Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So it appears that this terrorist was read his Miranda Rights by District Court Judge Marianne Bowler after the 16th hour in custody. The "Public Safety Exception" for terrorists gives them a 48 hour window to question this dirtbag without reading his "rights" to him. The FBI was in the process of obtaining information critical to the investigation, when Tsarnaev immediately stopped talking to them after this 16th hour and being read his Miranda Rights. This was according to several sources. What is going on here? I really hope Bowler didn't jeopardize the investigation in any way. It would be an unforgivable crime to all those killed/injured and a slap in the face to law enforcement, the cities of Boston, Cambridge, Watertown and the United States of America.
I also for the life of me cannot understand why this p#$^k has not been declared an enemy combatant. As an refugee/new citizen he took an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution. He gave up all his rights as an American when he attacked us. Kudos to Sen. Lindsey Graham for telling it straight.
This current administration however, I am at a loss for words. Obama/Holder, I really have no idea what motivates them. This is standard procedure they say? Sounds like a horrible copout to me. We should be seeking more answers to these things.
Last edited by massnative71; 04-29-2013 at 05:31 PM..
They could've questioned him all they wanted, but they couldn't use the info he gave up in court until he had his rights read to him.
This explains it pretty well (the new standard for terrorists actually give more leeway):
The "public safety" exception to Miranda is a powerful tool with a modern application for law enforcement. When police officers are confronted by a concern for public safety, Miranda warnings need not be provided prior to asking questions directed at neutralizing an imminent threat, and voluntary statements made in response to such narrowly tailored questions can be admitted at trial. Once the questions turn from those designed to resolve the concern for safety to questions designed solely to elicit incriminating statements, the questioning falls outside the scope of the exception and within the traditional rules of Miranda. (from FBI.GOV)
So yes, they could have used it as evidence. Even should something be thrown out as admissible in court, it still might be invaluable as far as aiding the investigation.
They could've questioned him all they wanted, but they couldn't use the info he gave up in court until he had his rights read to him.
They don't need the info he gave to convict him ... he already confessed and the evidence is overwhelming. They want the info to find and hopefully round up the rest of his cohorts.
I found it very interesting listening to a federal court judge the other day, that even though he was granted US citizenship on 9/11/2012 (amazing, yes) ... that legally he gave up his citizenship when he commited crimes against America. When you hold up your hand and take that oath you swear allegiance to the USA !
Interesting 'eh. The judge said he should automatically be stripped of citizenship. He has no rights because he has confessed to the crime. The brother, on the other hand, does not have citizenship.
I found it very interesting listening to a federal court judge the other day, that even though he was granted US citizenship on 9/11/2012 (amazing, yes) ... that legally he gave up his citizenship when he commited crimes against America. When you hold up your hand and take that oath you swear allegiance to the USA !
Dzhokhar will be put to death soon enough, and rightfully so.
However his crimes against the USA haven't been proven in a court of law yet. Until then, he is a US citizen and has the same rights as the rest of us. Including the rights to a fair trial.
This explains it pretty well (the new standard for terrorists actually give more leeway):
The "public safety" exception to Miranda is a powerful tool with a modern application for law enforcement. When police officers are confronted by a concern for public safety, Miranda warnings need not be provided prior to asking questions directed at neutralizing an imminent threat, and voluntary statements made in response to such narrowly tailored questions can be admitted at trial. Once the questions turn from those designed to resolve the concern for safety to questions designed solely to elicit incriminating statements, the questioning falls outside the scope of the exception and within the traditional rules of Miranda. (from FBI.GOV)
So yes, they could have used it as evidence. Even should something be thrown out as admissible in court, it still might be invaluable as far as aiding the investigation.
See, I read that a little differently. To me, it basically says, "You can ask him questions regarding any imminent threats and concern to current safety (i.e. more bombs, co-conspirators, etc.) and anything said in response to those questions can be admitted at trial. However, any questions that fall outside the scope of solving immediate threats are NOT included in the exception and are only covered within the original Miranda rights."
Basically, they can legally ask him about the "WHATS" (bombs, conspirators, any other threats) and if he happens to mention a "WHY" during that time, it's admissible in court. If they ask about the "WHY" before reading the Miranda rights, it's not admissible in court.
I see reading him his Mirandas in the 16th hour as "CYA" move. At that point, the brother was dead, the apartments had been mostly search and it was pretty clear that the two were working alone (I mean that as in they were the only two with bombs/weapons... not that they weren't influenced by an outside source). So naturally, the process and the line of questioning was moving from the "WHAT" to "WHY." They were Covering their butts so that no one asked and got a key answer to a "WHY" question that would become inadmissible because he hadn't been Mirandized. The
I can just imagine the outcry if this kid said something condemning and it couldn't be used as evidence.
As Cliff said, this kid will be put to death regardless.
Dzhokhar will be put to death soon enough, and rightfully so.
However his crimes against the USA haven't been proven in a court of law yet. Until then, he is a US citizen and has the same rights as the rest of us. Including the rights to a fair trial.
Cliff: which Bar are you in ? The Massachusetts Bar ? If so, you know that the federal court rules apply. It is quite possible that he will not get the death penalty because he will "bargain" for prison time instead. At the very least, he'll rot in a cell and unfortunately we will have to support him in that cell. Hopefully, solitary !
I have no strong opinion for or against the Death Penality, but I think life in that supermax in Colorado where the 20th hijacker, Terry Nichols, and the 1993 WTC bomber (can't remember his name OTTOMH) are housed would be WORSE than just having a needle stuck into you for 3 min.
But they really should be sent to Alaska in the winter when its 40 below zero and then Arizona in the summer when its 110 outside to do hard labor.
I have no strong opinion for or against the Death Penality, but I think life in that supermax in Colorado where the 20th hijacker, Terry Nichols, and the 1993 WTC bomber (can't remember his name OTTOMH) are housed would be WORSE than just having a needle stuck into you for 3 min.
But they really should be sent to Alaska in the winter when its 40 below zero and then Arizona in the summer when its 110 outside to do hard labor.
However his crimes against the USA haven't been proven in a court of law yet. Until then, he is a US citizen and has the same rights as the rest of us. Including the rights to a fair trial.
The process of revoking one's citizenship requires a separate, relatively speedy court procedure. This does not necessarily require for the actual trial to go forward first (which is likely years away). It does have to be initiated by the U.S. D.A.. I guess the big question is, would this even be necessary given that deportation is not an option. And like you say, he will likely be put to death either way with the evidence that already exists. I personally believe that it should be revoked on moral grounds alone whether or not it really affects the outcome. Does he deserve to be a U.S. citizen?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irfox
See, I read that a little differently. To me, it basically says, "You can ask him questions regarding any imminent threats and concern to current safety (i.e. more bombs, co-conspirators, etc.) and anything said in response to those questions can be admitted at trial. However, any questions that fall outside the scope of solving immediate threats are NOT included in the exception and are only covered within the original Miranda rights."
Basically, they can legally ask him about the "WHATS" (bombs, conspirators, any other threats) and if he happens to mention a "WHY" during that time, it's admissible in court. If they ask about the "WHY" before reading the Miranda rights, it's not admissible in court.
I see reading him his Mirandas in the 16th hour as "CYA" move. At that point, the brother was dead, the apartments had been mostly search and it was pretty clear that the two were working alone (I mean that as in they were the only two with bombs/weapons... not that they weren't influenced by an outside source). So naturally, the process and the line of questioning was moving from the "WHAT" to "WHY." They were Covering their butts so that no one asked and got a key answer to a "WHY" question that would become inadmissible because he hadn't been Mirandized. The
I can just imagine the outcry if this kid said something condemning and it couldn't be used as evidence..
With all the evidence obtained already, I think the main priority now is finding leads to those "imminent threats" and links to any conspirators. According to several sources, the FBI was in the process of obtaining invaluable information when they were "cut off" by the 16th hour.
As far as "I can just imagine the outcry if this kid said something condemning and it couldn't be used as evidence"; you could say the same thing if more unfound devices were to detonate elsewhere, or "affiliates" of theirs were to claim more victims here or in another city had the kid decided to "shut up" before maybe tipping them off to those things. That is the whole purpose of the "Public Safety Exception".
I started this thread for the sake of discussion. No news source is reliable these days, and often those "in the know" will give an even more inaccurate picture of the situation. We will all be receiving more information as this whole thing continues to develop.
The other issue is that of him being declared an Enemy Combatant and him losing his right to a civilian trial (as many of us would like to see). In order to meet that requirement, the DOJ must prove that he is tied to Al Qaeda or a similar terrorist organization. So the two kind of go hand in hand. If he decides to stop talking, we may lose out on evidence that would make a case for that. But then again, the Obama Administration has so far decided against going that route.
Quote:
Originally Posted by [B
papafox[/b]]
I have no strong opinion for or against the Death Penality, but I think life in that supermax in Colorado where the 20th hijacker, Terry Nichols, and the 1993 WTC bomber (can't remember his name OTTOMH) are housed would be WORSE than just having a needle stuck into you for 3 min.
Mostly agree. Of course the main problem with a "life sentence" rather than a "death sentence" is the severe unlikelyhood but still possibility of not finishing that life sentence to a full. Again I stress the "severe unlikelyhood" part because while it does happen that lifers get out early (such as the last few years of their expected life), this is an extreme case. With that said however, it wasn't long ago that Scotland released the Lockerbie bomber. Whoever would have thought (far more died there than in Boston)? The political climate here could change anytime. This nation cannot survive forever (none has). We could sink back into the dark ages again and anarchy will prevail. All very unlikely at least in Tsarnaev's life span, but we have to plan for the unknown. We are best off ending his life A.S.A.P. so there is a 0% chance of him harming another soul again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If so, you know that the federal court rules apply. It is quite possible that he will not get the death penalty because he will "bargain" for prison time instead. At the very least, he'll rot in a cell and unfortunately we will have to support him in that cell. Hopefully, solitary !
