Tsarnaev awake and responding in writing

When I first heard this, I thought, "HOW CONVENIENT".

CNN is now reporting that he is conscious and has already responded to some questioning, which I am very curious as to what.

They also have not miranized him, which I'm hearing will be in 4 more days.

How constitutional is that??

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

So let me get this right .. .. They are basically questioning him. Does he have a lawyer present and did they read him his rights?

Nope. They are saying that they are allowed to question him for four days before reading his Miranda rights, due to a statute known as 'Public Safety" ( I'm not sure).

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
friday morning i made the prediction to some family members that they will say there are more cells and bombs as a way to establish marshal law in other cities.

anyone could be "guilty", neighbors will report those with guns, they'll be targeted and their guns taken "temporarily" for safety.

this was a test. it is mightily convenient that he can only write. i for one question how he got out of the boat on his own power with a bullet through his neck/vocal cords.

the only question left is: "which city will be next". i think they'll go for a city that has a few more gun owners to condition people in how to react.

Good point!!

I also wondered how he was able to get out of the boat on his own accord if he has a 'self-inflicted' gun shot wound to the throat...

and also mighty convenient that this 'self-inflicted' throat wound has only been mentioned when he becomes stable enough to talk...

Wow....

Anyone else notice the wording manipulation?? (not the OP but the source)

From the yahoo article:

Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is awake and "responding sporadically in writing to questions ... about other cell members and other unexploded bombs, " law enforcement sources told ABC News on Sunday evening.

Notice that?? The ...

reply to post by OneisOne


You are absolutely correct...Easy to miss. I am curious as to what they have asked and what all he has decided to respond to.

Can this questioning be videoed?

Originally posted by ButterCookie
reply to post by OneisOne

 

You are absolutely correct...Easy to miss. I am curious as to what they have asked and what all he has decided to respond to.

Can this questioning be videoed?

I'm curious too.

And I'm sure they are video taping, but I really doubt the public would will ever see that footage.

reply to post by ButterCookie

Originally posted by ButterCookie
They are saying that they are allowed to question him for four days before reading his Miranda rights, due to a statute known as 'Public Safety" ( I'm not sure).

This is true. If there are unexploded bombs or if the suspect knows about further plans by other agents to harm citizens, then the Miranda rights can be legally postponed. That's all fine. They can use his statements as evidence. (I am still checking facts here.)

Once they determine that there is no threat to public safety, he'll get his Miranda rights read and access to a lawyer. (Ideally)

The strength of the Miranda decision is its clarity in its nearly unwavering protection of a suspect's Fifth Amendment protection against selfincrimination. The commitment to this rule is so strong that the Supreme Court has recognized only one exception to the Miranda rule—the "public safety" exception—which permits law enforcement to engage in a limited and focused unwarned interrogation and allows the government to introduce the statement as direct evidence.

The Public Safety Exception

There is also a "public safety" exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before questioning: for example, if the defendant is in possession of information regarding the location of an unattended gun or there are other similar exigent circumstances which require protection of the public, the defendant may be questioned without warning and his responses, though incriminating, will be admissible in evidence (see New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984)). In 2009 the California Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Richard Allen Davis, finding that the public safety exception applied despite the fact that 64 days had passed from the disappearance of the girl later found to be murdered.

Miranda v. Arizona

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Thanks for that information!!

No updates on anything he has stated so far?

reply to post by idmonster


I wasn't implying that with the ammunition, just going on the radical right angle the govt and libs are pushing, but you make a good point. I didn't even consider that when that went down. I thought it was a really odd thing that the fertilizer plant exploded but didn't give it a second thought.. now it's a little concerning. I need to find the thread on that here there might be a lot more to that.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Not just the public safety exception, also....NDAA 2012, where they can label him an enemy combatant (even as a US Citizen) and hold him indefinitely, etc.

en.wikipedia.org...

includes the power to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person (including a U.S. citizen[13][21]) "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners", and anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies in aid of such enemy forces, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]". The text authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin", or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity".[22]

Not only unconstitutional, but illegal under International law as well, in my opinion, but law it is.

reply to post by ButterCookie

Neither source would say what, if anything, Tsarnaev has been telling investigators about his alleged role in the bombing that killed three and wounded more than 170 a week ago Monday.

CNN.

reply to post by Gazrok


Even though some are suggesting the US hold him as an enemy combatant, they aren't doing that. Yet. They're just talking about it. I agree it would be unconstitutional.

reply to post by ButterCookie


Well, it is pretty impossible to talk with a tube down your throat. I remember when my wife had one, she had to write everything. Agreed though, sure is convenient and makes you wonder if an aimed or stray shot.

reply to post by Gazrok


Very true!!

Watching CNN: They said they are now putting him on a 'Sedation Holiday", which they described as easing up on the sedatives, ask questions, get answers, then heavily sedate him back up.

So far the questions they have asked him are: What kind of books have you read lately? Was there anyone helping you?

Just sharing the updates in the case.

What honestly surprises me the most is the fact that he is answering questions so easily. I guess this would be a new breed of "Terrorist" in which they will answer all your questions which has me a little bit concerned - would it be a set up of some kind? Or is he really giving up after all that?

reply to post by OneisOne


Yes that's what I was getting at ]HERE, Even if there is nothing to it it could be used to fear monger by theorists or it could be used to create fear by the media if they decided to run with it.

reply to post by MystiqueAgent


He's 19, and his brother was killed in a shootout, and he nearly was...if he was nonchalant before, I'm pretty sure all of that broke him pretty good. It wouldn't surprise me that he'd sing....to be honest.

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

So let me get this right .. .. They are basically questioning him. Does he have a lawyer present and did they read him his rights?

No on both counts. They would also like to revoke his right to a defense during trial. Cool huh?

Originally posted by Gazrok
It wouldn't surprise me that he'd sing....to be honest.

To something in particular or to anything they told him would go in his favour should he admit to it? It seems pretty certain that he's guilty (at least that's the gist of it), so everything else has been reduced to a mere formality.

Unless someone would like to show how this man is being treated as innocent until proven guilty? I won't hold my breath.

As far as I can see guilt has already been determined. All that's left is the ins and outs, and those are of little consiquence when you have the guilty party, who can be questioned, tried and locked up without ever speaking a word.

reply to post by Gazrok


Hmm good point I forgot he was only 19 as well but I figured they would have had some ultimatium planned if one of them didn't make it, if none of them made it or if both of them didn't make it.