
Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights? - mojaveblues
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/04/dzhokhar_tsarnaev_and_miranda_rights_the_public_safety_exception_and_terrorism.html
======
hncommenter13
You shouldn't care. Because not reading someone under arrest the Miranda
warning is constitutionally irrelevant in and of itself. It only acquires
relevance if the government seeks to have the statements admitted at trial.

Discussing the similar case of Faisal Shahzad, who attempted to bomb Times
Square, Orin Kerr, a law professor who is an expert on the 4th Amendment
wrote:

"Importantly, though, it would not have violated Shahzad’s constitutional
rights to not read him his Miranda rights. A lot of people assume that the
police are required to read a suspect his rights when he is arrested. That is,
they assume that one of a person’s rights is the right to be read their
rights. It often happens that way on Law & Order, but that’s not what the law
actually requires. Under Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003), it is lawful
for the police to not read a suspect his Miranda rights, interrogate him, and
then obtain a statement that would be inadmissible in court. Chavez holds that
a person’s constitutional rights are violated only if the prosecution tries to
have the statement admitted in court. See id. at 772-73. Indeed, the
prosecution is even allowed to admit any physical evidence discovered as a
fruit of the statement obtained in violation of Miranda — only the actual
statement is excluded. See United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004). So
while it may sound weird, it turns out that obtaining a statement outside
Miranda but not admitting it in court is lawful."

Oops, link: <http://www.volokh.com/2010/05/05/shahzad-and-miranda-rights/>

~~~
lbarrow
Being read your Miranda rights also serves as an explicit acknowledgement by
the state that you have those rights. Most of the time, this isn't really
important, but in this case it would have served a very important purpose.

The Bush administration systematically created a legal netherworld for people
they captured on suspicion of terrorism -- people usually referred to as
"enemy combatants". They weren't arrested per se, so they weren't entitled to
a trial, lawyers, or even the basic rights we associate with a criminal trial
such as protection against self-incrimination (i.e. the right to remain
silent). On the other hand, the administration argued they weren't prisoners
of war either, so the Geneva Convention didn't apply to them.

By defining enemy combatants in this negative way -- in terms of what they are
_not_ \-- the Bush administration pushed enemy combatant status into a grey
area where no pre-existing legal rules seemed to apply. That's how they argued
that torture was legal: they said that laws prohibiting torture only applied
to prisoners of war or people charged with crimes, and that because enemy
combatants weren't either of those things, they could legally be tortured.

If they had read this guy his Miranda rights, the Obama administration would
have made it clear that they would treat his future as a police matter and
that they were rejecting the enemy combatant framework in this case. They
failed to do that, and I think it's a wasted opportunity.

(By the way, when justifying drone strikes and the courtroom procedures at
Guantanamo Bay, the Obama administration has continued the enemy combatant
framework that Bush's lawyers established.)

~~~
newbie12
Don't blame Bush, the Obama administration Justice department created the
Miranda exception for "operational terrorists". This has nothing to do with
enemy combatants; rather, there is the possibility that an active terror
suspect on US soil has information about an active threat to public safety,
and the police have a right (and duty) to question him about possible threats.

~~~
pfortuny
They have the duty to do that, only he has the right not to answer, despite
not having been told so. You have to defend even terrorists' rights if you
want yours to stand.

~~~
dsfasfasf
>>You have to defend even terrorists' rights if you want yours to stand.

Completely agree with this. Unfortunately most people are too stupid to
realize that in order to protect your constitutionals rights you must also
protect the rights of people you do not like, i.e. hate spouting religious
extremists, of any religion. Even the rights of killers like the Boston
bombers must be protected if we want ours to be protected.

~~~
sliverstorm
I'm with you as far as _suspects_. _Suspects_ should have their rights
protected. Convicted felons, however, we _already_ deny a number of
constitutional rights de-facto. E.g., right to bear arms and freedom of
travel.

~~~
ComputerGuru
Please tell me when he was convicted?

I do not know if you were simply clarifying the parent post or actually
referring to the Boston bomber, but the fact of the matter is, you become a
"convicted felon" when you've found guilty in the court of law.

~~~
sliverstorm
Clarifying parent. I know this individual has not been convicted yet, and ergo
is not a convinced felon. Just responding to this:

 _you must also protect the rights of people you do not like. Even the rights
of killers ... must be protected if we want ours to be protected._

------
michaelhoffman
Sir Thomas More: What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get
after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned
'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This
country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not
God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you
really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes,
I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

~~~
habosa
I had not heard that quote before but it really spoke to me. That's a very
articulate statement of why Guantanamo and other modern injustices "in the
name of freedom" are simply not so. I want every despicable terrorist to have
a fair trial so that when my time in court comes (if it ever does) I know I'll
have a fair chance.

~~~
onosendai
It's from a play called 'A Man for All Seasons', doesn't diminish its
relevance though.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Man_for_All_Seasons#Themes>

------
InclinedPlane
Jesus people. Read about what the "public safety exception" actually is before
going all police-state-paranoid.

If the FBI or police try to misuse or abuse the public safety exception to
attempt to get Tsarnaev to incriminate himself then they are going to have
some fun times in court and get their asses handed to them. I'm skeptical that
that's what's happening. I'm also skeptical that he's not been read his rights
before being interrogated. Let's keep our heads on straight and avoid
operating on incomplete data.

~~~
ghayes
"Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will not hear his Miranda rights before the FBI questions
him Friday night" [id.]

This implies he'll be going through a potentially long interrogation with the
FBI that may be admittable as evidence, without having been given a Miranda
warning. There is definitely something about this application of the "public
safety exception", and the stare decisis discussed in the article, that gives
cause for concern. We generally prefer citizens to know of their fifth
amendment protections prior to a custodial interrogation. The fact he was in
possession of a weapon or other armaments in his person should not defeat this
aim.

~~~
cube13
>This implies he'll be going through a potentially long interrogation with the
FBI that may be admittable as evidence, without having been given a Miranda
warning.

Any statements before the Miranda warning are inadmissable in court:

<http://www.volokh.com/2010/05/05/shahzad-and-miranda-rights/>

~~~
ghayes
"if the defendant is in possession of information regarding ... 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"[1]

The public safety exception allows for some latitude for police to gather
admissible information prior to giving a miranda warning.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona>

~~~
eropple
This is correct. However, as I understand it, a defense attorney can throw
holy hell to prevent the admission of such statements in court and has a
decent chance of winning.

They don't need him to say a word to convict him of a staggering number and
severity of crimes. I would be surprised if they even bother trying to admit
as evidence anything he says during interrogation, and after chatting with a
couple of con-law lawyers who all concurred I feel that's a pretty fair guess.

------
alan_cx
There is literally no point having rights at all if there are exceptions to
those rights which can be used but authority when things get difficult or
controversial. A right is universal, if there is an exception, its is no
longer universal, there for no longer a right. If a right is not universal, it
becomes a privilege.

The whole point of rights is to protect individuals when things get difficult,
when people's emotions or political bias over ride actual justice.

When everything is normal and fine, what do you need rights for? Nothing what
so ever. You only rely on them in the extremes, when things go wrong or when
you are being unfairly treated by the state (or business). But that is exactly
when government, law enforcement, etc want to suspend them, and they do. So,
in the end, it become totally pointless.

~~~
eggnet
Let's cut to the chase, what if, as in this case, granting an individual their
full rights could deprive others of their rights, like the right to not be
blown up by another bomb?

You are suggesting that rights only have value if there are no exceptions to
those rights. I disagree.

Rights have value, but there must be a way to assign value to each individual
right for each person, otherwise, when you cannot grant everyone in society
all of their rights simultaneously, how do you decide who gets which rights
and who does not?

~~~
swalkergibson
It is not a zero-sum game. Depriving a right from a suspected terrorist does
not necessarily guarantee the right of some other, unrelated person. Rights
are rights, selectively applying them is the slipperiest of slopes.

~~~
pekk
There wasn't an assertion that depriving one person's rights necessarily (in
all possible cases) guarantees others' rights. The implication was that there
are real cases where this is the case.

------
wavesounds
For people asking "how do we know he wont be read his rights" its because the
DA Carmen Ortiz[1] said she wouldn't in the press conference immediately
following the suspects capture[2].

1\. [https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-
stat...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-states-
district-attorney-carmen-ortiz-office-overreach-case-aaron-swartz/RQNrG1Ck)

2\. I haven't been able to find video although I saw it live, this site
confirms [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/19/boston-bombing-
su...](http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/19/boston-bombing-suspect-is-
not-being-read-his-miranda-rights-why-and-what-does-that-mean/)

~~~
philwelch
Unfortunately, this gives Carmen Ortiz every chance to be known for something
other than the prosecution of Aaron Swartz.

~~~
slygent
Don't forget this as well: [http://reason.com/archives/2012/11/21/drug-
dealing-and-legal...](http://reason.com/archives/2012/11/21/drug-dealing-and-
legal-stealing)

------
brm
Serious question... Have we verified that the reason he hasn't been mirandized
yet is anything other than the fact that he's in serious condition and may not
yet be able to affirm that he is aware of his rights?

~~~
InclinedPlane
We haven't even verified that he hasn't been mirandized yet.

So, no.

~~~
Steko
[http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/doj-official-
no-...](http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/doj-official-no-miranda-
rights-for-boston-bombing?ref=fpb)

 _A DOJ official explains why Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzokhar Tsarnaev
has not been read his Miranda rights.

"The suspect is en route to the hospital for immediate treatment," the
official tells TPM's Sahil Kapur. "But we plan to invoke the public safety
exception to Miranda in order to question the suspect extensively about other
potential explosive devices or accomplices and to gain critical intelligence."

The public safety exception allows law enforcement officials to question
suspects briefly in a legally admissable way prior to providing Miranda rights
in cases of terrorism or when the public might face imminent threat. _

~~~
ruswick
I'm fairly sure that the various agencies and investigative apparatuses have
generally come to the consensus that there is no remaining threat, and have
explicitly said as much. How can they invoke this Exception when they have
stated (and, now as it has become obvious) that there is not a threat? It just
seems that invoking the Exception is tantamount to a post facto repudiation of
their previous statements, and would require some sort of justification for a
reemergence of a threat other than some assertion that conflicts what the
entire rest of the world has agreed upon (something which they don't seem to
have). They're trying to have their cake and eat it, and it doesn't seem as
though it will go over well in court.

I'm not versed in the law at all, but this seems intuitively sketchy and
lacking in justification. Am I missing something?

~~~
notimetorelax
What amazes me is how quickly law enforcement starts using various loopholes.
It doesn't seem to be necessary here and reading Miranda rights takes less
then 30 seconds, still they're not doing it. To think of another example
several years ago it was a common knowledge that tasers could be used only
when there is threat to others now it is standard practice to taser anyone who
doesn't follow police orders.

~~~
vacri
The Miranda Warning reminds people that they don't have to say anything and
that there's no real benefit to doing so anyway. If you want maximum
information out of someone, then it runs counter to that, so you would prefer
not to say it if possible. There's a great two-part youtube video on the
benefits of the 5th Amendment, the second part is with a 30-year veteran
police officer who talks about strategies around the Miranda warning [1]

Here in Australia, things are a little different - not talking to the police
_can_ be held against you in a court of law, as you've hindered them in their
duties. I'm not sure of the details, just that the local law advice sites say
"It's not like in the US on TV".

[1] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik>

------
nhebb
Tsarnaev and his brother planted bombs. It is not unreasonable for the FBI to
be concerned that they may have left other bombs in place that could detonate
later. Or, that there were other people involved that we don't know about.
Invoking the public safety exception to the Miranda rights seems prudent to
me.

~~~
geuis
No, Tsarnaev and his brother did not plant bombs as of the current moment.
They are SUSPECTS in a criminal investigation in which one or more parties
planted bombs.

Be VERY, VERY careful before you throw out that distinction. One day you may
find yourself arrested for something you did or didn't do, only to find public
opinion very much against you based on little more than hearsay.

~~~
jhaglund
Ya know, I'm all for "innocent until proven guilty" but blury pictures of them
dropping a bag, a witness description, a car chase where they threw bombs out
the window, a shootout where one brother got hit with shrapnel of his own
pressure cooker bomb, etc.

Let justice do its blind thing but it's OK for us to state the obvious. They
did it.

~~~
itstriz
I'm getting the feeling the defense is going to have a hell of a time finding
an impartial jury.

~~~
paulhauggis
We wouldn't want them to be confused with the facts.

------
dyno12345
I thought witholding Miranda means that anything he says is inadmissible as
evidence in a court of law – but it's not like there's a lack of other
incriminating evidence so that they would need to use self-incrimination to
form a case against him.

~~~
rorrr2
They don't care. They have enough evidence to put him away for life, or to
even execute him.

~~~
alex_h
Massachusetts does not have the death penalty.

~~~
khuey
It will be tried in federal court.

------
starnixgod
I'm more concerned that Lindsey Graham and John McCain are hoping to declare
this kid an "Enemy Combatant"

~~~
zecho
After attacking the president's legalese regarding hypothetical drone strikes
on citizens. Political theatre, the lot of it.

~~~
twoodfin
Not McCain. He strongly criticized Rand's filibuster.

------
ck2
Because lawmakers are terrified of proper process under our legal system,
really says a lot (remember most Senators are lawyers).

I guess all rights can have restrictions in this country except gun ownership.

Several Senators have insisted he should NOT be mirandized a couple days after
voting down background-checks for all gun sales. I don't understand how they
can not implode from their lack of consistency.

~~~
mtgx
What pisses me off most about fanatic gun owners who talk about their rights
and being able to protect themselves in case the "government goes rogue", is
that they seem to be very apathetic, or even _supportive_ of measures such as
this or of government infringing other rights like the 4th amendment, the 1st,
the 5th, 6th, etc. You'd think that the people so worried about the government
going rogue would be the first to be outraged by such infringements of rights,
too. But apparently not.

~~~
baddox
Be careful. That kind of rhetoric is one step away from, and seems to be
intended to imply, the claim that the pro-gun position is itself invalid or
less valid because of _other_ positions held by some of its proponents, which
is textbook fallacy.

~~~
to3m
"Be careful"?! I have to say, that sounds rather menacing!

I think the argument is specifically about how the positions they hold are
inconsistent. This says nothing about the positions themselves. Doesn't even
imply it, to my eyes!

------
Derbasti
"if prevention rather than prosecution is to be our new main goal"

I find this increadibly dangerous. Does that mean the police will move against
"potential" crimes? Against people making plans? I hereby jokingly declare
that I am planning to steal a cucumber at my local supermarket. Does this make
me a goal of preventive action? Did I commit a thought-crime?

1984 and Minority Report come to mind when people say stuff like this.

~~~
analog
Conspiracy is already a crime. Your cucumber example wouldn't attract a
response because nobody actually cares enough to prosecute it. For example if
your cucumber was made of solid goal then you would become a target of
preventive action.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime)>

~~~
A1kmm
IANAL, but I believe that in most jurisdictions conspiracy requires two or
more co-conspirators (i.e. the crime of conspiracy to commit a crime means two
or more people agree or plan for a crime to be committed).

Attempting to commit a crime is also a crime in many jurisdictions, and only
requires one person - maybe a prosecutor could convince a court that Derbasti
was going to steal something, as demonstrated in a HN comment, but the plan
was foiled.

Also, perhaps it is a threat - if other comments could be used to show that
he/she was threatening the local supermarket unless they do something, perhaps
charges for threatening could be filed.

~~~
analog
Yup, conspiracy was just the first example that came to mind. The actual class
of crimes is inchoate offences (found after some brief googling).

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchoate_offense>

------
IgorPartola
The Miranda warning is just that, a warning. Some people mistakenly call it
the Miranda rights, which is wrong. Your rights are in the Constitution, and
the Miranda warning just reminds you of those rights.

Now, the question is this: do the authorities make a big deal of not reading
him his Miranda warning simply because they expect that if they do he will
excercise his rights? Or are they implying, without saying it explicitly that
he has no constitutional rights? If it is the latter, then this is worse than
declaring him an enemy combatant (for which I see no basis), since now it
basically means that anyone the Feds want to nail badly enough can fall under
this category.

Imagine a hacker who responsibly disclosed a security issue with some military
property being declared as having no fifth amendment rights. Does that sound
like a precident we want?

I am not in any way trying to condone Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's actions. At the very
least, he fired shots at the police on his own accord and I am fairly certain
we will find out a whole lot more terrible stuff as the investigation
continues. However, I am not a fan of how the interrogation is being
presented.

~~~
thrownaway2424
It's entirely to the authorities whether to Mirandize the suspect or not.
Perhaps they think they already have so much evidence that they don't need any
statements from the interrogation to convict. In that case, they're just
looking for information.

Remember, the authorities are perfectly free to interrogate you as much as
they like without reading you any warnings at all. It's only at trial that the
warnings become relevant. If your case isn't going to trial, it's not
relevant.

~~~
IgorPartola
Agreed. You have no right to the warning and the warning itself is only there
to protect the evidence the authorities may gather.

My issue is that despite the horrific things that the suspect allegedly, and
in my mind certainly, has done, he has certain rights, like the right to
remain silent and the right to representation. Whether the case goes to trial
or not, is irrelevant to how the detainee is treated. Otherwise, the police
can pick you up, rough you up, prevent you from contacting anyone on the
outside world, and then release you, saying that they never intended for you
to go to trial, so it's all good.

> Remember, the authorities are perfectly free to interrogate you as much as
> they like without reading you any warnings at all.

I don't believe they are. I believe they need probable cause, and they need to
charge me with something first. Otherwise, I would be living in a police state
where I am presumed guilty unless proven innocent. The warning itself is
meaningless. It only comes into play if I can reasonably claim that I did not
know the Constitution.

------
willurd
Because one day it might be you who doesn't get read their rights.

~~~
misframer
As long as you remember you still have those rights, it doesn't really matter?

~~~
Dylan16807
Yeah, this article and most comments seem pretty ridiculous.

~~~
icelancer
Yeah, let's just assume he knows all of his rights. Come on! It's on TV all
the time and stuff. No reason to even bring them up.

Now where did you buy those pressure cookers, hmm?

------
brianchu
I'm also concerned that the information (such as a confession) he gives may be
rendered inadmissible in the future by the Supreme Court if it ever rules that
the public safety exception was improperly applied in this interrogation.

~~~
Tangaroa
It is not only the confession that may be rejected, but everything based on
information that he gives about co-conspirators. Imagine that it was not only
him and his brother, but that there is a cell of a dozen people getting money
from an overseas hub that manages a wider network of AQ cells. He talks
without being allowed a lawyer, and the FBI uses the information to roll up
another five or six cells and seize the hub's assets in the US. When it gets
to appeals court, all of the seizures and arrests can be thrown out as fruit
of the poisoned tree because the warrants were based on inadmissable
information from an unlawful interrogation.

------
D9u
This is no different than "Signature" killings via UAV, nor is it much
different than the Telcoms receiving immunity for their participation in the
unconstitutional domestic surveillance program.

It's just another example of how far our nation has fallen in a relatively
short period of time.

~~~
doktrin
> _This is no different than "Signature" killings via UAV_

Completely disagree.

There's a _vast_ difference between _assassinations without trial_ of both US
and foreign nationals vs. not reading a suspect their Miranda rights. Note
that the rights themselves are not being stripped away, as is obviously the
case with the former.

This doesn't mean either practice is noble or desirable, but it's patently
ridiculous to draw false hyperbole-laced equivalencies all over the map.

~~~
D9u
Both set a precedent for violations of Constitutional rights.

~~~
bob13579
What exact constitutional right is violated?

~~~
TallGuyShort
The Miranda rights apply to multiple constitutional amendments (4th and 5th,
others indirectly) from the Bill of Rights, and it is also the constitution
that states the Supreme Court decision for which they are named is law, and
the only binding interpretation for how those amendments are to be applied.

In short, the Supreme Court ruled that not informing suspects of these rights
violated the amendments, and the Constitution itself says they have the right
to do that.

------
Steko
If anyone thinks the government will need Dzhokar's confession to establish
guilt here they are bonkers.

~~~
zecho
This isn't really a question of a confession as much as it is Holder's DOJ has
a long history of expanding the definition of the exemption. If they ask him
where he's keeping any bombs, fine, but if they're doing this purely for long-
term intelligence reasons above and beyond any clear or present dangers, I'm
not sure if I would agree with that usage.

~~~
twoodfin
Huh? That'd be exactly how I'd want it to be used. Information on who his
brother met with on his last trip to Russia, for example, is fairly useless in
prosecuting #2, but as an intelligence lead it could be invaluable.

~~~
zecho
The exemption is fairly narrowly defined to clear and present dangers to the
public. Holder has been attempting to expand the definition for years, while
also trying to carve out the 5th amendment protections. It's absolutely not
how the law should be applied. They can gather that information without
denying the kid his rights.

------
geuis
I said this on reddit a couple hours ago. I don't care if he murdered 100 men,
he still deserves the same rights as any of us.

If we don't treat the worst of us the same as the best, what can the rest of
us expect?

~~~
youngerdryas
He has the same rights as any of us. The government chose to slightly
jeopardize their prosecution, confession may be inadmissible, in the interest
of public safety.

------
kefka
The Bill of Rights does not say "Applies to citizens of USA". He should be
properly Miranda-ized. No ifs, ands, or buts.

~~~
lbarrow
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is a US citizen.

------
SilentStump
Dzhokhar was in no state to hear his Miranda rights. He was in serious need of
medical attention, so the highest priority is his medical attention, not
reading an injured person his miranda rights. Also, I'm not sure if he'd even
have been able to repsond that he understood.

~~~
pvaldes
Exactly, that's the point. I was wondering how to rightly interrogate to a
severely wounded person. (sarcasm: You can not talk of course, but, hey! do
you want this pretty anaesthetic injection?)

Here is a real risk to end like in Madrid's 11-M, dead terrorists -> no
answers -> a lot of problems for all spaniards. The FBI will probably want to
secure the game and to avoid this, and to avoid the spreading of rumours for
years also. The full recovering of this guy probably is in his priority's list
now. And I'm not joking at all. Simply there is no point in let him die; only
other terrorists (if they are other terrorists) could gain something with
this. It's the old same history since Lee Harvey Oswald.

------
SworDsy
I went to highschool with this guy at CRLS and after going there you know your
miranda rights as well as exactly whats legal and whats not. they make sure of
that, and that he'll stand up for them. weather the FBI cares or not is beyond
our hands reach at this point

------
rdl
The FBI page on the "public safety exception" is really interesting:
[http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-
enforceme...](http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-
bulletin/february2011/legal_digest)

~~~
lurker14
Indeed. " The commitment to this rule is so strong that the Supreme Court has
recognized only one exception to the Miranda rule"

So, not much of a commitment at all. I am so committed to my wife that I only
recognize one exception to my marriage vows: if I get a chance with a really
attractive woman, then not only can I do it, but I can charge my wife for the
cost of dinner.

~~~
rdl
I can see the merit in both ironclad protection against self incrimination,
and the public safety value of making a scene safe.

I think the proper balance would probably be to allow physical evidence
produced under "implied duress" (being in confinement/control and asked
without being notified of Miranda rights), but not statements. So, maybe 25%
more restrictive than the current legal standard.

The true problem with Mirandizing someone is that anyone who isn't a fucking
moron will realize "oh, I shouldn't say anything until I get an attorney".
Physical evidence is assumed to not depend upon statements to discover, but it
certainly will be discovered faster with a statement. This argument isn't
actually 100% valid in some scenes and with some types of evidence.

I don't have as much of a problem with lack of notification of someone of his
rights vs. not giving him rights when demanded, too -- interrogating someone
without Mirandizing him, in a very limited fashion, is less objectionable than
doing the same interrogation under direct threat or execution of
death/physical attack, drugs, etc.

------
Jun8
This article is ridiculous. It starts with the assertion "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
will not hear his Miranda rights before the FBI questions him Friday night."
How do we or the author know this, is he assuming this is common practice, has
FBI mentioned that they won't read him Miranda?

Second, I was expecting him to mention a case where the police or FBI didn't
read the rights to what turned out to be a non-threat/wrong accusation, etc.
At least in all the cases mentioned this is not the case, the person presented
a clear and present danger.

~~~
dopamean
What I'm more curious about is whether or not he still has those rights even
if they weren't read to him. I would assume he does no?

~~~
mpyne
Yes, he does. The Miranda rights are (and were) always present, they only
serve the function of ensuring that the citizens under arrest actually realize
they have those rights.

------
serichsen
For someone from the civilized world, there is a clear way from "innocent" to
"convicted": through a conviction.

Only a court can convict someone.

Only a convicted person may be legally punished.

Before a conviction can occur, there must be suspicion, and most probably an
arrest. A suspect is still to be treated as innocent.

If you allow suspects to be punished, you allow innocents to be punished. At
that point, the rule of law has ended, and your country is not part of the
civilized world anymore.

------
tomasien
As I understand it, even though they haven't Mirandized him, all that means is
if he confesses that confession still won't be admissible. They probably
didn't Mirandize him because they don't care 1 bit about getting confession,
they want to be sure if there's anyone else out there that is planning attacks
they get that info from him. Getting info about whether he's guilty doesn't
matter, because he's super fucking guilty.

------
CurtMonash
None of this matters in the present case, because they have ample evidence to
convict if he never says another word.

This discussion is all about future cases.

------
charlieok
Glenn Greenwald always has lots of interesting points to make on issues like
this one.

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/20/boston-m...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/20/boston-
marathon-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-mirnada-rights)

~~~
e12e
Strongly recommend the Guardian article as well as the links in there.

Also, as a friend commented -- labelling this as "an act of terrorism" has
another effect: making many insurance policies void. Were it a "mass murderer"
(as I believe seem to more correct, based on what we know so far of what
happened) -- most of those policies would still be valid.

------
ccleve
In other news, it's U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz who decided not to read our
suspected bomber his rights:

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5583278>

Gee, where have I heard her name before?

------
xefer
The reading of Miranda rights doesn't in and of itself confer or trigger any
new "rights". It's a reminder of the rights he already has. He could simply
choose to not say anything without a lawyer being present and there's nothing
law enforcement can do about it. People start talking even after being
reminded, because I imagine for the most part, by now, those arrested think
it's just a bunch of boilerplate that's part of the booking process - that
it's almost a TV trope. Once read their rights, the police don't have to wait
around for the arrestee to "lawyer up".

------
jackfoxy
From a notorious disinformation site [http://debka.com/article/22914/The-
Tsarnaev-brothers-were-do...](http://debka.com/article/22914/The-Tsarnaev-
brothers-were-double-agents-who-decoyed-US-into-terror-trap) a plausible
explanation of the non-miranda situation. Perhaps someone more knowledgable
can comment on how _elite_ is Cambridge Rindge and Latin School
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Rindge_and_Latin_Scho...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Rindge_and_Latin_School)

------
mchusma
What I find interesting here is that my emotional visceral reaction was that I
hoped that not readying Miranda would end up materially hurting the case
against this guy.

I guess that is because at the end of the day the odds of me being
substantively impacted from terrorism is actually low. The odds of me being
impacted from degradation of constitutional protections, actually quite high
and I would argue I experience quite frequently.

I just found my own emotional reaction interesting, and indicative that
winning for the terrorists is solely in how we react.

------
superuser2
Does this mean that Tsarnev _has_ the right to remain silent and just won't be
told about it, or does the public safety exemption mean he can actually be
compelled to speak?

------
nraynaud
I think some tradeoff could also be reasonable: throwing part of the evidences
in the name of public safety. You could interrogate someone in an emergency
situation and not use the declaration or anything coming from his declaration
later in court. And only use material evidence found before. As far as I know,
here they already have strong evidence against the guy, now is time for due
process and trial.

------
gexla
Boston doesn't need this guy to give an incriminating statement to put him
away for the rest of his life. Just the multiple shootouts with police (which
produced a lot of evidence and witnesses) would do the trick.

What the feds are really interested in is the intelligence they can gather in
regards to terrorist activity. If this is part of something bigger, the feds
need to figure it out.

------
venomsnake
There is time to link to this excellent video by James Duane

Don't talk to the police <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc>

From what I understand there is no such things as miranda rights. They are
miranda reminders about your rights granted by the US Constitution.

------
emeerson
The author admits a valid case for eschewing miranda rights within the first
paragraph. You can't make an argument for a constitutional right and say 'oh
wait but there is an exception. and by the way this one might meet it.'

------
Kiro
Other countries get by fine without having a Miranda law at all so I don't see
what the big deal is about. To be honest I thought Miranda was only used in
movies to make an arrest sound cool.

~~~
venomsnake
There is no such thing as Miranda law. It is just a warning/reminder about
constitutional rights.

Also any country worth living in has anti self incrimination right.

~~~
vpeters25
I am not a lawyer but I think precedents have the force of law, and the
"Miranda rights" were established by the Supreme Court's ruling on Miranda vs
Arizona: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona>

Any law enforcement is screwing themselves by not advising a suspect about his
"Miranda" rights. They are risking blowing up the case and forcing the courts
to toss evidence that could be critical to achieve a conviction.

------
firefoxman1
I've heard of this "public safety exception" before:

In 1941 Adolf Hitler ordered a directive intended to suppress members of the
resistance. It was called Nacht und Nebel ("Night and Fog"). People suspected
of "offenses against the Reich" would disappear without any trace.

Who could be considered suspect? _"anyone endangering German security"_ (die
deutsche Sicherheit gefährden).

~~~
InclinedPlane
This is a bullshit comparison.

The public safety exception is a very specific exception. Let's say you're a
cop who just caught a guy who has rigged a building with bombs and you ask him
where the bombs are and how to disarm them. If he tells you and incriminates
himself _before being mirandized_ that's still kosher. That's the public
safety exception. Period.

If you ask him "why did you do this", and you haven't mirandized him yet and
he confesses right then but recants later, you dun fucked up.

~~~
firefoxman1
I'm not comparing the Nazi party to our own government. I'm simply giving an
example of how easily the term "anyone endangering [country name]'s security"
can be abused.

~~~
shaaaaawn
Actually, you're using a slippery slope argument and fueling it with a hitler
reference.

~~~
melvinmt
Also known as an argumentum ad Hitlerum
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum>

------
koenigdavidmj
There's no way he is ever going to see sunlight again, even if found not
guilty.

~~~
shaaaaawn
I think u mean Taco Bell instead of sunlight. It would be impossible to never
see sunlight again.

------
shaaaaawn
This is an amazing discussion. I love this country

------
SkittlesNTwix
<IANAL>

------
dsfasfasf
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-Benjamin Franklin

~~~
rmrfrmrf
"I'm so tired of this quote." -rmrfrmrf

~~~
shabda
Why?

It is in times such as these, it is the most important to remind us of this.

~~~
rmrfrmrf
A few reasons:

1) In this particular case, the public safety exception to Miranda has been
around since 1984 (cue Orwellian conspiracy theories). So, for almost 30 years
(longer than my existence), Americans have been "deprived" of this "liberty".
Suddenly it becomes an issue in 2013 for armchair devil's advocates in a
pretty much open-shut case of domestic terrorism.

Furthermore, the Miranda warning never existed in Ben Franklin's time -- it's
a "right" given to us purely via judicial policy. Given that not even Ben
Franklin thought that an explicit reading of one's Constitutional rights was
worthy of inclusion in the amendments, one could argue that the Miranda
warning is a "nonessential liberty," in which case Franklin's quote wouldn't
even apply.

2) The same people who spew out this quote give up liberty for safety every
day as a convenience. Our purchases, thoughts, questions, conversations, and
movements are all monitored on a daily basis. Ironically, the people who
frequent HN are actually the ones responsible for not only implementing these
monitoring technologies, but also _monetizing_ them--figuring out how to use
all of this data collected on you to squeeze extra nickels and dimes out of
you. In these cases, we give up liberty for...what, exactly? "Free" products?
Certainly not safety. This "it's only wrong if the government does it" BS
doesn't fly with me. We ARE the government.

3) The quote itself doesn't explain why those who choose to give up liberty
for safety deserve neither--in fact, the only thing going for this quote at
all was that Ben Franklin said it. Take away the attribution and you're left
with an empty sound bite.

~~~
mchusma
"The quote itself doesn't explain why those who choose to give up liberty for
safety deserve neither--in fact, the only thing going for this quote at all
was that Ben Franklin said it. Take away the attribution and you're left with
an empty sound bite."

Good point. I think of Maslovs hierarchy and decisions rational people take
almost every time they are in danger.

------
yoster
I hope this guy survives, only reason why? So he can go to trial, and then
face his victims. They deserve to see justice done with the death penalty.

~~~
rikacomet
exactly, the same happened with Kasab, he was put on trial, with all his
rights, and only through sheer evidence was he sentenced. To make a example
out of these people, law must take its course.

------
lurker14
Wouldn't public safety be better served if the police granted him grand-jury-
style immunity from "using his statements as evidence" in exchange for getting
information about other bombs?

------
youngerdryas
Miranda is for legal proceedings. I am in favor of getting as much info as
possible before erasing him from the face of the planet. Who cares if it is
inadmissible. Here is a kid with scholarships and naturalized randomly blowing
up his neighbors for allah(presumably), we need to know why and how he became
radicalized, we don't need more evidence for trial.

