The Bill of Rights was written for Dzhokar Tsarnaev

[mikegideon]

Doesn't matter if he can or cannot speak. Before they ask him a single question regarding the offense he must be advised of his rights.

 

Before questioning a person needs to be advised of their rights. If they are not then anything they answer is not admissible. Now if they make spontaneous statements not in response to questioning it can be admitted but once you start asking questions they must have been advised of their rights.

 

As Smith said, they don't need that evidence. He's full of bullet holes from their returned fire. They need intel.

[mikegideon]

Well that sucks. Once his lawyer gets hold of him we'll get nothing useful. That means the folks really behind this bombing will sleep safe.

 

Oh well... toss him into a cell with Big Bob, and let the fun begin. May wanna let his throat heal up a little first :)

[Guest Keal G Seo]

Oh well... toss him into a cell with Big Bob, and let the fun begin. May wanna let his throat heal up a little first :)

Harold and Kumar's infamous "C**k meat sandwich" :)

[mikegideon]

Harold and Kumar's infamous "C**k meat sandwich" :)

 

You got it!

[Raoul]

If reports are correct this jackass is a naturalized citizen.
If we as a nation begin picking and choosing which rights we grant to persons who are citizens then the terrorists have won.

[DaveS]

He will be read his rights. When he is off pain meds and or sedation, and when he fully understands and can comprehend those rights and charges, they will be read to him. It's actually a good tactic!

 

Dave S

[Guest nra37922]

If reports are correct this jackass is a naturalized citizen.
If we as a nation begin picking and choosing which rights we grant to persons who are citizens then the terrorists have won.

Agree.   So revoke his citizenship and ship his ass to Russia and let them get the details...Now that would be a threat that should get his anus to pucker up....

[Superman]

They, as in the authorities, already have.  The government said they did not read him his miranda rights. They stated because of "public safety" they could not at the time he was taken into custody, which I understand completely. Now, even though he is sitting in a hospital room safe and secure, they said they were going to wait even longer because of "public safety" concerns. They said they are going to go ahead and question him before they read him his miranda rights because of "public safety" concerns. He IS a US citizen and he is entitled to the same rights as any other citizen. If the powers that be can circumvent this legal requirement for him they can for any other citizen in which they feel there is a threat to "public safety". And we have all seen the hysteria over perceived threats to "public safety".

 

How sick would it be if once he got to trial ALL of his statements were thrown out as well as the charges because he was not read his miranda rights. I know it has happened in other cases.

 

He needs to fry for what he did but the rules should not be broken to ensure it happens. He is no different than any other citizen that has killed 3 people. Once the rules are broken once it sets a precendent for others to break those same rules.

Exactly.

 If they throw out his rights whats to stop them from throwing away any ones rights anytime they feel like.

 

But my emotions want them to turn Jack Bauer loose on him.

[DaveTN]

He is an enemy combatant that committed a politically motivated terrorist act. He is exactly the person all the terrorist laws address. I don’t care if they take him to Gitmo and water board him.

 

No one is ever required to read a suspect his Miranda rights if they aren’t going to use what he says against him in court. At this point they could care less what happens at his trial; they want to try to stop any more attacks he may know about, or other suspects. Good for them.

 

Him and his brother planned this out and obviously did not plan on living through it. They know as well as anyone here what their rights are.

 

I could care less if they let him talk to an attorney. All an attorney is going to tell him is that unless he tells everything he knows to make a deal; he is going to be executed.

 

 

[Jesse]

He should have shot himself. Being taken half dead was dumb.

[mikegideon]

He should have shot himself. Being taken half dead was dumb.

 

He'll figure that out when he meets Big Bob :)

[RED333]

After reading up a bit, he should be tried for

 

Treason

 

Section 3: Treason

Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby a variety of crimes, including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."^[12]

Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were essentially five species of treason.^{[citation needed]} Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king, certain types of counterfeiting, and finally fornication with women in the royal family of the sort which could call into question the parentage of successors. James Wilson wrote the original draft of this section, and he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason against the Patriot cause.

Edited April 21, 2013 by RED333

[Oh Shoot]

After reading up a bit, he should be tried for

 

Treason

 

How is it treason to kill random people?

 

- OS

[npgunner]

I don't care what the charge is. I agree with those who say he should be shot dead in the street.

But what I do believe, and it seems some of those on here don't agree: is that he deserves the right and considerations allowed him by the Constitution.

And lets face it folks, if he gets shipped off to Gitmo he's only gonna end up playing soccer for the rest of his life (or however long the place is open) on our dollars. Edited April 21, 2013 by npgunner

[East_TN_Patriot]

One thing I will throw out there is that the idea of the Bill of Rights was based on the idea that human beings all possessed inalienable natural rights, not rights granted to citizens by a government. In other words, it doesn't matter whether the bad guy is a natural born citizen, a naturalized citizen, or foreign citizen. The Bill of Rights is a statement of philosophical beliefs embodied into law. Following the Boston Massacre, John Adams insisted the British soldiers accused of firing on Boston residents should be given due process including a fair trial. Edited April 21, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[DaveS]

He should have shot himself. Being taken half dead was dumb.

I beleive I seen on the news where he had what was beleived to be a "self inflicted" gunshot in the mouth which exited out his neck. That's all I heard on that deal though.

 

Dave S

[TMF]

One thing I will throw out there is that the idea of the Bill of Rights was based on the idea that human beings all possessed inalienable natural rights, not rights granted to citizens by a government. In other words, it doesn't matter whether the bad guy is a natural born citizen, a naturalized citizen, or foreign citizen. The Bill of Rights is a statement of philosophical beliefs embodied into law. Following the Boston Massacre, John Adams insisted the British soldiers accused of firing on Boston residents should be given due process including a fair trial.

I'm still not clear what rights will be violated by him being interrogated. He still will get a fair trial. Anything he says prior to access to an attorney can't be used in court, so where is the issue?

[Guest nra37922]

I still say revoke his citizenship and ship him home to Russia.  They'll get details faster than we will...

[East_TN_Patriot]

I'm still not clear what rights will be violated by him being interrogated. He still will get a fair trial. Anything he says prior to access to an attorney can't be used in court, so where is the issue?

 

The issue in the commentary was a general disregard for civil liberties, not just the suspect.  That said, the Supreme Court has ordered that a suspect be given Miranda prior to being interrogated.  The feds are suggesting that they are able to skip this requirement for "public safety" interests.  Interrogating the suspect with the intent of skipping Miranda knowing that you'll not be able to use it in court is a pretty sketchy approach to law enforcement; it violates the spirit of the law.  They are saying they will violate this guy's rights knowing his statements can't be used in court, but that's ok because the information is more important than the law.  This is setting a dangerous precedent that says individual rights don't matter if the government can justify the violation for some alleged greater good.  Considering how the "war on terror" is a broad and non-specific war with no clear objects where the definition of a "terrorist" is an abstract and flexible term, this should concern any American who cares about civil liberties.  Tack on the number of people in America saying we should just ship him to Gitmo and be held indefinitely without trial, and the true point of the commentary becomes clear.  

 

Heck, take the post right above this one and it's case in point.

Edited April 22, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[Dolomite_supafly]

The issue in the commentary was a general disregard for civil liberties, not just the suspect. That said, the Supreme Court has ordered that a suspect be given Miranda prior to being interrogated. The feds are suggesting that they are able to skip this requirement for "public safety" interests. Interrogating the suspect with the intent of skipping Miranda knowing that you'll not be able to use it in court is a pretty sketchy approach to law enforcement; it violates the spirit of the law. They are saying they will violate this guy's rights knowing his statements can't be used in court, but that's ok because the information is more important than the law. This is setting a dangerous precedent that says individual rights don't matter if the government can justify the violation for some alleged greater good. Considering how the "war on terror" is a broad and non-specific war with no clear objects where the definition of a "terrorist" is an abstract and flexible term, this should concern any American who cares about civil liberties. Tack on the number of people in America saying we should just ship him to Gitmo and be held indefinitely without trial, and the true point of the commentary becomes clear.

+1

Was typing out the same thing when I updated the thread. Edited April 22, 2013 by Dolomite_supafly

[TMF]

Interrogating the suspect with the intent of skipping Miranda knowing that you'll not be able to use it in court is a pretty sketchy approach to law enforcement; it violates the spirit of the law.

The interrogation has nothing to do with law enforcement though, it has to do with collecting information to develop intelligence. If he gets charged he can still get his speedy trial and all. I don't see this being a negative precedent since the interrogation would be independent of the criminal investigation. They are two completely separate issues. He will get a fair trial, he will get a lawyer and anything he says before that happens can't be used against him. He is not being held indefinitely without being charged. I'm really looking for a problem here and I don't see one.

[gregintenn]

The Bill of Rights was written for Dzhokar Tsarnaev

 

 

Yup.....so was a speedy trial and the death penalty.

[Dolomite_supafly]

The interrogation has nothing to do with law enforcement though, it has to do with collecting information to develop intelligence. If he gets charged he can still get his speedy trial and all. I don't see this being a negative precedent since the interrogation would be independent of the criminal investigation. They are two completely separate issues. He will get a fair trial, he will get a lawyer and anything he says before that happens can't be used against him. He is not being held indefinitely without being charged. I'm really looking for a problem here and I don't see one.

But how long can we hold and interogate an individual before being charged or advised of his rights?

 

I think this is very, very slippery.

[East_TN_Patriot]

Take a photo from your home and have a member of the US military point a rifle at you. At least, I presume that's who he is since the vehicle is a Humvee and it says "military police" on it.  People spend time ad nauseam talking about FEMA trucks waiting to take over the country, but nary a word about this use of the military to deal with a domestic law enforcement issue.  This is the danger of the "war on terror" since it essentially gives the federal government to render a criminal incident a "terror attack" and ignore the Bill of Rights and the Posse Comitatus Act.  There is a reason the military are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties and this is why.  Military rules of engagement are quite different than civilian law enforcement and the Bill of Rights is not something considered in training soldiers to fight a war.

[East_TN_Patriot]

The interrogation has nothing to do with law enforcement though, it has to do with collecting information to develop intelligence. If he gets charged he can still get his speedy trial and all. I don't see this being a negative precedent since the interrogation would be independent of the criminal investigation. They are two completely separate issues. He will get a fair trial, he will get a lawyer and anything he says before that happens can't be used against him. He is not being held indefinitely without being charged. I'm really looking for a problem here and I don't see one.

I understand your point, but if this was really a distinct issue, then why would the FBI be doing the interrogation and announce that they are going to apply a public safety exception to the Miranda requirement?

FWIW, this thread is epic!   :up:

Edited April 22, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot