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?

#261

Post by sliverstorm » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 4:30 AM UTC

ComputerGuru wrote: post #260

sliverstorm wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Clarifying parent. I know this individual has not been convicted yet, and ergo is not a convinced felon. Just responding to this:

you must also protect the rights of people you do not like. Even the rights of killers ... must be protected if we want ours to be protected.

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

#262

Post by dllthomas » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 6:30 AM UTC

ArtB wrote: post #198

jlgreco wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is because you understand what waterboarding is. The general public, at least at the time, seemed to lack a proper appreciation for what it really meant.

Waterboarding is torture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUkj9pjx3H0

I think parent, grandparent, and possibly great-grandparent share that view. The point was that back when we were having these discussions this was a lot less obvious to a lot of people. Which, to a certain extent, the video you linked demonstrates - Mancow hardly would have volunteered to undergo it if he didn't underestimate its awfulness (and he said it changed his views on the subject).

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

#263

Post by dllthomas » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 6:47 AM UTC

mattzito wrote: post #204

benihana wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Kind of how your first amendment rights stop at shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater and causing a stampede

Kind of how your first amendment rights stop at distributing anti-war literature, as in the case that analogy is drawn from?

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

#264

Post by dllthomas » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 6:56 AM UTC

glesica wrote: post #222

hncommenter13 wrote: post #36

You shouldn't care. Because not reading someone under arrest the Miranda warning is constitutionally irrelevant in and of itself. It only acquires relevance if the government seeks to have the statements admitted at trial. Discussing the similar case of Faisal Shahzad, who attempted to bomb Times Square, Orin Kerr, a law professor who is an expert on the 4th Amendment wrote: "Importantly, though, it would not have vi…

If it doesn't matter, then why don't they just read him his rights? If reading the rights is just a formality, then why all the effort and trouble to avoid doing it? The problem really isn't this case specifically, the problem is what this says about the attitude of the government toward the rights of people who are accused of crimes. The government seems to be sliding toward the position that accused people do not h…

> Basically, it is an important to ask whether the government should be allowed to have whatever it is that the government believes it is gaining by not reading the suspect his rights in this case.

Supposedly, the government believes it is gaining "no bombs more bombs exploding people in Boston" as they get the opportunity to evacuate and/or defuse, if there are any more bombs in the first place. I don't think we should deprive them of that, precisely...

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

#265

Post by jasonzemos » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 7:52 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.”"

This decision doesn't refute the parent poster's point. The suspect always had the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. The decision just affirms that you have to explicitly stop the questioning by speaking your intention of that. The minority felt 2 hours of silence and badgering by the suspect indicates a wish to stop the questioning and invalidate further coercive measures to extract testimony.

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

#266

Post by geuis » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 10:54 AM UTC

nhebb wrote: post #227

geuis wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Tsarnaev and his brother did not plant bombs as of the current moment. They are SUSPECTS in a criminal investigation in which one or more parties planted bombs. Be VERY, VERY careful before you throw out that distinction. One day you may find yourself arrested for something you did or didn't do, only to find public opinion very much against you based on little more than hearsay.

There's an apt civil liberties saying, "a conservative is a liberal that's been mugged, and a liberal is a conservative that has been falsely accused." I think the likelihood that they are being falsely accused in this case is very, very low, but your point is valid. I should have wrote that they were suspected bombers.

You got it. =)

I am embarrassed to say that I got caught up in the "reddit is internet detectives" on Thursday and Friday. It was only after a lot of thought Friday evening that I realized where my own head was and how far away from where I wanted to be I was.

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

#267

Post by ck2 » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 1:05 PM UTC

mtgx wrote: post #125

ck2 wrote: post #39

Because lawmakers are terrified of proper process under our legal system, really says a lot (remember most Senators are lawyers). I guess all rights can have restrictions in this country except gun ownership. Several Senators have insisted he should NOT be mirandized a couple days after voting down background-checks for all gun sales. I don't understand how they can not implode from their lack of consistency.

What pisses me off most about fanatic gun owners who talk about their rights and being able to protect themselves in case the "government goes rogue", is that they seem to be very apathetic, or even supportive of measures such as this or of government infringing other rights like the 4th amendment, the 1st, the 5th, 6th, etc. You'd think that the people so worried about the government going rogue would be the first t…

What's more insane is now they are saying in the senate "well we better be careful now about immigration reform", yet still no guilt over how the heck those two had so many guns despite been watched by the fbi after a request from russia and why, even with the cop they killed and during the shootout with police you can hear dozens of shots from him in just several seconds.

So apparently immigration restrictions despite there will always been some who immigrate illegally = okay, but gun restrictions even though there will always be some with illegal guns = nope.

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

#268

Post by Terretta » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 1:50 PM UTC

newbie12 wrote: post #153

lbarrow wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being read your Miranda rights also serves as an explicit acknowledgement by the state that you have those rights. Most of the time, this isn't really important, but in this case it would have served a very important purpose. The Bush administration systematically created a legal netherworld for people they captured on suspicion of terrorism -- people usually referred to as "enemy combatants". They weren't arrested p…

Don't blame Bush, the Obama administration Justice department created the Miranda exception for "operational terrorists". This has nothing to do with enemy combatants; rather, there is the possibility that an active terror suspect on US soil has information about an active threat to public safety, and the police have a right (and duty) to question him about possible threats.

> the Obama administration Justice department created the Miranda exception

On the contrary, they did not "create" it. They did, however, "invoke" it.

Things start to get murkier in 2002, after the FBI bobbled the interrogation of Zacarias Moussaoui, the 20th 9/11 hijacker—the one who didn’t get on the plane—former FBI special agent Coleen Rowley wrote a memo pleading that "if prevention rather than prosecution is to be our new main goal, (an objective I totally agree with), we need more guidance on when we can apply the Quarles 'public safety' exception to Miranda's 5th Amendment requirements."

That would be the Justice department "creating" the use of the exception as a result of a screwup. Clearly they expected to screw up again, and wanted an out.

Then the Christmas Day bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was apprehended in December 2009, before he could blow up a plane bound for Detroit. The FBI invoked the public safety exception...

So they used the out. Once government gives itself a right, either party is loath to relinquish it.

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

#269

Post by sliverstorm » Sun, Apr 21, 2013, 11:40 PM 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.

Folks, if you are going to downvote me, please explain why. I don't believe I have stated an opinion; I tried to stick to facts. If you think my facts are wrong, please actually correct me.

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

#270

Post by IgorPartola » Mon, Apr 22, 2013, 2:41 PM UTC

thrownaway2424 wrote: post #258

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…

Agreed. You have no right to the warning and the warning itself is only there to protect the evidence the authorities may gather.

My issue is that despite the horrific things that the suspect allegedly, and in my mind certainly, has done, he has certain rights, like the right to remain silent and the right to representation. Whether the case goes to trial or not, is irrelevant to how the detainee is treated. Otherwise, the police can pick you up, rough you up, prevent you from contacting anyone on the outside world, and then release you, saying that they never intended for you to go to trial, so it's all good.

> Remember, the authorities are perfectly free to interrogate you as much as they like without reading you any warnings at all.

I don't believe they are. I believe they need probable cause, and they need to charge me with something first. Otherwise, I would be living in a police state where I am presumed guilty unless proven innocent. The warning itself is meaningless. It only comes into play if I can reasonably claim that I did not know the Constitution.