Boston Marathon Bombing

Tsarnaev Not Read Miranda Rights Under 'Public Safety Exception'

Officials debate whether to subject him to criminal prosecution or military interrogation

|

The Boston Marathon bombing suspect captured Friday night will not be immediately read his Miranda rights, a Justice Department official said.

The announcement came as a debate broke out among lawmakers, lawyers and political activists over whether the suspect, Dzhokar Tsarnaev, should be prosecuted in a civilian criminal court or subjected to military interrogation and over when and whether Tsarnaev should be told about his right to an attorney.

"No Miranda warning to be given" now, the DOJ official said. "The government will be invoking the public safety exception."

Beginning several hours before Tsarnaev's capture, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) wrote on Twitter that the suspect ought to be placed in military custody.

NEXT: Tsarnaev Alive and in Custody

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Public safety exception.” Yup! Good ol’ federal government – they can always find a way around the constitution.

  2. Oh good. That won’t bite anyone in the ass later.

  3. Man!
    It looks like the guy ripped peoples’ legs off and now you’re going to make him a sympathetic character?
    How pathetic does Obozo need to be?

    1. Yeah, screw that presumption of innocence crap and get that torch fired up and pitchfork sharpened based on what the geniuses in the media report.

      1. Kat| 4.20.13 @ 12:00AM |#
        “Yeah, screw that presumption of innocence crap and …”

        Please read the post again.

    2. Tsarnaev is an Obama supporter, so he needs to be a lot more pathetic than he would have been had he turned out to be a “tea bagger” as the White House had openly wished for.

      1. Another act of “workplace violence” then.

      2. I’m surprised Supreme Leader Obama found time away from his precious “kill lists” to make comments about how bad it is to kill civilians.

  4. I had read that he had been read his rights. Is that incorrect?

    1. According to the legal jabber I heard on the news, this may end up being a technicality which allows them to question him and see if he has accomplices, or if there are other devices planted which pose a safety threat, and essentially taking the chance that by not mirandizing him, they forego the fruit of that interrogation in a court of law.

      If that is the case then I don’t have a huge problem with them not mirandizing him, if by definition the fruit of that non-mirandized interrogation can’t be used (including a confession– which was actually mentioned) in a court of law.

      Another angle was that if they do have other accomplices, it allows them to bargain with him to gain other leads to said accomplices– again, giving up some capital in a court case against him later.

  5. It’s not like they need the guy to incriminate himself, so it really should be a moot point.

    1. Due process is now a moot point in this country much like the Rule of Law and constitutional constraints.

      The guy may very well be the maniac you believe him to be, but do you seriously think you are in possession of enough evidence and have thought carefully enough about this to make that statement at this point?

      1. I understand there is video of him shooting the MIT cop. So, yes.

        1. So, one video gives you all the information you need? Wonderful. What if the police wrongly accused you and came at you with guns blazing (as they do all the time) and you shot back at them and killed one, can we assume that you were guilty then? Was everyone in Waco guilty?

          I’m not saying these guys are innocent, mind. I’m just saying we need to be a lot more thoughtful and a lot less sure of ourselves because the cops don’t really care if they find the guilty so long a they can find someone to make themselves look good.

    2. When the public safety exception is invoked anything he says is admissible.

      1. Even if you are not mirandized, though, you still have the rights outlined in that statement, correct? It’s just that if you do talk, what you say is admissible in court. Do I understand correctly?

        1. Correct

  6. Many of these folks think they’re ‘winning’, without realizing that Osama took it hands down, game, set, and match.

    Is this the same country as it was on the 10th of September 2001? Hardly.

    Which is exactly what the goal was. He has a substantial percentage of the Muslim world rejoicing at our failures, and the internal situation to the point that for a couple hundred bucks, an entire US city is shut down for a whole day looking for two individuals, using heavily militarized civilian cops with armored vehicles and automatic weapons to do so.

    Even Charlie Sheen doesn’t have balls big enough to call where we’re at ‘winning’. . .

    1. I wish I didn’t agree with you.

    2. Precisely.

      I used to actually enjoy travel.

    3. and the internal situation to the point that for a couple hundred bucks, an entire US city is shut down for a whole day looking for two individuals, using heavily militarized civilian cops with armored vehicles and automatic weapons to do so.

      I thought the LAPD was only looking for Dorner. There was a second person they shut down the city for?

    4. The U.S. had been on that track for more than a hundred years (FDR’s executive orders on gold and Japanese-Americans, Waco, Nixon, etc.), and the entire human race has been on that track since we learned how to farm. Insecurity and anxiety that ultimately permit totalitarianism are the defining political traits of humanity. Like Hayek said, people are always looking for strong men to protect them, and strong men usually don’t like anyone opposing them on anything.

      Liberty only exists when you have a population that actively values and fights for it. At least the various flavors of libertarians are here to bitch and moan; that’s more than you could have said in the past.

      1. “Insecurity and anxiety that ultimately permit totalitarianism are the defining political traits of humanity.”

        Precisely!! Men long to be sheep.

      2. Sick to think of our “Strong Men”: FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton, the Rice bitches, the Bushy-boys, effete (though homophobic) Barack…….can’t forget H-bomb Harry……

        Not one would blink an eye after giving the kill order on a perceived enemy…..

        AUUUGHHH!

  7. The Justice Department signaled that it planned to rely on a 1984…

    Stop right there.

  8. So…when do the Republicans get to start exploiting this tragedy to call for a “national dialog” on “common sense” immigration control?

    1. http://www.thedailybeast.com/c…..-bill.html

      You rang? It’s not ok to demand more background checks on gun buyers after an isolated criminal incident, but it is ok to expand BG checks on immigrants after a an isolated criminal incident.

      1. By the way, I don’t support either idiotic position…just in case that part wasn’t clear.

  9. There are two cases: either he is part of an established, uniformed military, or he is a civilian. Period. This never-neverland of terrorism law needs to end.

    In this case, he is a civilian, entitled to all the protections that go with it. And when he is found guilty, I will personally pull the trigger to end his miserable existence.

    1. No.

      Uniformed military vs. civilian are insufficient categories for the reality fo what we’re facing now.

      These guys should probably be treated as civilians. Read some books, got radicalized, and bombed people. That’s civilian kook enough for me.

      But there is a continuum between uniformed military and civilian, and international paramilitary organizations conducting terrorist bombings lies somewhere between the two, and is not represented well by either.

      The same applies to drug cartels.

  10. I find it fascinating that there are real people who think that whether or not he gets Mirandized will actually have any influence on his behavior.

    1. BMFPitt| 4.20.13 @ 9:52AM |#
      “I find it fascinating that there are real people who think that whether or not he gets Mirandized will actually have any influence on his behavior.”

      Not sure about that, but it’ll sure influence his *LAWYER’S* behavior.

      1. Prosecutor’s behavior, actually.

    2. Let’s throw out the constitution then. Whether or not it affects his behavior is not really the point. It’s the practical, legal implications down the road where it may become a significant factor. Of course, there is that little principle of due process and the fact that he is a US citizen (naturalized, but I think that still counts). It’s not supposed to matter, legally, how many he killed, whether or not he “ripped peoples’ legs off” or shut down a city for days, or how how much news coverage he received. We pat ourselves on the back for being so enlightened, compassionate, brave, democratic, etc. We’re nothing but a lynch mob of 300+ million ignorant assholes. I think we’ll find that he was just some dumb, alienated kid, influenced by his big brother, and neither of them will prove to be the evil terrorist masterminds they are being made out to be. And you bad-asses who want to “personally pull the trigger,” etc, are a bunch of dupes, sucking down whatever Anderson Cooper, et al are spewing.

      1. “And you bad-asses who want to “personally pull the trigger,” etc,”

        Cite missing.

        1. Look one post up from mine.

          1. OK, you got one. That’s the first post I’ve ever seen from ground truth. Got any more?

            1. Note you caimed “bad asses”, not “ass”.

      2. Let’s throw out the constitution then.

        Why?

        Whether or not it affects his behavior is not really the point.

        No, that’s a critical part of why I found it funny. Lindsay Graham sitting around thinking that he was going to answer every question he is asked, but then hears “right to remain silent” and suddenly he is some old school mafia guy.

        It’s the practical, legal implications down the road where it may become a significant factor. Of course, there is that little principle of due process and the fact that he is a US citizen (naturalized, but I think that still counts).

        Citizenship has nothing to do with it. Or at least it doesn’t in the text of the Constitution and in pre-Bush jurisprudence. Everyone other than uniformed military gets due process, period.

        And as noted above, everything he says without being read his rights is inadmissible in court, so that seems like a fair trade-off to me.

        1. 24 Jack Bauer: “After trashing Miranda, I know what the President wants me to do next.”

        2. IN general, un-uniformed military has never gotten due process, let alone civilian due process.

          Hung as spies and saboteurs.

  11. If ignorance of the law is no excuse what is the point of Miranda?

    1. Got to have something in the background at the end of the intense episode of CSI:.

      1. Torture.

    2. jdkchem| 4.20.13 @ 11:33AM |#
      “If ignorance of the law is no excuse what is the point of Miranda?”
      Kidding, right? Or sarc? Or stupid? Gimme a hint!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.