Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dzokhar Tsarnaev - Read Him His Rights
Political Realities ^ | 04/21/13 | Charles M. Phipps

Posted on 04/21/2013 3:55:32 AM PDT by LD Jackson

Bill of RightsThis is not going to be a popular post with some people. The government has decided not to give Dzokhar Tsarnaev his Miranda rights or access to an attorney. This is completely wrong.

A Justice Department official said, "The suspect is en route to the hospital for immediate treatment. But we plan to invoke the public safety exception to Miranda in order to question the suspect extensively about other potential explosive devices or accomplices and to gain critical intelligence." Under this public safety exception they have 48 hours to get him before a judge, which I've read would end the exception. Anything he says to them during this 48 hours can be used against him in court.

Some in Congress want the Obama administration to go even further and classify Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant, which would deny him rights and an attorney indefinitely. This is also completely wrong. Like it or not, Tsarnaev is a naturalized U.S. citizen who is accused of crimes committed on U.S. soil. The crimes being heinous and terroristic don't change the fact that they are still just that - crimes. Citizens have rights and Tsarnaev should not be denied those rights. It doesn't appear he was working at the behest of any foreign government or terror organization. If he was receiving orders or assistance from a foreign government or a terror organization, that would change things, but for the moment that doesn't appear to be the case.

Let me be clear about one thing. I am not one of these people who believe there are never exceptions to making sure people like Tsarnaev get their rights. Using the much-used scenario, if a bomb was set to go off somewhere and only he knew where it was I'd be the first one to say strap him to a chair and do what it takes to make him talk. But again, that doesn't appear to be the case.

I was discussing this with a friend and she asked why I'm so concerned about this guy's rights. I told her that I'm not, but I'm concerned with her rights and my own. Allowing the government to pick and choose who is afforded the protections codified in the Bill of Rights is very dangerous, especially a government with people like Obama and Eric Holder making decisions.

Most people would probably scoff at my thinking, but what happens if the day comes when those in charge think gun owners are dangers to public safety and should be denied their rights? Or Christians? Think that can't happen? At a briefing given to a Pennsylvania Army Reserve unit, soldiers were told that evangelical Christians are the number one extremist threat to America – ahead of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, KKK, Nation of Islam, al-Qaida, Hamas and others. After complaints from soldiers at the briefing the Army Chief of Chaplains said it was an isolated incident and would not happen again.

While this is not the official position of the U.S. government, clearly there are people providing training to our military who do believe it. Do we really want there to be a public safety exception to Constitutional rights for citizens when those people are making policy?

Dzokhar Tsarnaev should have five things coming to him - His rights as an American citizen, a speedy trial, a needle, a pine box and an unmarked grave. Denying him the Constitutional protections that we all have is wrong and sets a dangerous precedent for the future, when the people in charge just might decide that you are a danger to the public safety for some reason.


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: rights; tsarnaev
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-122 last
To: RummyChick
So you advocate getting rid of Miranda warnings because everyone knows not to talk???

No, I advocate getting rid of Miranda warnings because they were improperly created by an out-of-control radical Leftist court, and impair the right of the People to govern themselves in safety.

101 posted on 04/21/2013 6:24:39 AM PDT by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: JohnPDuncan
For example, I can present overwhelming evidence proving my prior point about the ACLU to 10 liberals. Some of them may see the overwhelming evidence and open their eyes. Others will claim the evidence was from "Faux News" and therefore couldn't possibly be right, and that "Faux News" should be taken off-air.

Just to further my point, those who respond to the evidence would be the liberals you'd want to engage. Those who scream about "Faux News" are best left alone to their own little delusional worlds.

102 posted on 04/21/2013 6:25:20 AM PDT by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: LD Jackson
she asked why I'm so concerned about this guy's rights. I told her that I'm not, but I'm concerned with her rights and my own.

Bingo! Especially since Obama's government wants Christians and conservatives to be labeled as homegrown terrorist. This is one slippery slope that has no good end.

103 posted on 04/21/2013 6:28:31 AM PDT by Lady Heron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
Being advised you have the right to remain silent jeopardizes a people's avility to govern themselves in safety exactly how??

In the world you describe, I not only do not have the right to remain silent, the police have the right to beat whatever information they can out of me.

We've seen that in Chicago and Mexico. In Chicago's case, suggest you read up a bit on John Burge and the number of convictions now facing being over-turned due to his beating "confessions" out of suspects who's only crime was "confessing" to something they didn't do to make the beatings and electro-torture stop.

104 posted on 04/21/2013 6:29:14 AM PDT by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

The clause itself is unconstitutional and contravenes the 10th. It was rightly ignored by the free states.


105 posted on 04/21/2013 6:30:11 AM PDT by JohnPDuncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: usconservative

Some good advice... I know there’s people we will never win over but there’s a lot of people who can and will see sense. Many conservatives were once liberals who saw the light.


106 posted on 04/21/2013 6:31:31 AM PDT by JohnPDuncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

Miranda warnings are related to the Fifth Amendment.

Know any cops before Miranda was put in place?

Yeah, they trampled rights. Many thought the world was coming to an end.

So good Christians all know their law and know the Miranda rights.
So it is okay not to give it to them.

That seems to be what someone is saying on this thread. You should know your 5th Amendment rights so since you should know them we aren’t going to tell you.

But what about those that don’t know.

Not everyone knows.

Thus you give the Miranda warning to everyone.

It actually protects law enforcement.

One of the great things about this nation - as opposed to many others - is the rights we are SUPPOSE to have that other countries don’t have.

Some of the rights involve criminal prosecution.


107 posted on 04/21/2013 6:36:57 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that the admission of an elicited incriminating statement by a suspect not informed of these rights violates the Fifth and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

"Thus, if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial.

The concept of "Miranda rights" was enshrined in U.S. law following the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court decision

Yes you are correct, the concept of "Miranda Rights" is not part of the constitution, rather a law to protect an individual of their constitutional rights.

In my original statement i included the word "law" as part of the concept of that the administration of law must be executed with consistency.

It appears to me, that in regards to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the justice system is acting properly in this moment, subject to change.

108 posted on 04/21/2013 6:43:01 AM PDT by saywhatagain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: LD Jackson

They should read him his rights. Absolutely. This is going to be a test run of the NDAA watvh.


109 posted on 04/21/2013 6:44:28 AM PDT by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave ofo attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: saywhatagain

Here is the problem with that

““3. There may be exceptional cases in which, although all relevant public safety questions have been asked, agents nonetheless conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat, and that the government’s interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation.””

In US law you have to protect the rights of the worst in order to protect all of our rights. You shouldn’t pick and choose.

Ex:
This person SHOULD know his rights so don’t read Miranda.

This person is deemed by DHS to be a terrorist (right wing Christian) so let’s interrogate for a long while under public safety exemption under #3 as expressed by Holder.

This is a huge slippery slope. I don’t trust Holder or anyone in Obama’s regime.


110 posted on 04/21/2013 6:52:16 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

Here is one more question.

You want a lawyer. You tell Holder you want a lawyer.

Can he deny you one under his expanded Public Safety “your a terrorist “ regime so that he can further interrogate you.


111 posted on 04/21/2013 6:54:56 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

Here is one more scenario that could happen.

You are at an event. You have a backpack.

A Jihadists STEALS it from you , darts somewhere, puts a bomb in it, and then puts somewhere where it goes off.

You are seen in some camera footage with that backpack but no camera footage of Jihadists placing the backpack where it goes off.

NOW WHAT????

Maybe they find footage a week later.

In the meantime, Holder decides to treat you like a terrorist.

Want some legal rights???

This may sound far fetched...but it’s not. It could happen.


112 posted on 04/21/2013 7:07:53 AM PDT by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick
Sadly we have been on a slippery slope the past 60 years

My original post suggested we as society should not look for "exceptions" in the law as some are suggesting for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The importance for even and consistent execution of the law

If I understand your post correctly, item 3 re exceptional cases . . . yes I agree this is very much a dangerous and slippery slope

Sadly our own Republican leaders said the following . . .

“We have concerns that limiting this investigation to 48 hours and exclusively relying on the public safety exception to Miranda, could very well be a national security mistake. It could severely limit our ability to gather critical information about future attacks from this suspect,” they said.

They being Sen. King, McCain and Ayotte

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/20/should-boston-bombing-suspect-get-a-miranda-warning-debate-follows-friday-capture/

113 posted on 04/21/2013 7:22:34 AM PDT by saywhatagain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: LD Jackson

I agree.

Once naturalized, you have the same rights as a native-born American.

I agree with the ‘five things coming to him’.

I agree with the posed ‘what-if’s’ not being pondered about, loudly, by those who some listen to!

Finally, what precedents might be made, in error or in truth, that would come back to haunt all of us who ARE native-boen Americans?


114 posted on 04/21/2013 7:27:29 AM PDT by Terry L Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exnavy

“We do not read POW’s their rights.”

And for good reason - POWs (enemy combatants meeting certain qualifications) are protected under the Geneva Conventions.

Unless we are now actually going to recognize Islam as a “state player” (a political system), this all defaults to the guy’s rights as an American Citizen. As it should.

Full Disclosure: I do not condone the actions of the Brothers Tsarnaev. They are heinous, repugnant, and fully deserving of the maximum punishment under the law. I am, however, sworn to support and defend the Constitution - whether or not I personally agree with the outcome. It could be one of us in the next round.


115 posted on 04/21/2013 7:44:42 AM PDT by castlebrew (Gun Control means hitting where you're aiming!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: LD Jackson
He's a naturalized citizen. Naturalized citizenship can be revoked for not living up to the oath you take when granted citizenship. That's what happened, so revocation is totally within the Constitution.

At that point, he's an enemy combatant and nothing more.

116 posted on 04/21/2013 7:49:40 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth." --Alan Greenspan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LD Jackson
Voices in the wilderness. But this is America, a nation of laws. What is this exception of which the media speaks? I'm not sure it means what they think.

Bill Ayers is "free as a bird" because the government disobeyed the law.

117 posted on 04/21/2013 8:27:22 AM PDT by Clinging Bitterly (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LD Jackson

I’m not going to bite on what if questions.

The Miranda notification is not required by the Constitution.

Again, this is not a precedent. It’s been used before. Even if it is ruled later that the government cannot use the exception this time, the only penalty will be that they cannot use any testimony obtained before a Miranda notification in the trial against the guy.

Again, they are not required by law to give the person a Miranda notification. Police give the notification to protect all testimony evidence in their case.

You don’t seem to understand that they already have enough evidence against this guy. They will be interrogating him to get information about the others who are involved, and any plans by the group for future terrorism attacks.


118 posted on 04/21/2013 9:15:29 AM PDT by savedbygrace (But God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Democrat_media

He is Russian by rights of political geography.


119 posted on 04/21/2013 9:44:45 AM PDT by Mike Darancette (And winter is coming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: castlebrew

Don’t know about any of that. The moslim way is to convert or kill. Looks like war to me.


120 posted on 04/22/2013 1:12:08 AM PDT by exnavy (Fish or cut bait ...Got ammo, Godspeed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: AU72
Anything he says before Miranda can’t be used against him so it’s a form of immunity of testimony and if he gives up others he could be promised no death penalty. They already have the carjacking victim saying they admitted to bombings and the MIT policeman murdered.

Yep. He's toast, legally. Miranda Shmiranda.

So why not Mirandize him and let him sing to his heart's content? His testimony won't make him any deader, but it might be useful intelligence.

121 posted on 04/22/2013 1:27:18 AM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: JohnPDuncan
They’re irrelevant to me.

So apparently is the Constitution.

122 posted on 04/22/2013 3:32:43 AM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-122 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson