Public safety exception. He'll get his rights read once authorities are sure there aren't more bombs/threats present.
what exactly does this mean? if he doesn't want to talk, he's not going to talk. unless they plan to beat it out of him?
Also, in another twist there's now a link with one of the brothers and three guys who had their throats slit in Boston in 2011.
at its most basic it means they can ask certain questions before reading him his rights, as long as it pertains to matters of any potential, immediate threat to public safety. for instance, asking if he or his brother hid any bombs around the city would fall into this category.
there's been a couple of links on the issue posted, maybe it'd be a good idea to have those and the charity rog.
A cop, in the 1980's, noticed an empty holster on an arrested suspect. The cop asked him where the gun was before reading Miranda rights. A court created a one-time exception and said the criminal's answer was admissible, because it was just a few seconds spent asking one question about an immediate danger to public safety.
In one case in the 90's (that was only decided in 2008), this was kinda, sorta expanded into the ability to claim "public safety" and deny Miranda rights for the duration of a full interrogation. But that was in the context of the interrogation of a foreign detainee overseas, and the court said that the exception might not be valid if the government is seemingly just circumventing the rights of a criminal suspect in a trial back in the United States.
But in a worst case scenario, the prosecution here would only lose the ability to admit the pre-Miranda interrogations as evidence. It doesn't seem like that would really jeopardize the case.
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
As was mentioned in the previous thread, the authorities aren't going to need to rely on a confession at trial. It doesn't matter if everything he says between now and when he is mirandized is inadmissible, if they don't need that evidence (and come on, it really seems like they do not).
So Miranda is about permissability in a trial. Police can always ask suspects questions, it's just they can't use the evidence gained in a trial unless the suspect has been Mirandized. Public safety removes that, but in this case not a huge deal.
The big test here is a fair trial in article three civilian courts. Which the administration has indicated they are planning on using. Hooray.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
So Miranda is about permissability in a trial. Police can always ask suspects questions, it's just they can't use the evidence gained in a trial unless the suspect has been Mirandized. Public safety removes that, but in this case not a huge deal.
The big test here is a fair trial in article three civilian courts. Which the administration has indicated they are planning on using. Hooray.
This could honestly be huge in the push to close down Gitmo. You have a (technically) foreign terrorist who attacked a US city using a (technically) WMD, who they're going to try in a civilian court. It's basically the situation that everyone who loves "extraordinary rendition" says will never work. A successful trial, conviction and imprisonment here proves them all wrong.
So Miranda is about permissability in a trial. Police can always ask suspects questions, it's just they can't use the evidence gained in a trial unless the suspect has been Mirandized. Public safety removes that, but in this case not a huge deal.
The big test here is a fair trial in article three civilian courts. Which the administration has indicated they are planning on using. Hooray.
This could honestly be huge in the push to close down Gitmo. You have a (technically) foreign terrorist who attacked a US city using a (technically) WMD, who they're going to try in a civilian court. It's basically the situation that everyone who loves "extraordinary rendition" says will never work. A successful trial, conviction and imprisonment here proves them all wrong.
American citizen as of 7 months ago.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
So Miranda is about permissability in a trial. Police can always ask suspects questions, it's just they can't use the evidence gained in a trial unless the suspect has been Mirandized. Public safety removes that, but in this case not a huge deal.
Yea, and it's important to note that Public Safety is stuff like "Did you plant more bombs?" or "Where is your gun?" Things that are immediate and have to be resolved quickly. Not super thrilled about how it's being used here but I get it at it's heart.
Really this is one of those cases of "Do we need to convict him on MORE counts of terrorism?" They arrested him because they had enough to convict on previous acts of terror. Not getting to punish him for other, yet to happen, acts of terror because he helped prevent them? Not a high priority from a justice system for me.
So Miranda is about permissability in a trial. Police can always ask suspects questions, it's just they can't use the evidence gained in a trial unless the suspect has been Mirandized. Public safety removes that, but in this case not a huge deal.
The big test here is a fair trial in article three civilian courts. Which the administration has indicated they are planning on using. Hooray.
This could honestly be huge in the push to close down Gitmo. You have a (technically) foreign terrorist who attacked a US city using a (technically) WMD, who they're going to try in a civilian court. It's basically the situation that everyone who loves "extraordinary rendition" says will never work. A successful trial, conviction and imprisonment here proves them all wrong.
American citizen as of 7 months ago.
Yeah, that's why I threw in the technically. His brother only had a green card, though.
So Miranda is about permissability in a trial. Police can always ask suspects questions, it's just they can't use the evidence gained in a trial unless the suspect has been Mirandized. Public safety removes that, but in this case not a huge deal.
The big test here is a fair trial in article three civilian courts. Which the administration has indicated they are planning on using. Hooray.
This could honestly be huge in the push to close down Gitmo. You have a (technically) foreign terrorist who attacked a US city using a (technically) WMD, who they're going to try in a civilian court. It's basically the situation that everyone who loves "extraordinary rendition" says will never work. A successful trial, conviction and imprisonment here proves them all wrong.
He is not "technically" a foreign citizen.
I agree with your general premise that it would be a blow against gitmo but he is very much a US citizen as far as any law or regulation is concerned.
This could honestly be huge in the push to close down Gitmo. You have a (technically) foreign terrorist who attacked a US city using a (technically) WMD, who they're going to try in a civilian court. It's basically the situation that everyone who loves "extraordinary rendition" says will never work. A successful trial, conviction and imprisonment here proves them all wrong.
Devil's Advocate:
What's the purpose of putting Mr. Don't Quit on trial, aside from consistency or the pursuit of ideological purity? I mean, what can a defense attorney do other than either plead insanity or attempt to put together a plea bargain agreement? Maybe try to pin absolutely everything on the dead brother?
Again, Devil's Advocate - I think consistency is a good enough reason to give him a trial - but part of me wonders if it's not just a waste of time / resources. I mean, it's not like we need to establish guilt, and it's not like Miranda Warnings or a lack thereof are really relevant when dude has already so thoroughly incriminated himself by rampaging all over Boston.
This could honestly be huge in the push to close down Gitmo. You have a (technically) foreign terrorist who attacked a US city using a (technically) WMD, who they're going to try in a civilian court. It's basically the situation that everyone who loves "extraordinary rendition" says will never work. A successful trial, conviction and imprisonment here proves them all wrong.
Devil's Advocate:
What's the purpose of putting Mr. Don't Quit on trial, aside from consistency or the pursuit of ideological purity? I mean, what can a defense attorney do other than either plead insanity or attempt to put together a plea bargain agreement? Maybe try to pin absolutely everything on the dead brother?
Again, Devil's Advocate - I think consistency is a good enough reason to give him a trial - but part of me wonders if it's not just a waste of time / resources. I mean, it's not like we need to establish guilt, and it's not like Miranda Warnings or a lack thereof are really relevant when dude has already so thoroughly incriminated himself by rampaging all over Boston.
This could honestly be huge in the push to close down Gitmo. You have a (technically) foreign terrorist who attacked a US city using a (technically) WMD, who they're going to try in a civilian court. It's basically the situation that everyone who loves "extraordinary rendition" says will never work. A successful trial, conviction and imprisonment here proves them all wrong.
Devil's Advocate:
What's the purpose of putting Mr. Don't Quit on trial, aside from consistency or the pursuit of ideological purity? I mean, what can a defense attorney do other than either plead insanity or attempt to put together a plea bargain agreement? Maybe try to pin absolutely everything on the dead brother?
Again, Devil's Advocate - I think consistency is a good enough reason to give him a trial - but part of me wonders if it's not just a waste of time / resources. I mean, it's not like we need to establish guilt, and it's not like Miranda Warnings or a lack thereof are really relevant when dude has already so thoroughly incriminated himself by rampaging all over Boston.
"Your honor, my client was under the control of his older brother, a foreign citizen already investigated by the FBI for terrorist ties, previously arrested for domestic violence. My client feared for his life if he did not comply with his brother's demands."
Oh look there's Mr. Reasonable Doubt and you've just changed a federal death penalty case to a 15 years to life, or less.
Not saying that's what will happen, of course. But that's the reason you have a trial.
This could honestly be huge in the push to close down Gitmo. You have a (technically) foreign terrorist who attacked a US city using a (technically) WMD, who they're going to try in a civilian court. It's basically the situation that everyone who loves "extraordinary rendition" says will never work. A successful trial, conviction and imprisonment here proves them all wrong.
Devil's Advocate:
What's the purpose of putting Mr. Don't Quit on trial, aside from consistency or the pursuit of ideological purity? I mean, what can a defense attorney do other than either plead insanity or attempt to put together a plea bargain agreement? Maybe try to pin absolutely everything on the dead brother?
Again, Devil's Advocate - I think consistency is a good enough reason to give him a trial - but part of me wonders if it's not just a waste of time / resources. I mean, it's not like we need to establish guilt, and it's not like Miranda Warnings or a lack thereof are really relevant when dude has already so thoroughly incriminated himself by rampaging all over Boston.
It needs to be done for the integrity of our justice system.
This could honestly be huge in the push to close down Gitmo. You have a (technically) foreign terrorist who attacked a US city using a (technically) WMD, who they're going to try in a civilian court. It's basically the situation that everyone who loves "extraordinary rendition" says will never work. A successful trial, conviction and imprisonment here proves them all wrong.
Devil's Advocate:
What's the purpose of putting Mr. Don't Quit on trial, aside from consistency or the pursuit of ideological purity? I mean, what can a defense attorney do other than either plead insanity or attempt to put together a plea bargain agreement? Maybe try to pin absolutely everything on the dead brother?
if any of those happen to be the best possible defence available then, yeah his attorney is obligated to present it. but that'll be between him and who ever he finds/is appointed to represent him.
Again, Devil's Advocate - I think consistency is a good enough reason to give him a trial - but part of me wonders if it's not just a waste of time / resources. I mean, it's not like we need to establish guilt, and it's not like Miranda Warnings or a lack thereof are really relevant when dude has already so thoroughly incriminated himself by rampaging all over Boston.
the trial isn't just for show though. at this point the evidence against him is some photos/video footage and that he was caught up in a violent confrontation with the authorities. will more evidence be brought to light/present? i'm certain it will, but that evidence still has to be presented to a court and a jury.
if we skip this trial why not others? got DNA evidence? straight to jail, no trial. IDed by multiple eye witnesses? straight to jail.
this isn't about consistency as much as it is about integrity.
this goes for him being read his right too. that will happen. no one is trying to get around it. though on that note do we even know that he's actually been placed under arrest yet? obviously he's in custody and under guard but that's not the same(and is as much for his protection as it is to detain him). haven't checked the news tonight so last i heard his condition was still 'serious'. could be that part of the wait is for him to be awake and lucid enough to know whats going on(as has been suggested already i believe).
Public safety exception. He'll get his rights read once authorities are sure there aren't more bombs/threats present.
what exactly does this mean? if he doesn't want to talk, he's not going to talk. unless they plan to beat it out of him?
Also, in another twist there's now a link with one of the brothers and three guys who had their throats slit in Boston in 2011.
It's part of the Patriot Act. In times of danger to national security, when the public safety is at risk, you can question without Miranda. It's a small window but it's still in effect.
I see a problem with it, but I can't reason to what that problem is, so to speak. I mean, let's pretend he doesn't just plead guilty, and pleads the Fifth. How would it change the outcome of the trial if the court denied him the right to not incriminate himself in a courtroom if we already have overwhelming evidence that he's guilty.
So Miranda is about permissability in a trial. Police can always ask suspects questions, it's just they can't use the evidence gained in a trial unless the suspect has been Mirandized. Public safety removes that, but in this case not a huge deal.
The big test here is a fair trial in article three civilian courts. Which the administration has indicated they are planning on using. Hooray.
This could honestly be huge in the push to close down Gitmo. You have a (technically) foreign terrorist who attacked a US city using a (technically) WMD, who they're going to try in a civilian court. It's basically the situation that everyone who loves "extraordinary rendition" says will never work. A successful trial, conviction and imprisonment here proves them all wrong.
Bombs in a crowded place are not WMD, technically or otherwise.
I see a problem with it, but I can't reason to what that problem is, so to speak. I mean, let's pretend he doesn't just plead guilty, and pleads the Fifth. How would it change the outcome of the trial if the court denied him the right to not incriminate himself in a courtroom if we already have overwhelming evidence that he's guilty.
this is kinda a different point, and one that was raised in the last thread. if the isn't made aware of his rights, and he implicates someone else in the attacks, any warrants issued or charges brought on these other individuals could be deemed unlawful/dismissed. its highly unlikely that this is going to be the case, but until its known for sure its best to cover your ass to nth degree and make sure everything is 100% utterly by the book.
So Miranda is about permissability in a trial. Police can always ask suspects questions, it's just they can't use the evidence gained in a trial unless the suspect has been Mirandized. Public safety removes that, but in this case not a huge deal.
The big test here is a fair trial in article three civilian courts. Which the administration has indicated they are planning on using. Hooray.
This could honestly be huge in the push to close down Gitmo. You have a (technically) foreign terrorist who attacked a US city using a (technically) WMD, who they're going to try in a civilian court. It's basically the situation that everyone who loves "extraordinary rendition" says will never work. A successful trial, conviction and imprisonment here proves them all wrong.
He is not "technically" a foreign citizen.
I agree with your general premise that it would be a blow against gitmo but he is very much a US citizen as far as any law or regulation is concerned.
I don't think he is. P sure he wasn't naturalized yet - his brother definitely wasn't.
I see a problem with it, but I can't reason to what that problem is, so to speak. I mean, let's pretend he doesn't just plead guilty, and pleads the Fifth. How would it change the outcome of the trial if the court denied him the right to not incriminate himself in a courtroom if we already have overwhelming evidence that he's guilty.
It might not change the outcome of that trial, but in the realm of the courtroom, precedent is king.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
where did the info this guy didn't get his miranda rights read out come from.
Cause back at the time of his capture there was a lot of posting in the thread that he did, in fact, get his rights read to him.
He did not. I heard the US District attorney explain this at the press conference just after he was captured. She also asserted the public safety exception at that time.
They've been rather straight forward regarding their actions. It's not like they're trying to bury the fact they didn't read him his Miranda rights immediately. IIRC the ACLU is monitoring the case as well.
So Miranda is about permissability in a trial. Police can always ask suspects questions, it's just they can't use the evidence gained in a trial unless the suspect has been Mirandized. Public safety removes that, but in this case not a huge deal.
The big test here is a fair trial in article three civilian courts. Which the administration has indicated they are planning on using. Hooray.
This could honestly be huge in the push to close down Gitmo. You have a (technically) foreign terrorist who attacked a US city using a (technically) WMD, who they're going to try in a civilian court. It's basically the situation that everyone who loves "extraordinary rendition" says will never work. A successful trial, conviction and imprisonment here proves them all wrong.
Bombs in a crowded place are not WMD, technically or otherwise.
Reflecting on this week, I'm left contemplating how in times of crisis it's so tempting to despair, but these times are when we see humanity at its best, even if provoked by its worst, and we hear a story which is moving, heartwarming, badass or any combination thereof and I can't help but feel hopeful. The band played on aboard Titanic. The dispatcher stopped trains coming into Halifax minutes before the largest manmade explosion to date killed him. Kevin "Batman" Conroy helping to man a soup kitchen after 9/11 and cheering up scared kids.
This event is no exception. A personal scale is the bomb victim with the presence of mind to ID a suspect, and witnessed the heartbreak of a man who saw his flesh and blood accused of terrible things. On a wider scale we have the hospitals responding magnificently to a grisly situation, and most importantly the police showing true professionalism in an exhausting case with the world gazing at them, and that professionalism paying off with a successful capture. With these situations it normally seems to end with all the suspects dead, but now my Justice Bone is tickled that due process can be fully enacted thanks to the cops' careful approach in a situation where it would be easy to justify ridddling the suspect with bullets.
I've always said humanity is a double edged sword. This week we got a feel of how both edges cut.
I still think the best story was that of the doctor who beat the first suspect to the hospital and tried to save his life.
Re: Charities, here's a link the the MIT Community Service Fund. Their payment system went down yesterday (hopefully overloaded with donations), and I'm not sure if it's back up yet or not.
I went to the game today (also the cordoned off area, which ruined a lot of the good feelings )
There were a lot of cops being honored but there were also uniformed military (Nat Guard? Guess they could have been law enforcement) working. The patches on their shoulders for the ones without dogs?
I went to the game today (also the cordoned off area, which ruined a lot of the good feelings )
There were a lot of cops being honored but there were also uniformed military (Nat Guard? Guess they could have been law enforcement) working. The patches on their shoulders for the ones without dogs?
EOD
Did you ask them what EOD stood for?
+1
Options
ButtlordFornicusLord of Bondage and PainRegistered Userregular
This could honestly be huge in the push to close down Gitmo. You have a (technically) foreign terrorist who attacked a US city using a (technically) WMD, who they're going to try in a civilian court. It's basically the situation that everyone who loves "extraordinary rendition" says will never work. A successful trial, conviction and imprisonment here proves them all wrong.
Devil's Advocate:
What's the purpose of putting Mr. Don't Quit on trial, aside from consistency or the pursuit of ideological purity? I mean, what can a defense attorney do other than either plead insanity or attempt to put together a plea bargain agreement? Maybe try to pin absolutely everything on the dead brother?
Again, Devil's Advocate - I think consistency is a good enough reason to give him a trial - but part of me wonders if it's not just a waste of time / resources. I mean, it's not like we need to establish guilt, and it's not like Miranda Warnings or a lack thereof are really relevant when dude has already so thoroughly incriminated himself by rampaging all over Boston.
We DO need to establish guilt. You should always have to establish guilt. At this point "everyone" knows he's guilty, and he almost certainly is, but you can't run a justice system like that.
Posts
at its most basic it means they can ask certain questions before reading him his rights, as long as it pertains to matters of any potential, immediate threat to public safety. for instance, asking if he or his brother hid any bombs around the city would fall into this category.
there's been a couple of links on the issue posted, maybe it'd be a good idea to have those and the charity rog.
In one case in the 90's (that was only decided in 2008), this was kinda, sorta expanded into the ability to claim "public safety" and deny Miranda rights for the duration of a full interrogation. But that was in the context of the interrogation of a foreign detainee overseas, and the court said that the exception might not be valid if the government is seemingly just circumventing the rights of a criminal suspect in a trial back in the United States.
But in a worst case scenario, the prosecution here would only lose the ability to admit the pre-Miranda interrogations as evidence. It doesn't seem like that would really jeopardize the case.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
The big test here is a fair trial in article three civilian courts. Which the administration has indicated they are planning on using. Hooray.
This could honestly be huge in the push to close down Gitmo. You have a (technically) foreign terrorist who attacked a US city using a (technically) WMD, who they're going to try in a civilian court. It's basically the situation that everyone who loves "extraordinary rendition" says will never work. A successful trial, conviction and imprisonment here proves them all wrong.
American citizen as of 7 months ago.
Yea, and it's important to note that Public Safety is stuff like "Did you plant more bombs?" or "Where is your gun?" Things that are immediate and have to be resolved quickly. Not super thrilled about how it's being used here but I get it at it's heart.
Really this is one of those cases of "Do we need to convict him on MORE counts of terrorism?" They arrested him because they had enough to convict on previous acts of terror. Not getting to punish him for other, yet to happen, acts of terror because he helped prevent them? Not a high priority from a justice system for me.
Yeah, that's why I threw in the technically. His brother only had a green card, though.
I agree with your general premise that it would be a blow against gitmo but he is very much a US citizen as far as any law or regulation is concerned.
Devil's Advocate:
What's the purpose of putting Mr. Don't Quit on trial, aside from consistency or the pursuit of ideological purity? I mean, what can a defense attorney do other than either plead insanity or attempt to put together a plea bargain agreement? Maybe try to pin absolutely everything on the dead brother?
Again, Devil's Advocate - I think consistency is a good enough reason to give him a trial - but part of me wonders if it's not just a waste of time / resources. I mean, it's not like we need to establish guilt, and it's not like Miranda Warnings or a lack thereof are really relevant when dude has already so thoroughly incriminated himself by rampaging all over Boston.
you honestly don't see a problem with this?
"Your honor, my client was under the control of his older brother, a foreign citizen already investigated by the FBI for terrorist ties, previously arrested for domestic violence. My client feared for his life if he did not comply with his brother's demands."
Oh look there's Mr. Reasonable Doubt and you've just changed a federal death penalty case to a 15 years to life, or less.
Not saying that's what will happen, of course. But that's the reason you have a trial.
It needs to be done for the integrity of our justice system.
if any of those happen to be the best possible defence available then, yeah his attorney is obligated to present it. but that'll be between him and who ever he finds/is appointed to represent him.
the trial isn't just for show though. at this point the evidence against him is some photos/video footage and that he was caught up in a violent confrontation with the authorities. will more evidence be brought to light/present? i'm certain it will, but that evidence still has to be presented to a court and a jury.
if we skip this trial why not others? got DNA evidence? straight to jail, no trial. IDed by multiple eye witnesses? straight to jail.
this isn't about consistency as much as it is about integrity.
this goes for him being read his right too. that will happen. no one is trying to get around it. though on that note do we even know that he's actually been placed under arrest yet? obviously he's in custody and under guard but that's not the same(and is as much for his protection as it is to detain him). haven't checked the news tonight so last i heard his condition was still 'serious'. could be that part of the wait is for him to be awake and lucid enough to know whats going on(as has been suggested already i believe).
It's part of the Patriot Act. In times of danger to national security, when the public safety is at risk, you can question without Miranda. It's a small window but it's still in effect.
I see a problem with it, but I can't reason to what that problem is, so to speak. I mean, let's pretend he doesn't just plead guilty, and pleads the Fifth. How would it change the outcome of the trial if the court denied him the right to not incriminate himself in a courtroom if we already have overwhelming evidence that he's guilty.
Bombs in a crowded place are not WMD, technically or otherwise.
- John Stuart Mill
this is kinda a different point, and one that was raised in the last thread. if the isn't made aware of his rights, and he implicates someone else in the attacks, any warrants issued or charges brought on these other individuals could be deemed unlawful/dismissed. its highly unlikely that this is going to be the case, but until its known for sure its best to cover your ass to nth degree and make sure everything is 100% utterly by the book.
I don't think he is. P sure he wasn't naturalized yet - his brother definitely wasn't.
It might not change the outcome of that trial, but in the realm of the courtroom, precedent is king.
- John Stuart Mill
Cause back at the time of his capture there was a lot of posting in the thread that he did, in fact, get his rights read to him.
He did not. I heard the US District attorney explain this at the press conference just after he was captured. She also asserted the public safety exception at that time.
They are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction#Criminal_.28Civilian.29
Thanks dude.
Quid, can we include this link in the OP as well?
I like pictures like this turning up. It's kinda touching.
I heard 'fuck' a few times on TV yesterday, followed by half-hearted apologies about the language.
I wonder if this kind of stuff might push us through the playground-language era of network censorship.
Huh
I'm torn between my default "Fuck the FCC" and "Fuck yeah, FCC!"
There were a lot of cops being honored but there were also uniformed military (Nat Guard? Guess they could have been law enforcement) working. The patches on their shoulders for the ones without dogs?
EOD
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Did you ask them what EOD stood for?
The problem is that as an American citizen he has the right to a trial by a jury of his peers, period end of story.
reason.com/24-7/2013/04/20/fbi-had-interviewed-tamerlan-tsarnaev-in
We DO need to establish guilt. You should always have to establish guilt. At this point "everyone" knows he's guilty, and he almost certainly is, but you can't run a justice system like that.