If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   So, apparently, the FBI ignored multiple requests from Boston bomber Tsarnaev for a lawyer during his interrogation   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 322
    More: Asinine, FBI, interrogations, Mirandize, multiples, citizen's arrests, fundamental rights  
•       •       •

13388 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Apr 2013 at 7:10 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



322 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-29 07:38:37 PM  
"Robert Stansbury was convicted of first-degree murder, rape,, and a lewd act on a child under the age of 14. The morning after ten-year-old Robyn Jackson had disappeared from a Baldwin Park, California, playground, a witness in Pasadena, California, had observed a large man leaving a turquoise car and throwing something into a nearby flood-control channel. The witness called the police, who discovered Jackson's body in the channel. She had been raped, strangled, and struck on the head with a blunt instrument. The police later learned that Jackson had talked to two ice-cream truck drivers, one of whom was Stansbury, shortly before she disappeared. Officers went to Stansbury's home and asked Stansbury to go to the police station to answer some questions concerning their investigation into Jackson's murder. Stansbury agreed and accepted a ride to the station in a police car."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Custodial+Interrogatio n

"The decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court have also construed this Right to Counsel Clause to mean that an impoverished, or indigent, defendant has the constitutional right to the presence of a court-appointed attorney at critical stages in the criminal proceedings. These critical stages include  Custodial Interrogation, post-indictment lineups, preliminary hearings,, trial, sentencing, and the first appeal of conviction."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/right+to+counsel
 
2013-04-29 07:38:56 PM  
Yeah even IF they get the bombs thrown out at trial, dude was party to killing a cop AND tossing explosives at federal and police agents. That alone will get him life.
 
2013-04-29 07:39:41 PM  

Amusement: Say the alleged bomber says "I want a lawyer", does that stop them from questioning him? Most suspects would STFU or in the case stop writing. Then again this is from the Guardian.


Normally, all interrogation must cease whenever the suspect requests counsel, and if the request is not honored, any further statements made must be excluded at trial (except for impeachment).  But when the suspect is being questioned under the public safety exception, they can continue questioning, even if the suspect requests counsel.
 
2013-04-29 07:39:41 PM  

Tatsuma: Weaver95: ..but at the exact same time you are saying there WAS a massive threat to the public
There could have been, which is why they tried to ascertain. Again, they had no choice but to lift the curfew once he was caught.


But that doesn't make any sense.  either there WAS a threat or there wasn't.  obviously, the cops did not believe there to be a threat, so they cancelled the curfew.  that means the public safety exception doesn't apply.  they should have gotten him a lawyer.

Weaver95: and that Tsarnaev should have been denied legal council
He had yet to be charged, he had no right to legal council. Do you think the cops need a lawyer every time they go interrogate a witness in cases?


no, he was in custody at the time.  he had every right to a lawyer and yes, I think there SHOULD be a lawyer in the room any time anyone has to speak with the police.  I know I'm never talking to a cop without a lawyer present.
 
2013-04-29 07:40:32 PM  

chrylis: Tatsuma: Do you think the cops need a lawyer every time they go interrogate a witness in cases?

Wrong question.  The proper question is whether the police have to respect a suspect's request to have an attorney present at an interrogation, and the answer in the United States is absolutely yes.


The better answer is that the remedy of a Miranda violation is suppression during the governments case. If they didn't want to use the statement anyway, the issue really does not matter.
 
2013-04-29 07:40:59 PM  

Weaver95: Tatsuma:

That is downright wrong, by the time he was in the hospital, the curfew had already been lifted, and we don't know where they could have planted or dropped bombs. They could have mailed some for all they knew.

very unlikely, and not a scenario matching the level of expertise shown by these two idiots.  if there had been any level of danger then why lift the curfew in the first place?  are you saying the cops thought there was a danger to the public and let everyone out in the streets...?  the more logical scenario is that the cops didn't believe there to BE any public danger once they'd made their capture, but they didn't feel like following the rule book 'cause they were downright PISSED OFF at the surviving bomber.


There were other, logistical reasons for not reading him his rights which may well have been in play besides the public-safety reason. One is the simple fact that Tsarnaev was seriously injured, couldn't talk for part of the time and medicated, and couldn't even be READ his rights, much less "voluntarily and knowingly" respond to them. It's very important that the suspect not only be given his rights in a timely manner but that he be able to voluntarily and knowingly acknowledge them. While a defendant won't be released because he was questioned without being given his Miranda warnings, he might be able to challenge his arrest if he was Mirandized and then questioned having "consented" while drugged or wounded. So waiting till he was conscious and alert avoided that whole mess.

Secondly, between his capture and formal questioning, Tsarnaev was certain to encounter many police, doctors, medical personnel, etc., and might or might not tell them things, or be asked questions by them (as innocuous as "Are you allergic to anything" or as incriminating as "Did you set those bombs"). There is another entire raft of case law involving what evidence may be admitted into court and what is considered a "custodial interrogation" when asked of a detained suspect by such people under such circumstances. Again, by not Mirandizing Tsarnaev immediately after his arrest, all these questions become moot--nothing he said is admissible as the fruits of interrogation.

So if he muttered to an ER doctor "Yeah, we set those bombs," there's no issue of whether that falls under the hearsay exemption, or if he said it in the ambulance, it won't be questioned as a custodial interrogation--it's as if he never said it, because he wasn't Mirandized, and so it can't be used for a confession.
 
2013-04-29 07:41:09 PM  

Triumph: But all the kid has to do is claim it's true. Then the onus is on the FBI to turn over every second of footage from the interrogations and prove otherwise. This kid's going to have defense attorneys lining up pro bono just to be the guy who got the Boston bomber case dismissed.


IANAL, but there is a zero-percent chance of this happening. They have him on video. They have physical evidence up the wazoo. The have a dead cop with iron-clad evidence of him being involved. They have his confession from during the "public safety exception" phase. They don't NEED one additional word from him to string him up, and there isn't a judge in the country who will stand in their way.
 
2013-04-29 07:41:17 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: It would be awesome if this guy was released on a technicality because there is nowhere on this planet that he could go and be safe.


1.  Our Constitutional rights are not "technicalities."

2.  He won't get released just because he didn't get advised of his Miranda rights or wasn't given access to a lawyer.  All it means is that anything he said before being read his rights or after he asked for a lawyer cannot be used against him in court.  That won't matter because it appears there is a great deal of evidence other than his own words that can be used to prosecute him.   This all seems to have been thought through quite well by police and (I hope) the U.S. Attorney, who decided that they had quite enough evidence to convict and it was important to see if they could get him to say whether there was any other immediate risk (booby traps, co-conspirators, etc.).
 
2013-04-29 07:41:36 PM  

Tatsuma: Weaver95: oh I don't think there was any further threat to public safety at that point.

Yes there could have been.

1. They could have mailed bombs to politicians or citizens
2. They could have planted bombs in the three days and a half free they had
3. They could have been working with others who had bombs and were ready to go
4. They could [fill in]

It was the FBI's job to ascertain it wasn't the case.


The same 1-4 apply to the Underwear bomber, Abdulmutallab (who actually  was working with others). But he was only questioned for 50 minutes under the public safety exception.
 
2013-04-29 07:41:50 PM  
If the FBI doesn't grant a terrorists request for a lawyer, it pretty much means that you or I could end up in GITMO for jaywalking.
 
2013-04-29 07:43:08 PM  

Tickle Mittens: Triumph: But all the kid has to do is claim it's true. Then the onus is on the FBI to turn over every second of footage from the interrogations and prove otherwise. This kid's going to have defense attorneys lining up pro bono just to be the guy who got the Boston bomber case dismissed.

No he isn't.  He's on video participating in a conspiracy to set bombs that killed a child.  Federal death penalty.  If he's smart he'll get out of everyone's way and die quickly.  There's no reason for him to subject himself to a life filled with 23 hrs a day of flourescent concrete and minimum human contact.  There's also the public safety exception in this instance since it's literally a case involving a terrorst cell of mad bombers.  He's toast.


The public safety exception means they can keep asking him questions and use the answers in court even without a miranda warnings.  It does not mean they can ignore a suspects deliberate request for legal counsel, which he has a right to.
 
2013-04-29 07:43:31 PM  

Tickle Mittens: Triumph: But all the kid has to do is claim it's true. Then the onus is on the FBI to turn over every second of footage from the interrogations and prove otherwise. This kid's going to have defense attorneys lining up pro bono just to be the guy who got the Boston bomber case dismissed.

No he isn't.  He's on video participating in a conspiracy to set bombs that killed a child people.  Federal death penalty.  If he's smart he'll get out of everyone's way and die quickly.  There's no reason for him to subject himself to a life filled with 23 hrs a day of flourescent concrete and minimum human contact.  There's also the public safety exception in this instance since it's literally a case involving a terrorst cell of mad bombers.  He's toast.


It makes no difference if the bomb killed a child or all adults does it, I mean as far as the law is concerned? I know it makes a difference to some individuals.  Children's lives are not more important than anyone elses.

Also, the bomber is not a "kid".  He's an adult.
 
2013-04-29 07:43:54 PM  

Weaver95: Tatsuma: Weaver95: ..but at the exact same time you are saying there WAS a massive threat to the public
There could have been, which is why they tried to ascertain. Again, they had no choice but to lift the curfew once he was caught.

But that doesn't make any sense.  either there WAS a threat or there wasn't.  obviously, the cops did not believe there to be a threat, so they cancelled the curfew.  that means the public safety exception doesn't apply.  they should have gotten him a lawyer.

Weaver95: and that Tsarnaev should have been denied legal council
He had yet to be charged, he had no right to legal council. Do you think the cops need a lawyer every time they go interrogate a witness in cases?

no, he was in custody at the time.  he had every right to a lawyer and yes, I think there SHOULD be a lawyer in the room any time anyone has to speak with the police.  I know I'm never talking to a cop without a lawyer present.


Dude shove it w/ the Alex Jones garbage, the curfew was for 20 blocks.  They lifted it cause they figured there wasn't any way for him to be in the area anymore and needed to redeploy the police force.
 
2013-04-29 07:44:32 PM  
There is no law that says the cops can't talk with you before they read you your Miranda rights. They can't use anything you say during the preliminary questioning in a court of law against you until they read you your Miranda rights.

In this case, they have enough video and other evidence (e.g. telling the car-jacked driver they are the bombers) that the police really need anything he says to prosecute the case.  It was more important up front to be sure there were no more bombs or terrorists that were an immediate threat to the public.
 
2013-04-29 07:46:33 PM  

gblive: There is no law that says the cops can't talk with you before they read you your Miranda rights. They can't use anything you say during the preliminary questioning in a court of law against you until they read you your Miranda rights.

In this case, they have enough video and other evidence (e.g. telling the car-jacked driver they are the bombers) that the police really need anything he says to prosecute the case.  It was more important up front to be sure there were no more bombs or terrorists that were an immediate threat to the public.


Then your missing the point.  They can talk to the suspect all they want but when that suspect says they want a lawyer guess what has to happen.
 
2013-04-29 07:47:55 PM  

The Muthaship: FTA- There is zero legal or ethical justification for denying a suspect in custody this fundamental right

Was there still a danger that he was going to die at the time?  If so, I'm okay with trying to find out if there were other present threats he knew of, even if it meant infringing on his 5th amendment rights.  Not sure about that being a legal justification, but it seems like an ethical one IMO.


You watch way too many movies.  They alreay had all of the explosives in possession and the FBI damn well knew there were no other plots.  Jack Bauer is fiction you idiot.
 
2013-04-29 07:48:02 PM  

Warlordtrooper: gblive: There is no law that says the cops can't talk with you before they read you your Miranda rights. They can't use anything you say during the preliminary questioning in a court of law against you until they read you your Miranda rights.

In this case, they have enough video and other evidence (e.g. telling the car-jacked driver they are the bombers) that the police really need anything he says to prosecute the case.  It was more important up front to be sure there were no more bombs or terrorists that were an immediate threat to the public.

Then your missing the point.  They can talk to the suspect all they want but when that suspect says they want a lawyer guess what has to happen.


"When the suspect is being questioned under the public safety exception, they can continue questioning, even if the suspect requests counsel."
 
2013-04-29 07:48:20 PM  

debug: Tickle Mittens: Triumph: But all the kid has to do is claim it's true. Then the onus is on the FBI to turn over every second of footage from the interrogations and prove otherwise. This kid's going to have defense attorneys lining up pro bono just to be the guy who got the Boston bomber case dismissed.

No he isn't.  He's on video participating in a conspiracy to set bombs that killed a child people.  Federal death penalty.  If he's smart he'll get out of everyone's way and die quickly.  There's no reason for him to subject himself to a life filled with 23 hrs a day of flourescent concrete and minimum human contact.  There's also the public safety exception in this instance since it's literally a case involving a terrorst cell of mad bombers.  He's toast.

It makes no difference if the bomb killed a child or all adults does it, I mean as far as the law is concerned? I know it makes a difference to some individuals.  Children's lives are not more important than anyone elses.

Also, the bomber is not a "kid".  He's an adult.


It is an aggravating factor at sentencing.
 
2013-04-29 07:48:57 PM  

gblive: Warlordtrooper: gblive: There is no law that says the cops can't talk with you before they read you your Miranda rights. They can't use anything you say during the preliminary questioning in a court of law against you until they read you your Miranda rights.

In this case, they have enough video and other evidence (e.g. telling the car-jacked driver they are the bombers) that the police really need anything he says to prosecute the case.  It was more important up front to be sure there were no more bombs or terrorists that were an immediate threat to the public.

Then your missing the point.  They can talk to the suspect all they want but when that suspect says they want a lawyer guess what has to happen.

"When the suspect is being questioned under the public safety exception, they can continue questioning, even if the suspect requests counsel."


And how long does the public safety exception last?
 
2013-04-29 07:49:56 PM  

Tatsuma: Weaver95: would YOU want to take that sort of risk? there was plenty of time to do this one by the numbers. they should have gotten him a lawyer.

No, they didn't have time:

1. He was in critical condition; and, more importantly
2. They didn't know if there were other devices about to explode

When they ascertained he wasn't going to die and that was it, he was mirandized and they let get a lawyer and stay silent.


I will bet you a ton of money that the FBI knew there weren't any more damn devices by the time they got this mute idiot.
 
2013-04-29 07:49:58 PM  

Theaetetus: gblive: Warlordtrooper: gblive: There is no law that says the cops can't talk with you before they read you your Miranda rights. They can't use anything you say during the preliminary questioning in a court of law against you until they read you your Miranda rights.

In this case, they have enough video and other evidence (e.g. telling the car-jacked driver they are the bombers) that the police really need anything he says to prosecute the case.  It was more important up front to be sure there were no more bombs or terrorists that were an immediate threat to the public.

Then your missing the point.  They can talk to the suspect all they want but when that suspect says they want a lawyer guess what has to happen.

"When the suspect is being questioned under the public safety exception, they can continue questioning, even if the suspect requests counsel."

And how long does the public safety exception last?


Now that is a good question.
 
2013-04-29 07:50:03 PM  
From the Miranda decision:

"If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease ... If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning."

Or else what?

No, your case is not dismissed.  The only consequence is that any incriminating statements you make cannot be used against you.
 
2013-04-29 07:50:03 PM  
I am OK with the questioning. Those that questioned him must not be a part of the criminal trial in any way.  That information must never be used against him.
 
2013-04-29 07:51:20 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: It would be awesome if this guy was released on a technicality because there is nowhere on this planet that he could go and be safe.


The same could be said for the lawyer that gets his case dismissed.
 
2013-04-29 07:51:47 PM  

Yogimus: I am OK with the questioning. Those that questioned him must not be a part of the criminal trial in any way.  That information must never be used against him.


I agree with this.
 
2013-04-29 07:54:49 PM  

gblive: Theaetetus: gblive: Warlordtrooper: gblive: There is no law that says the cops can't talk with you before they read you your Miranda rights. They can't use anything you say during the preliminary questioning in a court of law against you until they read you your Miranda rights.

In this case, they have enough video and other evidence (e.g. telling the car-jacked driver they are the bombers) that the police really need anything he says to prosecute the case.  It was more important up front to be sure there were no more bombs or terrorists that were an immediate threat to the public.

Then your missing the point.  They can talk to the suspect all they want but when that suspect says they want a lawyer guess what has to happen.

"When the suspect is being questioned under the public safety exception, they can continue questioning, even if the suspect requests counsel."

And how long does the public safety exception last?

Now that is a good question.


The idea that there even is one is theatre.  You actually think that someone involved in an active plot is going to squeal with enough chance that the FBI will get off there ass and stop it in that time?  You are living in fantasy land if you think that Jack Bauer is going to break the terrorist in just enough time to stop a plot that these guys have been planning for months for.  The only way is if the FBI catches them before it happens, everything else is just fantasy.

But by all means get rid of our rights to fulfill your Jack Bauer masteurbation fantasy.
 
2013-04-29 07:56:13 PM  
ShadowKamui:

Dude shove it w/ the Alex Jones garbage, the curfew was for 20 blocks.  They lifted it cause they figured there wasn't any way for him to be in the area anymore and needed to redeploy the police force.

yeah, it was just a small violation of everything this country stands for...I mean who REALLY needs the bill of rights?  rules?  we don't need to follow the rules!  there's a war on!
 
2013-04-29 07:56:54 PM  
I love how the article writer repeatedly said OBAMA'S DOJ. A little biased there?
 
2013-04-29 07:57:05 PM  
Just another fark-up on Fartbongo's watch.  Just remember kiddies, you chose him twice over more qualified people.
 
2013-04-29 07:57:49 PM  

Milo Minderbinder: It is an aggravating factor at sentencing.


It shouldn't.  Children's lives aren't any more important then anyone elses.  Agruably less so, actually.

Don't forget Mittigating factors like: Whether the defendant acted under extreme duress or under the substantial domination of another person.

That's going to be the defenses angle right there to try and avoid the death penalty.  Bet on it.
 
2013-04-29 07:59:13 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: Just another fark-up on Fartbongo's watch.  Just remember kiddies, you chose him twice over more qualified people.


Are you talking about Ron Paul or are you being facetious?
 
2013-04-29 08:00:40 PM  
THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!! jpg

/ except substitute Moslem guy with white guy
 
2013-04-29 08:04:13 PM  

401kman: gblive: Theaetetus: gblive: Warlordtrooper: gblive: There is no law that says the cops can't talk with you before they read you your Miranda rights. They can't use anything you say during the preliminary questioning in a court of law against you until they read you your Miranda rights.

In this case, they have enough video and other evidence (e.g. telling the car-jacked driver they are the bombers) that the police really need anything he says to prosecute the case.  It was more important up front to be sure there were no more bombs or terrorists that were an immediate threat to the public.

Then your missing the point.  They can talk to the suspect all they want but when that suspect says they want a lawyer guess what has to happen.

"When the suspect is being questioned under the public safety exception, they can continue questioning, even if the suspect requests counsel."

And how long does the public safety exception last?

Now that is a good question.

The idea that there even is one is theatre.  You actually think that someone involved in an active plot is going to squeal with enough chance that the FBI will get off there ass and stop it in that time?  You are living in fantasy land if you think that Jack Bauer is going to break the terrorist in just enough time to stop a plot that these guys have been planning for months for.  The only way is if the FBI catches them before it happens, everything else is just fantasy.

But by all means get rid of our rights to fulfill your Jack Bauer masteurbation fantasy.


The question here is what is a legitimate period of time for "public safety exception", not your twisted Jack Bauer fantasy.  Should the period be two days or two years?

You do realize that most other western nations allow suspects to be held for several days for questioning without a lawyer. For example the period in France is four days.  Most other European nations are similar.

An example - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2004-01-21/france-questions- terror-suspects -wife/123202
 
2013-04-29 08:06:01 PM  

gblive: Yogimus: I am OK with the questioning. Those that questioned him must not be a part of the criminal trial in any way.  That information must never be used against him.

I agree with this.


That prevents the harm from affecting the trial, yes... But what keeps investigators from doing this again and again in the future?

Consider if they tortured him... would a reasonable response be merely "any information they obtain can't be used at trial"? Wouldn't this give the government carte blanche to torture political prisoners, with the torture, rather than conviction, being the goal?

Or even without the torture - could the government arrest someone and question them for days, weeks, etc. about everyone they know, every financial transaction they've made, every conversation they had, etc... provided they don't use that information at trial?

In other words, is the penalty of "you can't use this information at trial" really a sufficient safeguard for the civil rights of citizens?
 
2013-04-29 08:07:38 PM  

gblive: You do realize that most other western nations allow suspects to be held for several days for questioning without a lawyer. For example the period in France is four days.  Most other European nations are similar.

An example - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2004-01-21/france-questions- terror-suspects -wife/123202


From your link:
Ms Brown's French lawyers have confirmed she has been detained but told the ABC it is routine procedure linked to her formal request to visit her husband in jail and there is no suggestion she will be charged.

I believe the law there is that they can be held for 4 days  without being charged, not without representation.
 
2013-04-29 08:10:07 PM  

debug: Tickle Mittens: Triumph: But all the kid has to do is claim it's true. Then the onus is on the FBI to turn over every second of footage from the interrogations and prove otherwise. This kid's going to have defense attorneys lining up pro bono just to be the guy who got the Boston bomber case dismissed.

No he isn't.  He's on video participating in a conspiracy to set bombs that killed a child people.  Federal death penalty.  If he's smart he'll get out of everyone's way and die quickly.  There's no reason for him to subject himself to a life filled with 23 hrs a day of flourescent concrete and minimum human contact.  There's also the public safety exception in this instance since it's literally a case involving a terrorst cell of mad bombers.  He's toast.

It makes no difference if the bomb killed a child or all adults does it, I mean as far as the law is concerned? I know it makes a difference to some individuals.  Children's lives are not more important than anyone elses.

Also, the bomber is not a "kid".  He's an adult.


Yeah it does, it makes the act that much more heinious and provocative.  Someone will take his case, someone pretty good.  They'll probably try to have the death penalty taken off the table so he can live another 60 years under crushing, inescapable psychological torture; which is sort of ironic given that they theoretically work for the defendant.  But plenty of other good lawyers can go without people calling in death threats at all hours for months.  Also, there's not going to be the least little bit of leniency when it comes to sentencing.  No judge is going to shiat-can their ambitions to be the judge who "let a child murderer off with a slap on the wrist."   The law as written may not care, beyond where a victims status as a minor is specified, but the law at every level is implimented by people.  People don't like child killers.
 
2013-04-29 08:11:29 PM  
Holder is completely out of control.
He should resign.
 
2013-04-29 08:11:48 PM  

ManateeGag: Why does it seem that people are rooting for the criminal that blew up and 8-year-old?


You sir don't deserve to live in this country.  I suggest you try another one that doesn't give suspects all the rights we enjoy here.  Hell, go for one that assumes you are guilty and it is up to you to prove your are innocent.  Get back to us and let us know how it went.
 
2013-04-29 08:11:53 PM  
dl.dropboxusercontent.com
 
2013-04-29 08:12:00 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: It would be awesome if this guy was released on a technicality because there is nowhere on this planet that he could go and be safe.


Not being Mirandized isn't a ticket for a free release, it just means they can't use the information they used during the trial. There is plenty of other evidence linking him to the crime.
 
2013-04-29 08:12:17 PM  

gblive: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2004-01-21/france-questions- terror-suspects -wife/123202


'
Ms Brown's French lawyers have confirmed she has been detained but told the ABC it is routine procedure linked to her formal request to visit her husband in jail and there is no suggestion she will be charged.

Mr Ruddock says Ms Brown has been helping French authorities for a day.

"In a situation like this, people are obliged to engage their own legal counsel and she was certainly advised well before leaving Australia that on this matter she should take legal advice before she went abroad," Mr Ruddock said.

 Did you even read that article?

I don't believe in any public safety exception because I don't think it really exists as a thing.  There should be no exception when you doing have rights in this country.  The degradation in our rights alone is a worse travesty than any potential false info obtained in under duress in a failed attempt to prevent an attack that is already going to happen.
 
2013-04-29 08:13:13 PM  

401kman: I will bet you a ton of money that the FBI knew there weren't any more damn devices by the time they got this mute idiot.


They didn't even know who he was until they got the fingerprints off of his dead brother at 1 in the morning, so no
 
2013-04-29 08:13:29 PM  

Weaver95: ShadowKamui:

Dude shove it w/ the Alex Jones garbage, the curfew was for 20 blocks.  They lifted it cause they figured there wasn't any way for him to be in the area anymore and needed to redeploy the police force.

yeah, it was just a small violation of everything this country stands for...I mean who REALLY needs the bill of rights?  rules?  we don't need to follow the rules!  there's a war on!


It's not a violation of squat no matter how much you wanna scream it is.  The lockdown being lifted is 0 proof of anything other than the cops didn't check out a boat when they were looking for him.

Even them having a ton of bombs or unused gunpowder laying around is a serious public danger regardless of if they were armed or not, so yes the public safety rule applies.  The only thing open for debate is how long can you use the public safety exemption and whuppy freaking do if they did go 5 mins over, toss out whatever he said and get on w/ the trial.  He wasn't tortured or enhanced interrogated (aka waterboarded) so you're pretty much just screaming about a minor technicality at best.
 
2013-04-29 08:13:52 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Holder is completely out of control.
He should resign.


Yes ditch him.  At best he should be making fries somewhere in Ohio.
 
2013-04-29 08:14:18 PM  

Theaetetus: gblive: Yogimus: I am OK with the questioning. Those that questioned him must not be a part of the criminal trial in any way.  That information must never be used against him.

I agree with this.

That prevents the harm from affecting the trial, yes... But what keeps investigators from doing this again and again in the future?

Consider if they tortured him... would a reasonable response be merely "any information they obtain can't be used at trial"? Wouldn't this give the government carte blanche to torture political prisoners, with the torture, rather than conviction, being the goal?

Or even without the torture - could the government arrest someone and question them for days, weeks, etc. about everyone they know, every financial transaction they've made, every conversation they had, etc... provided they don't use that information at trial?

In other words, is the penalty of "you can't use this information at trial" really a sufficient safeguard for the civil rights of citizens?


Once again you bring up a good point.  I believe that there needs to be a clear mass terrrorism event or discovery of a plot with equipment to peform mass terrorism before the "public safety exception" can be utilized.  There also needs to be some maximum timeframe in the number of days.
 
2013-04-29 08:15:08 PM  

Tatsuma: 401kman: I will bet you a ton of money that the FBI knew there weren't any more damn devices by the time they got this mute idiot.

They didn't even know who he was until they got the fingerprints off of his dead brother at 1 in the morning, so no


Yes it was over, done with, finissimo.  There was no public safety afforded by denying him his rights.
 
2013-04-29 08:15:59 PM  

Theaetetus: gblive: Yogimus: I am OK with the questioning. Those that questioned him must not be a part of the criminal trial in any way.  That information must never be used against him.

I agree with this.

That prevents the harm from affecting the trial, yes... But what keeps investigators from doing this again and again in the future?

Consider if they tortured him... would a reasonable response be merely "any information they obtain can't be used at trial"? Wouldn't this give the government carte blanche to torture political prisoners, with the torture, rather than conviction, being the goal?

Or even without the torture - could the government arrest someone and question them for days, weeks, etc. about everyone they know, every financial transaction they've made, every conversation they had, etc... provided they don't use that information at trial?

In other words, is the penalty of "you can't use this information at trial" really a sufficient safeguard for the civil rights of citizens?



You mean like the people being held in Cuba, by our government, for over 10 years now without trial?
 
2013-04-29 08:16:54 PM  
I honestly don't see any other outcome then killing him.  I don't think the laws will matter at all.
 
2013-04-29 08:17:00 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: Doktor_Zhivago: is this the same as when they didn't read him his miranda rights which turned out to be made up, or when he was arrested on the following tuesday,  or when he was a guy on a roof, or when he was two highschool track runners, or when....


The girl in that commercial is hot.
 
2013-04-29 08:17:30 PM  

ManateeGag: Why does it seem that people are rooting for the criminal that blew up and 8-year-old?


That isn't the question, there are rules, nobody wants this guy to walk, not even the people that will be assigned to his defense. However, it is important that justice be served by the strictest adherence to the law. Anything less just gives people more reasons to hate us.

Having said that, in terms of law, the only thing that could happen is any information gained during that interrogation couldn't be used at trial. Considering the kid threw explosives at cops, attempt to hit cops with a car, and fired automatic weapons at cops, I'm pretty sure they don't need him to say anything to get life in prison.
 
Displayed 50 of 322 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report