intends to affect the world in which his/her/their victims are in and the intent is to send those victims into fear of another attack...they strike terror in so deep that it makes victims paranoid that it will happen again some day soon. Groups of people, nationalities, and entire countries are the target because, in a most basic sense, those groups' ideologies differ from those whom are being the aggressor. These attacks are mostly planned out and coordinated right down to specific targets or targeted events.
2. Shooting rampages usually don't stem off of differing beliefs and are self explanatory. They stem from the angered rage of a person and there is no particular target selected for any real reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Notice the work TERRORISM there?????
What about the highway sniper, or the Unibomber ?? just as much acts designed to install terror. Domestic terror, or the Anthrax letters.
Wall street bombing another !!
what about the abortion clinic bombings ??? also domestic terror inspired by Christian beliefs ! (religious fanaticism ?)
how about the KKK ??
The US of A has far more to answer for that most if not all other countries. In terms of domestic terrorism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
3 people died from the Boston bombings. A staggering 750,000 will die in the US this year from medical mistakes and perscription drugs. Shall we shut down every hospital and have the feds raid the pharamceutical industry?
I don't believe that McVeigh did the Oklahoma City bombing, at least not by himself. No way, not a chance. It took the FBI 44 hours to *convince* the rental agent that McVeigh was the one who rented the van, despite previously stating that he didn't. Research the FBI's evidence and contrast it with the Elgin Air Force's. The latter found two other explosive residues in the rubble and determined that the explosives in the van could not have done that much damage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
All military action is politically motivated, based on the greed, the desire to impose the correct political or religious solution on others, or desire to divert the populations attention outwards from one side, and objection to the military action by there other side. The objective of military action being to impose a political settlement on the other side by force.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MIranda
It was never stated why they did not read Miranda yet. But noting the above and the possibility that Tsarnaev was not able to communicate with the police too much has been read into the timing of any reading of the Miranda warning.
The problem is most US TV shows act as if Miranda must be read at arrest which is incorrect; it must occur at some time before the interview commences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MIranda
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MIranda
I think they typically Mirandize immediately because if they don't, the guy could confess in the car on the way to the police station and they wouldn't be able to use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: MIranda
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. The man was a terrorist and participated in terrorist activities.
2. The US is handling things in accordance to NATO's Interpol rules as the was not a domestic terrorist attack and he is a citizen of Chechnya and is here on a student visa.
Terrorism is something we do not tolerate here in the US so get over yourselves about saying a foreign terrorist has US citizenship rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which brother are you talking about? The older brother who died in the gunfight with police or the younger brother who was captured in the boat?
The younger brother (Dzhokhar) became naturalized United States citizen on Sept. 11, 2012. This means he has every single right that any US citizen has, with the exception of not being able to run for President.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1. The man is alleged to be a terrorist, and alleged to have participated in terrorist attacks. Under US Law, anyone, US citizen or not, is assumed to be innocent until proven in a court of law. No court has so ruled, therefore he is assumed to be innocent. How much evidence the police may or may not have simply does not matter until that evidence is presented in court.
2. Visitors to the United states are bound by US law. They are also entitled to the protections of US law.
This man should be charged with three counts of murder, and a couple of hundred counts of attempted murder. Once charged, the case should be handled as any other murder trial would be handled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The 5th
Currently he is in a drug induced coma so not much opportunity to read him his Miranda rights. It also seems they can do so at leisure and I doubt they would take long.
The only exception is if they want to prevent him talking to a lawyer who is likely to just tell him to state to them a brief denial and then to take the 5th amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But if they do it without Miranda, then they should not even TRY to use anything he says in court. You cannot tell me that they do not have enough other evidence (even if some of you are complaining that you haven't seen it yet - as if they would release all of their evidence to the public while the investigation is still happening.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBiLT3LASk
i was so glad when they caught him then i see this, and realize we're still havent made any progress
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. State
Murder, bombings, car theft, and other crimes that do not cross state lines are state issues.
I have read nothing in this that says the State of Massachusetts is going to deprive anyone of their constitution rights is state court.
2. Federal
Basically actions outside of the US (with exceptions) are federal issues. If the suspects are part of an international crime / terrorist organization that is a federal issue.
Considering the level of penalties for multiple murders and the fact that most likely nothing the defendant says is likely relevant to the proof against him and the fact that he may hold information of a world wide terrorist network it is not unreasonable for the feds to use any and all means to extract that information and not prosecute him leaving prosecute to the state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
to be fair, he probably knows very little if anything about the CIA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To what advantage?
On the surface they seem to be contending that not reading him his rights will give them extra leeway in interrogating him. This would only hold if they were in fact suspending his rights themselves and not just his right to be made explicitly aware of their existence.
The only advantage I can see to this tactic is to set a precedent to be used as a wedge to erode the rights themselves, not just the right to know about them.
I would be only too glad to hear of a less pessimistic explanation. Why take on the downside of trial complications unless there is much more at stake than telling him something he probably already knows?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To what advantage?
Once the Miranda rights have been read, however, anything he says can be used against him in court. Now the suspect would be less likely to cooperate with your investigation for fear of prosecution if he says something incriminating. The suspect is now legally "on the record".
The only question remains as to how far a judge would interpret the "public safety" exemption here to put an off the record admission on the record legally. However, that is up to the judge, not the prosecutor. Separation of powers, judicial vs executive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To what advantage?
That's what this is about - an exception to that rule that lets any such statements still be admitted as evidence.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130420/00321822776/why-dojs-decision-to-not-read-dzh okhar-tsarnaev-his-miranda-rights-is-terrible-idea.shtml#c764
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To what advantage?
How do they explain this esoteric point of law to him in order to ensure he spouts info, without accidentally explaining his Miranda rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hysterical blathering
I'm surprised he's not calling this the "FBI breaking up one of their own plots" like he does whenever the FBI busts one fo these events ahead of time.
He's always got a complaint and always will.
The courts have stated that there is in fact a public safety exemption.
But mike is a higher authority than the courts in this country.
He knows better than the FBI. (He's prob glad that at least they didn't trick these men into exploding fake bombs instead of the real thing.)
As best I can understand from his numerous posts the way to fight terrorism is to do nothing.
Well not nothing, fighting for the rights of the terrorists will somehow "prove" something to "the world".
Interrogating them to prevent further attacks is so obv off the table, there is no public safety exemption or right, the rights of this accused terrorist trump all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hysterical blathering
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/20/tsarnaev-and-miranda-rights/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Those who don't remember history ..... or as AH said it:
Adolf Hitler
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An academic question
Reading or not reading his Miranda rights then becomes rather academic, he ain't going to talk either way (and neither will his brother).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tsarnaev-and-miranda
http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/20/tsarnaev-and-miranda-rights/
The anon in comment 17 is, while being an ass about it, quite correct.
It is not a violation of anyone's rights to skip Miranda, it simply means those statements cannot be admitted into a court proceeding unless they are later repeated after the warning.
While it has no reason to be publicized, the police do this on a smaller scale every single day. It is common to talk to a suspect before the Miranda caution trying to elicit important information about criminal activity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boaton bombing
a poor move.
The court proceedings will for ever be tainted.
The conduct the coming court cases will be suspect.
In addition: our enemies in the mohammedan countries have already gained a victory if we are attempting to try to exchange civil rights for security.
We know; if we trade civil rights for security, we shall have no security nor civil rights.
We shall then be living in a more or less lawless country, just as they are in the mohammedan countries.
Then our mohammedan enemies have gained an important victory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Boaton bombing
> Warning...
Miranda is *not* a right, basic or otherwise. It's a procedural requirement that is only mandated if the government wants to introduce a suspect's statements as evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boaton bombing
a poor move.
The court proceedings will for ever be tainted.
The conduct the coming court cases will be suspect.
In addition: our enemies in the mohammedan countries have already gained a victory if we are attempting to try to exchange civil rights for security.
We know; if we trade civil rights for security, we shall have no security nor civil rights.
We shall then be living in a more or less lawless country, just as they are in the mohammedan countries.
Then our mohammedan enemies have gained an important victory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A good resource
How the Media Have Misunderstood Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's Miranda Rights - Adam Goodman - The Atlantic: "A primer on Miranda and the public-safety exception"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A good resource
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A good resource
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
miranda
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: miranda
Where did he say that? I must have missed it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: miranda
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: miranda
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: miranda
[ link to this | view in chronology ]