Really? Infowars?

 

omg Ron Paul did an interview with Alex Jones, discount the entire thing and go sacrfice kittens to Glenn Beck in reparations.

 

I mean, it's your call.

The discussion could go towards something like discussing the FBI refusing the younger Tamerlan's request for a lawyer during his questioning and the implications for the upcoming federal case against him... or you can post a clip from Infowars featuring Dr. Ron Paul.

 

He didnt have to talk, with or without his rights being read. You always have your rights, regardless if anyone reminds you about them or not. he wasnt granted rights, he was reminded of them by a judge, and then he decided he was done lying to police.


or I could have posted some crazy conspriacy crap from Alex Jones...

Also, where do we know his request for a lawyer was denied? and that's fine, police/FBI are allowed to question people without a lawyer/miranda in certain situations (New York vs. Quarles).

 

Miranda rights silenced Boston bombing suspect - latimes.com




It's a Guardian blog, but it makes some fairly cogent points: Report: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's repeated requests for a lawyer were ignored | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

edit: you do make a good point about the Miranda warning not being necessary because not being read your rights doesn't mean that they have been taken away or suspended; however, straight out ignoring the request for a lawyer/representation doesn't fall under Miranda nor the public safety exemption that was being used in regards to Tsarnaev's Miranda rights being read.

 

He still didnt have to answer any questions; he lied anyways, so who cares? Because of the Quarles ruling, I don't believe they have to honor his request for a lawyer or prevent self-incrimindation while exercising that window which the point of the miranda rule; to prevent questioning and self-incrimindation post-reading.

 

Actually denying the lawyer is common practice under the exemption as long as the line of questioning is pertaining to outstanding threats. If the police are asking about active bombs that might be hidden around the city or any other threats or planned attacks that he might know about that are an immediate threat then they are justified. They are not allowed, however, to start asking him about the Boston Bombings or his involvement because this is not a looming threat to public safety.

 

Source that says he was lying.

Source/precedent for going against the 5th Amendment.

 

He said they were working alone, they said they were going to NY city next.

Source = me.

 

I don't see how that's a credible source for claims that Tsarnaev is lying to federal prosecutors.

 

It's called the common sense rule.

 

You should probably actually read your own sources because the article you just linked clearly states that this is common practice. They just reference that the law enforcement spokesman had stated publicly that there was no threat as evidence that the FBI was no longer questioning him along those lines. I believe it is much more likely that the FBI publicly stated that the public threat was subsided before they were done questioning him in order to keep the public peace.

The article has no evidence of what kind of questions were being asked by the FBI. They are just making assumptions. I imagine it was all done by the book so that his lawyer cannot destroy them in court. He has a big time defense attorney at his side now.

EDIT:
They are assuming that these announcements meant that the FBI was actually done questioning him about looming threats and not made to keep the general populace feeling safe.

 

I asked politely, and I provided sources that back my statements; you haven't done the same.

Instead you provide a bandwagon logical fallacy as "proof".

 

The public safety exclusion only pertains to the Miranda Warning. The Miranda Warning is not the same as your 5th amendment rights.

 

What of the 5th amendment are you suggesting has been violated? The part about land and naval forces?

there's nothing there about "when GAMO says so, a lawyer must be provided when asked"

 

Sorry for not being specific, the due process clause in the 5th and 14th Amendments.

I'm on my cell phone and posting is hard with SwiftKey.

Hey Braineack, there's no reason to go into ad hominem attacks.

 

Source: For Now, Public-Safety Exception Precludes Bomber's Miranda Rights | The American Civil Rights Union

They had their time and the court intervened when it thought that the exception was no longer valid. All procedures were followed.

 

I already replied to this, but I found something that goes a little bit more into it versus me just spouting off on a forum: How the Media Have Misunderstood Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's Miranda Rights - Adam Goodman - The Atlantic

This is where I'm coming from in my understanding of the public safety exception clause in Miranda.

edit: aaaa you replied

I was specifically honing in on the line that the LA Times just kind of hand-waved over: a senior aide said that Tsarnaev asked for a lawyer multiple times and was denied. I can see this becoming an issue and setting some new legal precedent.

At the end of the day, they have more than enough evidence to pin him against the wall and convict him; however, how the law changes will be interesting. And as much as I hate to be cynical about it, it's always fun to see the FBI come up with new, fun ways to screw up the legal process.

 

what are we even arguing here?

His access to a lawyer before his miranda rights were read to him is to least but concerning to me as the total lockdown of a town and CLEAR violation of 4th admendment rights.

 

You have clearly never debated .

If you are going to continue, be prepared for ad hominem attacks, non sequiters and "because I'm the admin."