Boston Bombers: Murderers or Terrorists?

[byu71]

Either we are all equal before the law, or the Constitution of the United States of America is an old piece of toilet paper.

The people who agree with you on this are the same people who think the Constitution is subject to interpretation, outdated and drawn up by a bunch of bigots. It is an old piece of toilet papter until their interpretation fits their need to strongly uphold it.

[Coach McGuirk]

I'm not following the Miranda rights controversy. I'm thinking they likely have enough evidence to prosecute him without needing his confession. Is he giving information to the authorities without having his Miranda rights read first?

Now, I'm not a criminal attorney, but Miranda rights aren't necessary for arresting someone. They're necessary for questioning someone in custody.

It seems he's not being interviewed and providing information in writing. Is there any reason to believe the investigators didn't read him his Miranda rights before they started questioning him? Seriously, what's with all the concern over his Miranda rights?

Now, the DOJ has announced that Tsarnaev will not be read his Miranda rights, citing the “public danger” exception in the 5^th Amendment. But the language in the amendment doesn’t remotely apply to this situation, nor is it even related to the protection against being a witness against oneself. It reads,

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

First of all, Tsarnaev is not in the Army, Navy or militia. Even if he were, the language would only have applied if Tsarnaev had been observed with the bomb in his hands just before committing the crime. The exception gives law enforcement the power to arrest him without first getting a Grand Jury indictment under those circumstances. It doesn’t release the government from the prohibition against compelling Tsarnaev to be a witness against himself after his arrest, which is the basis for Miranda.

If Tsarnaev is guilty, then the public danger was over once he was arrested. The government has no authority to waive any of its obligations for due process. He should be read his rights and allowed to remain silent without molestation. He should have an arraignment where he is given the opportunity to hear the charges against him and enter a plea of guilty or not guilty. If he is unable to afford a lawyer, one should be assigned to him at public expense. His guilt should be decided by a jury of his peers, not the government or the media.

The Bill of Rights was written for Dzhokar Tsarnaev. It wasn’t written for those suspected of minor violations.

http://c.washingtontimes.com/neighbo...okar-tsarnaev/

[Eddie]

Either way they should be tried as US citizens and be read miranda rights. But really the Bill of Rights doesn't exist anymore anyway.

I'm not following the Miranda rights controversy. I'm thinking they likely have enough evidence to prosecute him without needing his confession. Is he giving information to the authorities without having his Miranda rights read first?

Now, I'm not a criminal attorney, but Miranda rights aren't necessary for arresting someone. They're necessary for questioning someone in custody.

It seems he's not being interviewed and providing information in writing. Is there any reason to believe the investigators didn't read him his Miranda rights before they started questioning him? Seriously, what's with all the concern over his Miranda rights?

I thought that the Miranda Rights were about not incriminating yourself. So - if they have enough evidence that they aren't planning to use any statements from him in court, then is there a need for Miranda?

I also wonder if they are hoping that by not telling him he has the right to remain silent they may get information from him that would allow them to go after someone else. Did someone provide training? Supplies? Money? Was anyone else involved or did anyone else know about the plan and not report it to authorities?

I'm no attorney - so I could be very wrong. But I get the impression this isn't about him not having rights, it is about LE knowing that they have all kinds of physical evidence to go with the bombs he was throwing at them during the car chase / shoot out and don't care what he has to say when it comes to providing evidence to prosecute him. But they want info on anyone else involved. And they aren't protected by his Miranda rights.

[SoCalCoug]

http://c.washingtontimes.com/neighbo...okar-tsarnaev/

So I guess they want to treat him as a foreign combatant and torture him? Is that it?

[Coach McGuirk]

So I guess they want to treat him as a foreign combatant and torture him? Is that it?

pretty much.

[byu71]

pretty much.

I am NOT for torturing him. That would piss off a lot of Jihadist's. We have already pissed off a lot of Jihadists with the drone strikes. If we hadn't been doing those who knows, maybe these two would have ended up being very productive citizens and done great things.

[Uncle Ted]

Because we are a civilized people. Either we are all equal before the law, or the Constitution of the United States of America is an old piece of toilet paper. He is a citizen, whether by birth or recent adoption; he has rights the same as any other citizen, rights so important that we wrote them down and made them the law of the land. The rights are the same for what he did and the pot smoker; the punishments will not be.

Don't worry... the white house is apparently doing the right thing and won't be trying him as an enemy combatant (according to the AP). They most likely figure they can't beat a lot of the kid anyways since he was just following his older brother around like a puppy.

[woot]

The people who agree with you on this are the same people who think the Constitution is subject to interpretation, outdated and drawn up by a bunch of bigots. It is an old piece of toilet papter until their interpretation fits their need to strongly uphold it.

Wait so you don't agree that constitution should change with the times? Are you not in favor of women, blacks, and non-landowners voting? Seems like a weird argument.

[byu71]

Wait so you don't agree that constitution should change with the times? Are you not in favor of women, blacks, and non-landowners voting? Seems like a weird argument.

Seriously???? That is what you got form what I said, that women and blacks, etc. shouldn't be able to vote??? Besides these are amendments and thus part of the constitution, right??

What I am saying is people who on one hand say it is a living document to be changed and interpreted and then say in this case, we are violating the sacred constitution. I am not a fan of an elite class who think they know it all.

[Blueintheface]

How will the Feds go after them? With reckless abandon.

My guess is that the signers of the Constitution wanted exactly what is stated in the Constitution to apply to all citizens regardless of alleged crime (duh!) and thus they be tried as murderers with due process under the law. I would also have to suppose these same men would be appalled that in just over 200 years we've managed to allow a government, not too dissimilar to King George's, to circumvent the Constitution with impunity while pacifying its citizenry into believing it's for the greater good.

[wuapinmon]

The people who agree with you on this are the same people who think the Constitution is subject to interpretation, outdated and drawn up by a bunch of bigots. It is an old piece of toilet papter until their interpretation fits their need to strongly uphold it.

I think some things needs updating, which we've done as a nation, from time to time. via the amendment process. However, the Bill of Rights, to me, is sacrosanct. Of course, I'm one of those moderates that neither side cares about.

[byu71]

I think some things needs updating, which we've done as a nation, from time to time. via the amendment process. However, the Bill of Rights, to me, is sacrosanct. Of course, I'm one of those moderates that neither side cares about.

We both can agree on how important the Bill of Rights is and why both of us applaud the Senate for not passing that crazy gun law.

[Indy Coug]

Bomber will not be tried as enemy combatant:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/22/white-house-says-boston-bombing-suspect-will-not-be-treated-as-enemy-combatant/

[wuapinmon]

We both can agree on how important the Bill of Rights is and why both of us applaud the Senate for not passing that crazy gun law.

Of course. I think that when we try to limit the rights of some, we wind up limiting our own. I'd love to see the SCOTUS hand down some harsh judgments against Presidents who seek to abuse executive power. Roberts was seething against Obama for relying on the courts to do his political dirty work vis a vis DOMA. It'd be great if that leash broke.

[Uncle Ted]

Bomber will not be tried as enemy combatant:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...emy-combatant/

Given that fox is now reporting it must be true.