Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

#251

Post by e12e » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 2:38 AM UTC

charlieok wrote: post #205

Glenn Greenwald always has lots of interesting points to make on issues like this one. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/20/boston-m...

Strongly recommend the Guardian article as well as the links in there.

Also, as a friend commented -- labelling this as "an act of terrorism" has another effect: making many insurance policies void. Were it a "mass murderer" (as I believe seem to more correct, based on what we know so far of what happened) -- most of those policies would still be valid.

Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

#252

Post by sliverstorm » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 2:51 AM UTC

dsfasfasf wrote: post #228

pfortuny wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have the duty to do that, only he has the right not to answer, despite not having been told so. You have to defend even terrorists' rights if you want yours to stand.

>>You have to defend even terrorists' rights if you want yours to stand. Completely agree with this. Unfortunately most people are too stupid to realize that in order to protect your constitutionals rights you must also protect the rights of people you do not like, i.e. hate spouting religious extremists, of any religion. Even the rights of killers like the Boston bombers must be protected if we want ours to be prote…

I'm with you as far as suspects. Suspects should have their rights protected. Convicted felons, however, we already deny a number of constitutional rights de-facto. E.g., right to bear arms and freedom of travel.

Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

#253

Post by kaonashi » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 2:52 AM UTC

jasonwocky wrote: post #190

kaonashi wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would call the 4th amendment fairly essential.

Miranda stems from the 5th amendment.

I was referring mostly to the calls to hold him as an 'enemy combatant'.

Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

#254

Post by e12e » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 2:53 AM UTC

axus wrote: post #208

InclinedPlane wrote: post #47

Jesus people. Read about what the "public safety exception" actually is before going all police-state-paranoid. If the FBI or police try to misuse or abuse the public safety exception to attempt to get Tsarnaev to incriminate himself then they are going to have some fun times in court and get their asses handed to them. I'm skeptical that that's what's happening. I'm also skeptical that he's not been read his rights…

Why even have an exception? Surely public safety is more important than trying to add a confession to all of the other evidence. The exception seems like something that could be abused in other cases. I'd go further, and say that no statements made by an accused person should be admissible in court. That way, you don't give any incentives for coercion.

I recommend this Guardian comment on the same subject:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/20/boston-m...

I don't think refusing the accused a voice would really help the investigation of most cases, nor the course of justice. But the path the US (and allies, such as Great Britain) have started down is a very dark one.

Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

#255

Post by sliverstorm » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 3:02 AM UTC

late2part wrote: post #237

statictype wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. They have those rights whether or not the police remembers to verbally inform the suspect. The suspect has every right to remain silent and every right to an attorney, even if the officer detaining him chooses not to remind him about it.

Kinda sorta, not entirely. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/supreme-court/2010/06/supre... "The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a criminal suspect must explicitly invoke the right to remain silent during a police interrogation, a decision that dissenting liberal justices said turns the protections of a Miranda warning “upside down.”"

You're being kinda nit-picky. All the suspect has to say is "I plead the fifth", or something to those lines.

Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

#256

Post by alan_cx » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 3:13 AM UTC

eggnet wrote: post #167

alan_cx wrote: post #145

There is literally no point having rights at all if there are exceptions to those rights which can be used but authority when things get difficult or controversial. A right is universal, if there is an exception, its is no longer universal, there for no longer a right. If a right is not universal, it becomes a privilege. The whole point of rights is to protect individuals when things get difficult, when people's emot…

Let's cut to the chase, what if, as in this case, granting an individual their full rights could deprive others of their rights, like the right to not be blown up by another bomb? You are suggesting that rights only have value if there are no exceptions to those rights. I disagree. Rights have value, but there must be a way to assign value to each individual right for each person, otherwise, when you cannot grant eve…

You example is so extreme as to be redundant. You are essentially arguing for abuse of human beings, in a wild exaggerated "24" type scenario, that doesn't really exist.

If my rights depend on abusing other human beings, I don't want them. They are worthless, because one day it could be me, or you.

Are you really prepared to give up your rights if law enforcements believes you threaten the rights of others? Would you accept it if you could not challenge that? Really? I bet you just assume it only happens to other people.

Lastly, this notion of every one getting their human rights simultaneously is absurd. As I said, they are only required when things go wrong or are difficult for a public to be reasonable and fair. I don't need my right to not be blown up while a police officer is observing Miranda rights, for example. This suspect's right to a free and fair trial has no baring on my right to not be harassed by government, or be blown up. Its a totally false premise, which makes no sense.

Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

#257

Post by pyre » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 3:17 AM UTC

benihana wrote: post #185

pyre wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

| a way to just skirt civil liberties when | it seems relevant That's exactly what it is, with good reason. When this is used, we are saying that the rights of others trump the rights of this suspect. When we're talking about the possibility of active bombs hidden within a civilian population, I would think it's a no-brainer that the rights of the people to not be blown up trumps the suspect's rights. Also, as @anigb…

> When this is used, we are saying that the rights of others trump the rights of this suspect. When we're talking about the possibility of active bombs hidden within a civilian population, I would think it's a no-brainer that the rights of the people to not be blown up trumps the suspect's rights. Jesus this is scary thinking. You're saying the rights of a suspect go out the window when we can contrive a situation wh…

All rights in law are a balancing act. For example, when people were lobbying to "Grandparents' Rights," codifying such rights into law would have given power in custody-type situations to the grandparents, but at the cost of taking some level of rights away from the parents.

My 'right' to murder someone is taken away by the law because it is deemed that the right of the other person to stay alive is more important.

In this case, the only right that is being taken away is the right to be informed (or reminded) of your rights prior to interrogation. He still retains his right to remain silent, he just isn't specifically told about it by police. The purpose being to allow a line of questioning that would help to eliminate the risk to the general public (in this case accomplices, hidden bombs, ties to terrorist organizations, etc). If they use this as an excuse to ask him questions that clearly aren't going to help resolve the "risk to the general public," I'm sure his defense attorney will have a field day with it.

Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

#258

Post by thrownaway2424 » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 3:24 AM UTC

IgorPartola wrote: post #226

The Miranda warning is just that, a warning. Some people mistakenly call it the Miranda rights, which is wrong. Your rights are in the Constitution, and the Miranda warning just reminds you of those rights. Now, the question is this: do the authorities make a big deal of not reading him his Miranda warning simply because they expect that if they do he will excercise his rights? Or are they implying, without saying it…

It's entirely to the authorities whether to Mirandize the suspect or not. Perhaps they think they already have so much evidence that they don't need any statements from the interrogation to convict. In that case, they're just looking for information.

Remember, the authorities are perfectly free to interrogate you as much as they like without reading you any warnings at all. It's only at trial that the warnings become relevant. If your case isn't going to trial, it's not relevant.

Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

#259

Post by anigbrowl » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 3:25 AM UTC

swalkergibson wrote: post #240

anigbrowl wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For heaven's sake. Assuming that they have arrested the correct person, he and his brother had a stack of tactical explosives that they were throwing around with abandon, as well as having bombed a major public event with loss of life and a huge level of injury. Of course the public (via its designated law enforcement agents) has a legitimate interest in establishing whether all possible explosive devices have been f…

Innocent until proven guilty. The adversarial justice system in the United States is here for all of our protection, including suspected terrorists.

How is that at odds with anything I've written above?

Re: Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

#260

Post by ComputerGuru » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 4:05 AM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #252

dsfasfasf wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>You have to defend even terrorists' rights if you want yours to stand. Completely agree with this. Unfortunately most people are too stupid to realize that in order to protect your constitutionals rights you must also protect the rights of people you do not like, i.e. hate spouting religious extremists, of any religion. Even the rights of killers like the Boston bombers must be protected if we want ours to be prote…

I'm with you as far as suspects . Suspects should have their rights protected. Convicted felons, however, we already deny a number of constitutional rights de-facto. E.g., right to bear arms and freedom of travel.

Please tell me when he was convicted?

I do not know if you were simply clarifying the parent post or actually referring to the Boston bomber, but the fact of the matter is, you become a "convicted felon" when you've found guilty in the court of law.