CNN: "The government is invoking the public safety exception to question Tsarnaev"

www.cnn.com...

The title of this post a quote from the middle of the CNN article, where they discuss this issue at a very surface level.

This is a very dangerous precedent IMHO. Tsarnaev is a citizen of the USA. However grievous the crimes he is accused of are, it is a very slippery slope if exceptions to our law of "innocent until proven guilty" are made.

en.wikipedia.org...

Even if he was not a citizen, I would of course argue the same thing. But the fact that he is a citizen eliminates some of the arguments that might be made against what I am saying - that's the only reason I bring that up.

The primary goal of terrorist acts against this great country are to undermine the foundations of our country and to weaken us in this manner. And this right of law is one of the most important and powerful foundations.

Paradoxically, if we allow an exception to be made and this law to be relaxed in his case - guess what - they have accomplished their goal.

NDAA, he's probably already dead.

The exception has been around for years, I would say that in this case its use is warranted.

It does not mean the Miranda rights do not exist to the suspect, just that he need not be informed of them, and that information he gives will not be thrown out for not having had his rights read to him.

FBI The public safety exception

The Supreme Court chose to address whether a public safety exception to Miranda should exist. In this regard, the Court held that: "there is a 'public safety' exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a suspect's answers may be admitted into evidence, and the exception does not depend upon the motivation of the individual officers involved."25 Thus, according to the Court, without regard to the actual motivation of the individual officers, Miranda need not be strictly followed in situations "in which police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety."26

eta

The Quarles Court made clear that only those questions necessary for the police "to secure their own safety or the safety of the public" were permitted under the public safety exception.

It is a very limited exception, as he may have hidden other devices around there is a real concern for safety.

i look at this event as a story told by the media like a movie. In this case it involved real people. the story says two guys made two bombs that killed 3 people. the government conducted a man hunt posting pictures validating the many surveillance cameras that have been put up. they involved the public to be informants to rat out the bad guys, there was a massive manhunt which involved shoot outs that killed more people including one of the bad guys and the government captured the other bad guy. now they will violate his rights as a citizen cuz he's a terrorist. he will suffer torture. during the manhunt police state tactics were used to 'protect the citizens' while they surrounded the bad guy. men in black uniforms backed by armored vehicles showed an impressive display of power. now i see this in the head lines


news.yahoo.com...

hurrah!!!! i feel safer. thank you good guys!!!!!

how many people have we bombed and killed with drones?
dont me get wrong im sorry about the 3 people that died in the bombing and the wounded. they have to deal with the trauma of the event for years to come.

but please do we even know whats real anymore? for all we know this could have been a covert op. there were bomb sniffing dogs in the area why didnt they pick up the bombs?

ever since the treason of 9/11 i dont trust anything except that the government has been working towards a police state for us to be ruled in a fascist state and this whole event displayed what that future will look like

reply to post by benrl


Yes, I understand this and believe me I am torn. However, my main concern is that this "exception" could be abused to allow for extreme and unusual questioning of Tsarnaev under physical and/or psychological duress, without any legal protection for him.

Honestly, I don't know what the right thing is for the feds to do in this case. I started this post because I thought a healthy debate on this topic is appropriate.

A part of me feels that they should in fact question him "under duress" without any protection in order to get whatever information they can, in case they find out info that there might be other attacks coming, or info on bombs that were planted that they haven't discovered yet. However, he is severely injured and even if they aren't "actively" torturing him, etc - if they are questioning him while he is still in a severely injured state, and probably pumped full of all kinds of painkillers and who knows what other drugs in the hospital, this seems to me to be a violation of our basic laws around interrogation.

One question to ask is whether any information he has to give under such duress will be more valuable than protecting our basic freedoms as a highly civilized country, if we violate such freedoms by questioning him in this condition.

reply to post by PhysicsAlive


I'm sure this kind of thing has been done before, at least in america - seems right and makes me wonder how good our memories are. All the main percentage of MSM is to condition and distort perspective on a constant basis. Sometimes there is a lull but only because the next scene is being set up, fated or not. Suffering sells their approval and the audience claps.

reply to post by zyrktec


Exactly!!!!! Star for you!!! I hope he's allowed innocent until proven otherwise...but like you said..with all the bull and lies from Washington...what do we as people believe anymore!??? It's scary. As I was educating some dumb---Y's on another post.. It takes more then Washington, police, FBI to investigate this because....if all the rotten inconsistencies are true...it takes people like us..the non-MSM to try and find out exactly what's going on so it does not affect us. Or, if it does affect us...why? What's the end game. Like 911!!

Economy crashes here in the US..the dollar fails,..all the ammo being bought...something's going on and I'm not leaving it to the MSM to educate me into war!!!!

Originally posted by PhysicsAlive
reply to post by benrl

 

Yes, I understand this and believe me I am torn. However, my main concern is that this "exception" could be abused to allow for extreme and unusual questioning of Tsarnaev under physical and/or psychological duress, without any legal protection for him.

Honestly, I don't know what the right thing is for the feds to do in this case. I started this post because I thought a healthy debate on this topic is appropriate.

A part of me feels that they should in fact question him "under duress" without any protection in order to get whatever information they can, in case they find out info that there might be other attacks coming, or info on bombs that were planted that they haven't discovered yet. However, he is severely injured and even if they aren't "actively" torturing him, etc - if they are questioning him while he is still in a severely injured state, and probably pumped full of all kinds of painkillers and who knows what other drugs in the hospital, this seems to me to be a violation of our basic laws around interrogation.

One question to ask is whether any information he has to give under such duress will be more valuable than protecting our basic freedoms as a highly civilized country, if we violate such freedoms by questioning him in this condition.

As I said the exception covers very clear perimeters, directly involved with public safety.

NO where does it allow for "enhanced interrogation" (torture) Like you suggest, nor does it take away the suspects rights, it simply allows for answers obtained during questioning not to be thrown out of court for not being mirandized.

He could be held and questioned with out his lawyer only in regards to direct public safety, meaning they can only ask him questions say about possible devices he left else where.

Anything else would be thrown out, read the link I posted, the mans rights are intact.

The Fifth Amendment provides that "[n]o person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."15 The Fifth Amendment "does not prohibit all incriminating admissions," only those that are "officially coerced selfaccusations…." 16 In Miranda, the Supreme Court "for the first time extended the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination to individuals subjected to custodial interrogation by the police."17 Thus, Miranda created a presumption that "interrogation in custodial circumstances is inherently coercive" and that statements obtained under those circumstances "are inadmissible unless the subject is specifically informed of his Miranda rights and freely decides to forgo those rights."18 Importantly, the Court noted that Miranda warnings were not required by the Constitution, but were prophylactic measures designed to provide protection for the Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination. 19 After providing this explanation of the relationship between the Fifth Amendment and Miranda, the Court explained that Quarles did not claim that his statements were "actually compelled by police conduct which overcame his will to resist."20 Had police officers obtained an involuntary or coerced statement from Quarles in violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, both the statement and the handgun would have been suppressed. 21 And, in this regard, the Court explained that the failure to administer Miranda warnings does not, standing alone, make a confession involuntary in violation of the Constitution.

Originally posted by Tindalos2013
reply to post by PhysicsAlive

 

I'm sure this kind of thing has been done before, at least in america - seems right and makes me wonder how good our memories are. All the main percentage of MSM is to condition and distort perspective on a constant basis. Sometimes there is a lull but only because the next scene is being set up, fated or not. Suffering sells their approval and the audience claps.

edit on 20-4-2013 by Tindalos2013 because: missed typing an 's'

YES its used all the time by police, Ill give you an example.

Police raid an apt building, they capture a suspect at the door, but they hear movement further in the house, Guess what they can ask the suspect they got first who else is in the house.

NO miranda, just asking a suspect questions that DIRECTLY effect their safety and that of the public,

in this case its more sensational than my example, so of course ATS sees conspiracy and shadows behind everything, but its a fairly common procedural thing that happens.

reply to post by benrl


benrl,

I really appreciate your excellent and very well informed replies to my OP. What you have to say makes me feel tons better about the current situation and these issues.

I really hope that the authorities that are questioning him abide by these laws that you described in detail, as they do make common sense.

Your response and this type of information and communication is one of the things that I believe is a great example of ATS at its best. You are very well informed and what you provided is very useful information, not just for me but for anyone reading this thread. Thank you!

I still am skeptical that the authorities will play by the legal rules. I imagine this guy might end up waterboarded or worse, to try to extract info from him. But, I now see this particular law regarding the "public safety exception" is unrelated to this, and hopefully they will play by the rules.

reply to post by PhysicsAlive


My concern is him making it to trial, I fear an angry Bostonian (Police or otherwise) taking revenge on the man before he can have his day in court.

The victims and the US populace deserves to know the details that only a trial could provide. The fact that they announced they had taken this tactic makes me feel a little better about the transparency involved

I didn't know that there was such an exemption.
I have to say .. when I first heard about it this morning, it made me uneasy.

I understand having to find all this guys bombs and such to make things immediately safe.
And I understand that we are at war with terrorists and that he's got helpful info that we need.

But is this guy an enemy combatant or is he an American citizen with Constitutional rights?
Which is it? It's got to be one or the other, right?

I dunno ....

Most likely every old elite is getting a chance at him... the most gruesome torcher ever, on a teen kid

Just a tidbit of things to come in neonazi America.

I think it is important that we remember that this exception is to the "Miranda Warning" ONLY.. NOT a persons rights..

Those rights exist and Miranda Warning or not, remain

NOT advising a subject of their Miranda Rights does NOT in anyway remove the rights inherent in the Constitution..

Semper

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I didn't know that there was such an exemption.
I have to say .. when I first heard about it this morning, it made me uneasy.

I understand having to find all this guys bombs and such to make things immediately safe.
And I understand that we are at war with terrorists and that he's got helpful info that we need.

But is this guy an enemy combatant or is he an American citizen with Constitutional rights?
Which is it? It's got to be one or the other, right?

I dunno ....

He has rights, even if hes not told of them, their still there.

Miranda is really just a reminder, NOT a tool that gives you rights.

He can still remain silent, he can still plead the 5th, even with this exception it does not remove any rights from a person at all.

The exception is a procedural tool so that information obtained in a dire circumstance is not thrown out for having missed the miranda.

Say he tells them where a bomb is under this exception, that bomb can still be used as evidence in court even though the man was not informed of his rights.

IT is an extremely narrow tool that only relates to immediate danger, a bomb in a public place would count.

Could they have also done this so he doesn't
"lawyer up" before they have a chance to question (torture) him?

queue ACLU in 3...2...1..

Originally posted by FidelityMusic
NDAA, he's probably already dead.

From the recent pictures i would agree, body yellow not moving his arms, part of the body opened?

Originally posted by Thunderheart
Could they have also done this so he doesn't
"lawyer up" before they have a chance to question (torture) him?

queue ACLU in 3...2...1..

Alright ill reiterate this one more time, than im outta of this thread.

as the example that set the legal precedents states

Had police officers obtained an involuntary or coerced statement from Quarles in violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, both the statement and the handgun would have been suppressed

Anything gotten in a manner that violates his rights will be thrown out, the only thing being waved here is the reminder of those rights, nothing more nothing less.

I can't make that simpler to understand unless I whip out the crayons and start drawing pictures.

reply to post by PhysicsAlive

Got arrested for a unpaid parking ticket 2 years ago. LAPD did not read my rights, nor any one else i asked during
my 14 hour detention. Wake up people, ask around, Miranda Rights are a thing of the past.

Can't he just give the Miranda 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'.

Or like was posted before .. just say 'I wont' speak wihtout my court appointed lawyer present'. He's got those rights anyways .. the miranda is just a reminder, right??