Skip to comments.Dzokhar Tsarnaev - Read Him His Rights
Posted on 04/21/2013 3:55:32 AM PDT by LD Jackson
This 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.
What he said.
He was most assuredly working at the behest of Islam.
Here’s the funny thing which always confuses me:
Dude has the rights anyway. What’s the big deal about reading them to him?
This is a complete distraction!
Whether they read to him the constitution or not is irrelevant!
Also another thing worth noting...
In the media reports they said he ‘negotiated’ with the FBI for 20 minutes before he gave up.
Kid can’t be that stupid. He must have had the president on the phone and done a deal.
It’ll be interesting to see what happens.
If this guy talks with or without and we can't use the info against him...so what...we have all other kinds of evidence. It's not like he's going to be released anytime soon.
And all he has to say is "I want an attorney"....and the exception is gone....
Correct. He has the rights either way.
The legal system presumes everyone is an idiot and dictates that you must be made aware of your rights before anything you say can be used against you. Well, we already have enough evidence to put him to death, we don't need to use anything he says to prosecute him.
What encouragement is there for him to talk? Well, I wouldn't pull back from the death penalty.
The reading to him of his rights IS NOT ITSELF in the Constitution.
As a citizen, he should already know his rights and he can exercise them if he wishes.
The Constitution does not give the state the responsibility of educating a citizen of all their individual rights, so Miranda is a mistake. Miranda assumes that it is a state responsibility to educate the citizen.
The Constitution assumes some people will be dumb and stupid. Always has been the case, always will be.
If the state is responsible for educating a citizen of his/her rights, where does it end? Shouldn’t then the whole Bill of Rights - or the whole constitution be read to them?
Your reasoning is neither sound nor logical.
Especially since you are stating that he indeed might be working for a foreign state or group......at which point he is a treasonous citizen...
Islam is evil beyond anything you can imagine:
I disagree that it is irrelevant whether they read him his rights or not. It is a basic principle that guides law enforcement in their treatment of citizens that are arrested. Like it or not, Dzokhar Tsarnaev is a citizen of the United States. If he is not read his rights and is denied access to a lawyer, where does that leave you or me, as conservatives who have been declared a threat by the Obama administration, if hey decide we should be arrested? What if they decide we are a public safety danger and refuse to give us access to the rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution? That’s a slope I would rather stay away from.
The reading of the rights are a distraction.
I would prefer the ACLU to explain to its members why he’s being charged under Federal law rather than MA law.
In my OPINION he should be done under MA law.
Now liberals have to wake up and realize they can seek the death penalty in a state that forbids it and is against it.
Talk about hypocrisy of the highest order.
He may have done the deed of an adult but he's still a naieve 19 year old punk who's going to sing like a bird once he can start talking coherently......
The reading of the rights are just a policy that the goons follow when they arrest you.
It’s not really a big thing.
If he’s educated he knows what rights he has.
I could care less about the goon squad and their policies of whether they’re going to read rights or not.
Far more important to me as a suspect is whether they assert I can charged under Federal law (most of which is unconstitutional) or State law (most of which is fine)
Because the Supreme Court said so - Miranda v. Arizona (384 US 486).
He’s not a combatant unless you think the US is a war zone where the constitution is now suspended.
And it’s not...
combatant’s are in the mountains of Afghanistan with RPG’s not in Boston cooking bombs.
We do not read POW’s their rights.
The Supreme’s are a joke and once said slavery was legal.
I could care less what 5 lawyers in black say.
They’re irrelevant to me.
So, apparently Mr Phipps believes Tsarnaev is a complete idiot, and that the kid doesn’t have a clue that he has the right to remain silent and to ask for an attorney.
Muslim and all things moslim are the enemy, including the president. We live in unique times.
America is not a war zone.
Periodic attacks by these dumbasses is not going to make a nation of 300 million grind to a halt and live in fear.
Miranda Rights is merely a "reading of the Constitution".
P.S. You're wrong on every point.
And yet those people in black handed down a ruling that made it possible to impose Obamacare on American citizens. Incorrect? Maybe so, but certainly not irrelevant.
In the media today, they say he has a throat injury (and also a breathing tube) and cannot speak at all. There were hints (IMO) that his ability to speak may not return.
I never know when the media or the government is making stuff up. I think most of the time, they are.
All the dude has to say is “I want an attorney”.
And they were wrong to do so.
Have your state legislature pass a law nullifying it and making it a felony to enforce it.
Then lets see what happens.
"Read him his rights?
Listen, you stupid Cracker
our ONLY goal,
since it is too late to weaponize him,
is to get him off."
It would be convenient if he can’t speak and spill the details of his “deal” with the president which i’m sure he made before giving himself up.
There was lots of pressure to get one alive.
I heard they were using rubber bullets
I didn’t say they were correct to do so. But, they did the deed anyway. Oklahoma is attempting to keep from implementing Obamacare, but it remains to be seen how that is going to work out.
Tsarnaev is a Foreigner, and an adherent to militant islam who was naturalized as an American Citizen and committed a major act of TERRORISM against the American people.
That is a more complete statement of fact other than what the author wrote.
Have to say, from the get-go I've been against the "Patriot Act" for a number of reasons, one of which is the "Enemy Combatant" declaration that can be used against any American Citizen - natural or naturalized.
This specific case though really makes me re-consider my position. Far as I'm concerned Tsarnaev belongs down in Gitmo being water-boarded endlessly until we have every bit of information there is from him.
Then again once the Federal Government violates the Constitional Rights of a naturalized citizen, it's not a big leap to do that to the rest of us (and this Government HAS and DOES violate/attempt to violate our Constitutional Rights frequently!)
Still wrestling with this one ...
Mr. Phipps said no such thing. He is just concerned about the precedent it will set if he is denied his constitutional rights as an American citizen.
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.Not only that, but without questioning him, exactly how does Charles M. Phipps know that Dzokhar was not working at the behest of any foreign government or terror organization?
Unfortunately, I think you hit the nail right on the head!
They, the moslim, just brought a city of a million or more to a halt.
For all I know you may be one of them.
The barbaric hoards will not stop until all infidels are killed or converted.
It is war on an unprecedented level.
We had all better be prepared to mount up and step up, or watch as your grand children are murdered and raped before your very eyes.
They should ignore Obamacare and you should educate your state legislatures about nullification.
Google ‘10th amendment center’ they do some wonderful work on these issues (and many more).
Most of what Congress pass these days is unconstitutional. The 10th amendment reserves rights to the people and the States under anything not enumerated.
CO and WA recently nullified Federal drug laws.
Keep fighting and dont give up just because 5 government lawyers ruled so. The Supreme’s are irrelevant. The states and the people are not. This is who constitutes the Federal government. The supreme court is not the lord and master.
If he wants to squeal about another hit or co-conspirators......fine.
He has the rights anyway, just like my right to own a firearm.
Boston brought to a halt by its own PD and the Federal goon squad.
All to get one guy in a suburb?
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.
Only what he spews can not be used in court. This is all about the particular questions he will be asked without an attorney. And they will have nothing to do with the two bombs he and his bro set off.
We're all practically disarmed here. Now if everyone had a gun, we'd be out hunting jihadis. I'm hoping for a change in attitude, but not expecting one. If these guys had been on the loose for a month, and people were living in fear for a month, the lesson may have sunk in.
But now people are celebrating like "the war is over." Dems never learn... anything.
Yeah the right to not incriminate oneself is just as much there as the right to keep and bear arms.
ANd nobody can take it away or restrict it.
Doesn’t stop them trying but it’s not gonna happen.
If they pass laws ignore them.
If the goons try and get you to incriminate yourself then yeah it’s a bit harder because your in their custody (like he is) and you need a judge to throw it out.
Most judges are as corrupt as the DA’s that bring forth cases.
a lot of good thoughts. Frankly speaking, I would prefer we strip him of his citizenship (because he was naturalized) and send him to a dark cell in another corner of the world where they do not respect terrorism. The Russians would be a nice partner...they like those boys!
I have a nephew that is employed by the U.S. Border Patrol, we have been finding korans and prayer blankets all over the southwestern U.S. for 10 years or more, the enemy is within the gate. Act accordingly.
MA’s laws to restrict the 2nd are unconstitutional
Ignore the law. Contact your county sheriff or elect one who will enforce the supreme law of the land: the constitution.
Inherent in your statement is the assumption that Tamerlan and Dzokhar Tsarnaev didn't receive any planning, logistical, or help in executing their terrorist plan.
To date, that's still not clear what help if any they received or if they're part of a larger sleeper cell.
Jury's still out on that one. At least an intelligent jury still is.
Far as I'm concerned, the Boston Police, FBI and the good people of Boston's actions were nothing short of admirable in the pursuit and capture of these two terrorists.
Will this incident invoke NDAA? Set a first precedent?
I’ve a lot more respect for the Boston PD than the FBI which i consider unconstitutional and part of an out of control government but I agree with what you’re saying.
It’s up to the PD how they deal with it but shutting down a city is slightly overreacting.
I’m not saying it’s wrong for them to do so. They can do what they like but just giving an opinion.
The Constitution and laws are only effective if they are metered in justice and are consistent for all with NO exceptions. Those same exceptions we cry for today may and can be used against us tomorrow.
I live in Illinois - at least for a few more years until my kids finish high school. We've been practically disarmed here for decades (especially if one lives in Chicago!) Recent lawsuits fighting gun-grabbing/confiscatorial/un-Constitutional laws and the subsequent rulings of the Federal Appeals Court have finally resulted in the beginning of the correction of this state's anti-Second Amendment stance.
Illinois now must have a Conceal-Carry law drafted, passed and signed by the Governor of Illinois by June of this year or the Court will put one in place and enforce it.
It takes a long time, and it's a tough fight, but un-Constitutional gun-grabbing laws can be overturned!
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.