• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Boston Marathon attack

Saw a cynical post by someone today that said the US is the only country that allows people to be on a Watch List and also collect welfare.

There is an exception to the Miranda rule in cases such as the Boston Bombing, not sure but maybe something to do with The Patriot Act?? and I believe that is what was being quoted when they captured the other bomber. Maybe it's mentioned further up the forum - I'll have to scroll back and have a look.

Meadow, if any of your loved ones or people close to you were injured, lost a limb, or were even killed, heaven forbid, in such a tragedy as the Boston Bomb attack, and you knew who the perpetrator was, do you feel that you just might want whatever the law pertaining to terrorist attack permits to be enacted? It's all very well us discussing these matters on the forum when we're removed from the event but many of us I'm sure would be mighty upset if someone who brought about destruction to our near and dear, or even not our near and dear such as the young Chechen man, was allowed to escape punishment through a technicality or a smart talking lawyer. As far as I'm concerned once you step outside society and commit a criminal act against society, especially a planned act which injures and kills, your rights can be waived if there is a statute under the law which removes them.
 
Meadow, seems to me that maybe you are a bit more emotional about the subject than some other people, just my opinion.
 
Just for information the following is the exception which was discussed after the capture of the second Boston Marathon Bombing suspect:

"When law enforcement officials captured the second suspect wanted in connection with the Boston Marathon bombing, he wasn’t read his Miranda rights. This sparked a debate among the public, including human rights activists. Not reading a citizen the Miranda warning after a police arrest is a violation of the Bill of Rights. There is an exception to the Miranda law when there is a threat to public safety. The Patriot Act also has laws regarding suspects connected to acts of terrorism.

The “public safety” exception of the Miranda rights lets law enforcement to interrogate suspects without warning, but within limits. According to Carmen Ortiz, the U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts, officials chose not to read the suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev his rights under the “public safety” exception clause of the Miranda."

This is probably a moot point now that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has since, I believe, been Mirandized.
 
I'm more protective of my of my rights than concerned about an atavistic fear and anger driven need for revenge.

As for the chance of him.getting off well then so be it - if procedure wasn't followed, if evidence was insufficient or incorrectly gathered, if choosing to ignore his calls for a lawyer work against the State getting a conviction then perhaps it will serve as lesson, but I doubt this will happen as everyone is hellbent on making sure he gets killed.
 
Polly Parrot said:
If I am not mistaken, this man was already in custody when his request for an attorney was ignored. No time issues there.
Click to expand...

With respect there was a time issue because two IED's had exploded only thirteen seconds apart. The police couldn't discount the logical possibility of the existence of similar devices. There is a power that cannot be granted to the authorities through legislation and that power is clairvoyance.
 
Meadow337 said:
As for the chance of him.getting off well tgen so be it - if procedure wasn't followed, if evidence was insufficient or incorrectly gathered, if choosing to ignore his calls for a lawyer work against the State getting a conviction then perhaps it will serve as lesson, but I doubt this will happen as everyone is hellbent on making sure he gets killed.
Click to expand...

Feelings are understandably running high but one of the bombers is in custody and the law applies. The eventual outcome we can only speculate but whatever it is it will be with regard to the law.

The lack of a Miranda Warning is not against police procedure but it does mean that any statements gathered under interrogation cannot be used in a criminal trial.
 
What scares me about the willingness to give up basic rights, either for oneself or on behalf of another, is that the more things like this happen the more willing people seem to be to give up parts of their rights and privacy for the illusion of increased security.
 
Polly Parrot said:
What scares me about the willingness to give up basic rights, either for oneself or on behalf of another, is that the more things like this happen the more willing people seem to be to give up parts of their rights and privacy for the illusion of increased security.
Click to expand...
Is there any doubt as to the identity of the perpetrator in your mind?
 
it's for a court to decide when presented with ALL the evidence gathered legally in a fair and unbiased trial

it is most certainly not for the court of public opinion to decide based on media reports.
 
Meadow337 said:
I'm more protective of my of my rights than concerned about an atavistic fear and anger driven need for revenge.

As for the chance of him.getting off well then so be it - if procedure wasn't followed, if evidence was insufficient or incorrectly gathered, if choosing to ignore his calls for a lawyer work against the State getting a conviction then perhaps it will serve as lesson, but I doubt this will happen as everyone is hellbent on making sure he gets killed.
Click to expand...

I am hoping that he gets punished for his crime and it's naive to think that it's no big deal if he gets off which your post seems to imply. I feel that laws regarding terrorism should be more stringent rather than less.
 
There is a new kind of crime invading the United States, and it doesn't strike me as strange at all that new laws, statutes and procedures are coming into being to cope with it. A single murderer on the loose is different from a serial killer on the loose, is different from a terrorist on the loose and the law is adapting. Isn't that how a society protects itself and, here in the US, by our constitutional democratic process?
 
Polly Parrot said:
What scares me about the willingness to give up basic rights, either for oneself or on behalf of another, is that the more things like this happen the more willing people seem to be to give up parts of their rights and privacy for the illusion of increased security.
Click to expand...

Your concern is a realistic one in my opinion. From a legal-guru at slate:

This isn’t about public safety—not in any immediate or urgent way. It’s about the Justice Department’s decision, in a 2010 memo to the FBI, that in “exceptional cases” agents can go beyond public safety questions “to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat.” I realize that I’m in a minority here in worrying that in this case, the government went too far. But to show the distance we’ve traveled: No one delayed the Miranda warnings—or talked about enemy combatant status—for Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, or Eric Rudolph, the Atlanta Olympics bomber. OK, that was before 9/11. But even in 2009 after the arrest of the attempted Christmas Day bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the FBI questioned Abdulmutallab for only 50 minutes before Mirandizing him. Three years and one DOJ memo later, the protections of Miranda essentially are nil for a suspected terrorist. Is that because Tsarnaev and his brother succeeded in killing and maiming people, whereas Abdulmutallab failed? Is there some important distinction I’m missing, or is this just the beginning of a boundless expansion of the public safety exception?
Click to expand...

I also agree with Bob though, there is little doubt the brothers did it. Yes, the "court of public opinion" is rash and is not always accurate, but that doesn't mean that we can't connect the dots and look at information continuously as it arises. From what we know, the older brother was the brains behind the attack and was radicalized over the years. to discount the narrative thus far-you would have to explain how (1)The older brother getting kicked out of a mosque more than once had no bearing on his desire for jihad; (2) How older brother's tweets were just "expression" and not a matter of deep conviction; (3) How the eyewitness during the carjacking was able to identify the brothers and how they let him live because he wasn't "really an American" and identified themselves to him as Muslims to him. and (4) the brother stating the older brother was in charge of it and he followed the directions. So, against all of this-we have what? The mother? The mother who is wanted for a shoplifting charge and who was on the federal terror no flight list? The mother who is NOW accused of having discussed Jihad with her older boy and having it recorded by Russian security forces? I guess I'm not getting how "someone else" did it and how evidence points to anyone else except for these two.
 
SFG75 said:
Your concern is a realistic one in my opinion. From a legal-guru at slate:



I also agree with Bob though, there is little doubt the brothers did it. Yes, the "court of public opinion" is rash and is not always accurate, but that doesn't mean that we can't connect the dots and look at information continuously as it arises. From what we know, the older brother was the brains behind the attack and was radicalized over the years. to discount the narrative thus far-you would have to explain how (1)The older brother getting kicked out of a mosque more than once had no bearing on his desire for jihad; (2) How older brother's tweets were just "expression" and not a matter of deep conviction; (3) How the eyewitness during the carjacking was able to identify the brothers and how they let him live because he wasn't "really an American" and identified themselves to him as Muslims to him. and (4) the brother stating the older brother was in charge of it and he followed the directions. So, against all of this-we have what? The mother? The mother who is wanted for a shoplifting charge and who was on the federal terror no flight list? The mother who is NOW accused of having discussed Jihad with her older boy and having it recorded by Russian security forces? I guess I'm not getting how "someone else" did it and how evidence points to anyone else except for these two.
Click to expand...

No matter how compelling the evidence he is still innocent until proven guilty or has that law also fallen by the wayside?
 
It's really clear what your feelings are Meadow. This really isn't a debate for no matter how strongly you feel about "rights" your opinion will have no impact in the outcome of this matter. If you want to be an activist with regard to the law I'm sure there are lots of opportunities for you to be involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top