Delaying of Miranda Rights with Boston Bombing Suspect.

Did a search and didn't find anything, so excuse me if this has been posted before. I believe it deserves attention and debate on this move by the Federal Government. I want to highlight how suspension of Miranda is in effect, suspension of a few Constitutional articles and amendments.

First, here is the line from the news:
From the NY Times:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s announcement that it planned to question the Boston Marathon bombing suspect for a period without first reading him the Miranda warning of his right to remain silent and have a lawyer present has revived a constitutionally charged debate over the handling of terrorism cases in the criminal justice system.

There are some scary notions with this. First, the suspect is a naturalized citizen; he is American in that sense. By saying Miranda, the Federal Government plays loose and fast with what exactly this means, as Miranda is backed by Constitutional provisions and Rights, not just some made up legislation based on what people deal with in the instance of an arrest.

We need to know exactly what Miranda means, what is its precedents, does it always have to be applied and what is this "immediate public safety" exception that was carved out (NEW YORK v. QUARLES, 467 U.S. 649 (1984))

Miranda v. Arizona (Syllabus) was a landmark case that provided a framework for the State to follow when it comes to interrogation of a suspect, specifically, safeguards of the 5th Amendment rights of the People.

In NEW YORK v. QUARLES, 467 U.S. 649 (1984), a "public safety exception" was carved out of the Miranda ruling, giving the Government the ability to forgo a Miranda statement where "...concern for public safety must be paramount to adherence to the literal language of the prophylactic rules enunciated in Miranda.

That is the precedent that the Federal Government is using in this case, but what does Miranda (and Quarles) mean to a citizen? Does it mean he can be compelled to speak or is it merely meaning that if he gives information to the police, that it can be held against him in a court of law. The latter is the true meaning to the exception; it does not mean his 5th Amendment Rights nor his Right to have representation can be denied.

It is the later portion that worries me most as that is what the Government is saying, that this suspect has no Right to have a lawyer present or anyone for that matter. It will be the top tiered interrogation team harping him until he gives up whatever information he may or may not have. I do agree that they can question him but the scope needs to be narrow and that is where a lawyer should be present to ensure that the Government doesn't exceed its scope of questioning beyond "imminent" threats to public safety.

This isn't the first time the exception has been applied in relation to terrorism. Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab spoke freely for nearly 50-minutes and was then read his Miranda rights (which in this case, Abdulmuttalb was not a naturalized citizen as is the current suspect).

Lastly, we need to discuss if this gets treated in the civilian justice system or should he be seen as an 'enemy combatant' (which is where the NDAA provision come into play). I need to think about this whole thing.

reply to post by ownbestenemy
Not when it comes to being classified as a terrorist read the NDAA and the P you lose that right or the US GOV by choice can suspend that as was said last night by the US DA, so if you do not commit a terrorist act, you still have the right to remain silent.

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Not when it comes to being classified as a terrorist read the NDAA and the P you lose that right or the US GOV by choice can suspend that as was said last night by the US DA, so if you do not commit a terrorist act, you still have the right to remain silent.

They haven't invoked any provision of that legislation or Public Law; although McCain and Graham is really pushing for it to be done. So as of right now, he is treated as a suspect as anyone else would; with exception to the public safety rule. I know what is in the NDAA, I have debated it extensively.

You can delay Miranda, but it doesn't suspend anything. You can remain silent and absent being hauled off to a secret location to be beat until you speak, you retain your Right to remain silent.

I'd read this too and like you, I'm a very Constitutionally minded individual...as you well know.

At the same time, I'm a big fan of living another day and seeing those around me live that extra day along with me. Hence, when we get a terrorist red handed to such a degree he must still stink of the cordite and blasting agents? I'd say there is a fair case to be made for at least exploring the possibility of a ticking time bomb scenario existing.

For those unfamiliar with that term, it's the description used for a certain style of emergency scenario. It's come to refer to many things but this is rather specific for how it's usually used.

Scenario: A terrorist is picked up by accident or design, red handed and dirty beyond question. Within his head are the plans for further attacks on a preset time schedule (Nuclear is often cited for extremes) that only he and the terrorists still at large are aware of. The question becomes ...are the rights of the one more than the rights of the many in an attack which *IS* (in this scenario) coming with 100% certainty? Or...is it justifiable to use extreme interrogation or, lets just drop the euphemisms and say torture. Is it permissible when that is the *ONLY* way possible ...and then only a chance...of preventing the certain deaths of many more?

Now, given how they ran ...chucking little bombs back at the cops and having a shoot out even Bonnie and Clyde would have envied at one point, I'm guessing these aren't the Doctorate level of the terrorist community. More like the High School drop out level of thinking ....yet, still, even idiots can have friends. So....again, is it worth at least exploring the chance there is more to come?

-- I don't even suggest any absolute answers because it's too much we don't know to determine. I just suggest the possibility is one that is real in these cases and Miranda doesn't allow for getting to the bottom of.

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Not when it comes to being classified as a terrorist read the NDAA and the P you lose that right or the US GOV by choice can suspend that as was said last night by the US DA, so if you do not commit a terrorist act, you still have the right to remain silent.

so whats a terrorist act these days? pretty much anything they can class it as. so is any form of bombing now means you are a "terrorist" even if you have no affiliation with any organisation? what about just going on a killing spree? a robbery spree and killing some cops? automatically a terrorist? its such a fine line.

are we going to classify anyone who causes terror a terrorist and take away all there rights?

I posted this in a thread about 8 hours ago, hes being treated as a prisoner of war, so he has no miranda rights.

Originally posted by andy1972
I posted this in a thread about 8 hours ago, hes being treated as a prisoner of war, so he has no miranda rights.

Have any sources to that? They have, from everything I read are steering clear of declaring him an enemy combatant.

Should help shape the debate better.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


What miranda rights? we lost those a long time ago with the anti Patriot act, but is ok, he is after all a terrorist that killed 3 including a child and injured hundreds, so people will turn their head the other way and applaud the fact that rights has been taken away on an killer terrorist even if is an American citizen.

this is so god damn bull#,

Obama if you dont want us to start calling you a terrorist and kick you outa office.

man up and act like the president we wanted elected

reply to post by WanderingThe3rd


Obama is doing his job just fine, my friend, he is doing what his bosses that elected him told him to act and is doing what he was told to do.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by andy1972
I posted this in a thread about 8 hours ago, hes being treated as a prisoner of war, so he has no miranda rights.

Have any sources to that? They have, from everything I read are steering clear of declaring him an enemy combatant.

Should help shape the debate better.

That was from the front page of Yahoo here in Spain this morning. His status as an enemy prisoner ws being invoked while he ws being interviewed by high ranking FBI and CIA. They didnt want to give him the chance to keep his mouth shut.

Terror suspect to be interrogated without miranda rights

Its in Spanish so, i dont know if it helps you or no.
The option to interrogate without miranda rights exists since 1984, but was modified by Obama in 2011, allowing for long duration interegations without legal representation.
Lindsey Graham (rep) said " The last thing we want is to read the suspect his rights telling him to keep his mouth shut"...

Cnn: The government is invoking safety exception

Posted several hours ago.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Technically speaking, he'd be classed as an unlawful combatant, because he's not a member of a uniformed force and attacked illegal targets. At best he'd be brought up under treason or espionage, both of which can legally carry a summary death sentence without trial.

Can't he just give them to himself?

As soon as he's miranda-ized ... he can say 'no more without a lawyer' and they have to leave him alone.

What's stopping him from repeating the Miranda outloud to himself in the presence of others?

Most of us know the Miranda.

I'd think that counts.

I'd just say it outloud in front of everyone and then say "I've been miranda-ized and I won't speak without my court appointed lawyer present'.

Considering this guy was shot, and was labeled in serious condition don't a person have to be conscious, and fully aware before being read his miranda rights?

Some people want to deny him those rights all together, some want this guy declared an enemy combatant for sure.

Would not want to be in his shoes, but I ain't dumb enough to go around bombing, and running from the police.

Personally, I tend to look at things in black and white. We have a Constitution, and a citizen is afforded the rights therein. From what I gather, this alleged terrorist is a naturalized citizen. Legally speaking, any interrogation or confession would be deemed inadmissable if it turns out he was not given his Miranda Rights. He is suspected of killing 4 people, and maiming and mutilating scores of others. In other words, he is a beast. My personal opinion of him is my own, but he should still be afforded his Miranda Rights.

Furthermore, he is in no position to cooperate anyway. Last I heard, he remains in critical condition, and is probably highly medicated. I realize we need to find out what happened, and get to the bottom of this. Although, we do have laws and protections guaranteed by the Constitution that men and women fought and died for. We are going to foresake their memory, and dishonor their sacrifice every time something like this comes along? I say no! We should make every effort to preserve the principles set forth in the Constitution even when it could be deemed unpopular, inconvenient, or unnecessary.

That document is over 200-years-old, and it has served this country and its' citizens well. Lets stop ruffling the very fabric of this country. For those that love living in the gray area? Great! However, refrain from pouting when they start finding excuses to suspend your rights and protections set forth in the Constitution. Keep on giving them inches, and watch take miles. The buck has to stop somewhere.

as I said in the other thread, Miranda does not grant any rights.

You always have them, miranda just informs you of them, this man still has his rights.

This one is going to be worth looking at and waiting to see how the government is going to play it out.

Because it was a bomb he is a terrorist, that is my understanding beside the links to been a muslim, but we don't know what links to terrorist groups he had, but would that been the same if he and his brother just opened fired on the crowd with an automatic weapon?

What is the difference.

Say whatever you want but my opinion is when you act like an idiot and kill innocent people you lose all your rights not only as a citizen but as a human being..if you have no emotion then you get none in return.

I dont buy all the conspiracy theory on this one..I have questions about 9/11 and think alot of info was withheld from the public on both 9/11 and the school shooting but there may be very good reason that info was withheld.

With this situation these brothers did the evil acts and they can be tortured for all i care..I still have my rights and you want to know why ? because im not an idiot ...Treat others how you want to be treated..my momma taught me that.

Do whatever you please with the terrorist..and yeah maybe terrorist can become a loose given label but i dont see any law abiding citizens being deemed terrorists so alot of people need to stop with the nonsense of blaming the government and law for every little thing..they wont even be encountered through your day if you act right.

I was just discussing this same issue with a friend of mine. He seemed to think it was a ploy to get the public used to not having their Miranda rights anymore. Just another nail in the coffin of the constitution.

The one and only time I got arrested, I demanded my Miranda rights from the cop that was dragging me by the hair from one cell to the other. He told me I had no rights and judging by how I was treated, I believed him. I think everyone should spend a night in jail just so they know how things really work when it comes to the cops.