Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

Logical

(22,457 posts)
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:36 AM Apr 2013

I triple dog dare you to read this. TRIPLE DOG I SAY! Abuse of power..... [View all]

What many do not realize is that these "exceptions" will be abused. And not always used for the purposes the government sells to the public, who tend to blindly believe it.

here are excrpts, but worth reading the whole article at:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/04/dzhokhar_tsarnaev_and_miranda_rights_the_public_safety_exception_and_terrorism.html

Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will not hear his Miranda rights before the FBI questions him Friday night. He will have to remember on his own that he has a right to a lawyer, and that anything he says can be used against him in court, because the government won’t tell him. This is an extension of a rule the Justice Department wrote for the FBI—without the oversight of any court—called the “public safety exception.”

...........

Holder started talking about a bill to broadly expand the exception to Miranda a few months later. Nothing came of that idea, but in October of 2010, Holder’s Justice Department took it upon itself to widen the exception to Miranda beyond the Supreme Court’s 1984 ruling. “Agents should ask any and all questions that are reasonably prompted by an immediate concern for the safety of the public or the arresting agents,” stated a DoJ memo to the FBI that wasn’t disclosed at the time. Again, fine and good. But the memo continues, “there may be exceptional cases in which, although all relevant public safety questions have been asked, agents nonetheless conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat, and that the government's interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation.”

..........

And so the FBI will surely ask 19-year-old Tsarnaev anything it sees fit. Not just what law enforcement needs to know to prevent a terrorist threat and keep the public safe but anything else it deemed related to “valuable and timely intelligence.” Couldn’t that be just about anything about Tsarnaev’s life, or his family, given that his alleged accomplice was his older brother (killed in a shootout with police)? There won’t be a public uproar. Whatever the FBI learns will be secret: We won’t know how far the interrogation went. And besides, no one is crying over the rights of the young man who is accused of killing innocent people, helping his brother set off bombs that were loaded to maim, and terrorizing Boston Thursday night and Friday. But the next time you read about an abusive interrogation, or a wrongful conviction that resulted from a false confession, think about why we have Miranda in the first place. It’s to stop law enforcement authorities from committing abuses. Because when they can make their own rules, sometime, somewhere, they inevitably will.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/04/dzhokhar_tsarnaev_and_miranda_rights_the_public_safety_exception_and_terrorism.html
25 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I have read explanations for the delay of reading Miranda rights but..... snappyturtle Apr 2013 #1
Yes, I am surprised the DU is so OK with this. I guess emotions rule this week. n-t Logical Apr 2013 #2
The Quarles case was considered by treestar Apr 2013 #5
I think it caught a lot of us by surprise...I was ignorant of snappyturtle Apr 2013 #11
We do always need to be vigilant treestar Apr 2013 #16
Me too. How many more "exceptions" can they come up with? n-t Logical Apr 2013 #8
We have a propagandized populace... haikugal Apr 2013 #3
You are not referring to case law treestar Apr 2013 #4
You trust them to only question him on public safety stuff? I do not. n-t Logical Apr 2013 #6
Picture the scene for a moment treestar Apr 2013 #15
I am not worried about this guy honestly. But the law worries me in not so simple cases. n-t Logical Apr 2013 #17
Exactly. The cases we don't hear so much of treestar Apr 2013 #19
Every law and rule has exceptions. randome Apr 2013 #7
difficult concept for ideologues. emulatorloo Apr 2013 #10
Speaking of "Drama" and Melodramatic Thread Titles . . . emulatorloo Apr 2013 #9
Four times now. And still getting replies. Thanks for the bump!! n-t Logical Apr 2013 #14
Except that this editiorial indicts itself Yo_Mama Apr 2013 #12
I'm not okay with this. liberalmuse Apr 2013 #13
He IS being treated the same. The 48 hour exemption is well-established case law. randome Apr 2013 #18
The point is that maybe it is the wrong. Case law or not. n-t Logical Apr 2013 #20
Um, yeah, EVERY law COULD be wrong. randome Apr 2013 #22
Because they will always abuse the "safety" aspect. And who gives a shit if a majority.... Logical Apr 2013 #23
Good. liberalmuse Apr 2013 #24
ABUSE OF POWER! I AGREE WITH YOU!!!! gopiscrap Apr 2013 #21
Timothy McVeigh had his Miranda rights malaise Apr 2013 #25
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I triple dog dare you to ...