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. 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.
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!
NDAA contravenes so much of the bill of rights I dont know where to start....
“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.”
The murdering POS is an American. I originally thought he should be sent to Gitmo, tortured till he gave us everything he had and summarily shot in the back of the head given to the sharks as a snack.
Regardless of religion and motive, we have to remember he is an American and as such is afforded his rights under the Constitution. To not be afforded those rights sets an ugly precedent.
This is wonderful news...
I hope you’re one of the first to signup for an IL concealed carry permit and rub in the governors face.
Never said he said it. I said “apparently”.
How do you figure this would set a precedent? It happens frequently.
And, BTW, when you refer to “constitutional rights”, please explain where in the actual Constitution it says we have the right to be told we have a right?
The constitution does not give us any rights. It restricts what the government can do. In this case, the only penalty the government faces for questioning him without first Mirandizing him is that it cannot use any evidence they gain when they take him to court.
And if he doesn’t already know the government is forbidden from compelling him to be a witness against himself, he’s an idiot.
The information the government will be seeking without Mirandazing him is info about the involvement of others. So, by answering those questions, he won’t be testifying against himself as much as testifying against others.
So, spare us your uninformed concern for his rights.
I am so mad. I don’t give too hoots about this kid. However, why are the liberals not jumping on this? I know you don’t have to read him his rights because they are his already. HOWEVER, if Bush was President, those liberals would be shouting on every TV how unfair this is to the idiot kid. I am really getting to the point where I HATE all liberals and not just find them intolerable.
much respect from here for your thoughtful opinion. Sincerely mean that. I have a slightly different view than yours because I come at it from a slightly different angle.
Under the circumstances in Boston, I think the BPD, FBI and Citizens did the best they could. That statement is with the understanding that Boston is largely a "gun free zone" which has disarmed its citizens - thanks mostly to Mitt Romney and the Massachusetts State Legislature under then "Governor Romney." At least that's my understanding.
Yes, there is an aspect of the Second Amendment here that may have brought this situation to a faster close. Don't think it would've prevented the deaths and injuries from the bombing though.
I did have the thought "in a Conceal/Carry state, would one or both of the Tsarnaev's ended up dead trying to do a car-jacking?" Given the vehicle they carjacked had a "COEXIST" bumper sticker on it (if that report is true..) I'm sure they likely/luckily picked the right vehicle to carjack! (LOL!) ... Can't imagine someone getting away with that trying to carjack some good ol' boy in Texas and taking his truck.
In fact, so did my wife and two sons (15 and 17.) I'm one of those "Second Amendment Radical's" I suppose teaching my kids to hunt and use firearms correctly.
The thing is, I imagine I've probably broken 20 - 30 firearms laws every hunting season simply by taking my my rifles up north to go hunting.... That's but another example of how this Government works to make us all Criminals no matter what we do!
Here is how I would read them to the scum bomber.
You have the right to remain silent. Forever, After a speedy trial.
I’m not sure if you agree with me or not but conservatives need to keep fighting.
I’m only young myself (in my 30’s) but my anaylsis is that we have let the Federal government become too powerful over the last 30-40 years and it’s difficult to reassert that authority.
Even when our guy is in office we must realize someone else is going to take over and so not allow them too much power and authority which can later be abused.
We need to get back more power to the states and to counties via sheriffs.
I know what I’m about to write will not sit well with most here but I agree with this article! He IS NOT an enemy combatant. To be so, you must first declare war on someone or some country or entity! As a “true” conservative I believe in limited government just as most of you and that includes limiting our government (Congress/Presidency) from simply giving the authorization for the use of force that gets us into open ended wars with no end in sight! This has ultimately led to the political correctness in our military institutions! This is a blatant dereliction of duty on behalf of Congress! We Conservatives should be arguing for the return of constitutionality which means that when you say you’re at war with someone (War on “Terror”) then the President must ask Congress for that declaration! Is it no wonder that we’re all in the mess we’re in-financially, morally, and politically??
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.