The Chickens Come Home To Roost

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/20/boston-suspect-miranda-rights-activi...

I also understand that this in fact already convicted "suspect" will also be subjected to "enhanced interrogation."

All of which is merely the logical outcome of what has been going on since Bush went insane after 9/11 and Obama lost whatever backbone he may have once had.

This will be my last post to a Librarything political group (or the political groups that falsely are advertised as religious groups). I will have better things to do with my time henceforth.

May you all receive exactly what you deserve.

'http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/20/boston-suspect-miranda-rights-activi...

I also understand that this in fact already convicted "suspect" will also be subjected to "enhanced interrogation."

All of which is merely the logical outcome of what has been going on since Bush went insane after 9/11 and Obama lost whatever backbone he may have once had.'

This part of Lawecon's post is the most accurate, interesting, and substantive for as long as I can recall, and he is leaving...

I think this is a watershed issue. If the suspect is called an enemy combatant, the Bush years of criminality and abuse of language used to abuse people will have determined a course of greater disdain for humanity ingrained in US policy than ever before.

FWIW Graham and McCain are still covering for the extra legal measures of the Bush Administration. As well FWIW the Obama administration which promised transparency throughout government have expanded at least when it's been convenient (most of the time as it happens) these Bush/Cheney extra legal measures. I would assume for the greater majority of people in this country the above in #1 is a-ok. It's part of the whatever leads to more law and order brainwashing trip is best for everybody. Another great majority thought the 2003 Iraqi invasion was a good thing too. Generally speaking when it comes to justice, foreign affairs and a goodly % of economic issues I don't see a whole hell of a lot of difference between the democrats/republicans. And this (McCain, Graham rock solid muscle headed American exceptionalist fundamentalism) is red meat feel good stuff for the more rabid back in their districts and/or states.

IMO Gitmo is now Obama's baby. He's had plenty of chance to close it down.

>4 RickHarsch: i agree in full. 2002/3 was a terrible time, knowing they were lying, watching them move inexorably ahead to war, short circuiting Blix...

The failure to close Guantanamo is on Obama's head. Sure, the Republicans behaved badly, but this was a clear campaign promise that he let fall and set the tone for the rest of his foreign policy - that of a kind of Republican-light hawk.

May you all receive exactly what you deserve.

Right, this is entirely OUR problem.

Apparently because it won't at all affect people who live entirely in their own heads.

May you all receive exactly what you deserve.

It's always nice to see someone end on a high note.

Perhaps he meant that for our endurance we deserve much.

To get exactly what you deserve: that is justice.

To demand justice untempered by mercy: the sin of Jonah.

I understand the original poster is frustrated, but maybe so are we. Americans have extremely limited choices in our elections. We're not necessarily happy with everything our government does.

I would also point out that while I am concerned if a suspect is not read his/her Miranda rights, and I do not condone torture, I am also aware that the suspect's brother was wearing a trigger device, so there may have been justified concern that so might this suspect be wearing one. I can understand why the police might not be willing to risk being blown up while they stand there and politely read Miranda rights. I *do* expect them to read the Miranda rights at the first safe opportunity.

I do not believe in unlawful detention. The suspect must be charged (with supporting evidence) and given a trial. Nothing else is acceptable.

So do I deserve to suffer because I live in this country? No more than all Brits deserve to suffer for their country's colonialistic actions over the centuries.

Apparently they expect the younger Tsarnaev to survive. The doctor treating him (an Israeli by the way) thinks he might never be able to speak again because of injuries to his throat. One might think that in itself would put some limitations on what kind of extra legal interrogation techniques they'll be able to use if they decide on him as enemy combatant. I know--we don't waterboard anymore--at least that's what they've told us.

Personally I think this whole idea of separating a person from his Miranda rights is a dangerous slope to go skidding down--not unrelated to assassinating American citizens all around the globe who are suspected of terrorist activity. Who gets to decide who should die or who should lose the right to an attorney? How much to trust that one day one of these deciders won't just decide to knock off a personal enemy? 'Nobody complaining--I guess that worked out okay.' This is one stop shopping arrest, trial, judgement and execution without appeal. It might seem so far like these are just slam dunk extreme cases but starting down this road sooner rather than later the goal lines--the goal posts are going to change. It will be just a matter of time. Our government and those who serve it in its highest offices are above the law right now. IMO the Obama administration has turned into pretty much as big a disaster as the administration it replaced.

McCain and Graham are calling for Tsarnaev to be treated as an enemy combatant and denied access to counsel. An American, committing a crime and captured on American soil. Is this the direction we want to go -- where anyone can be denied their rights if they are arrested of a crime someone in power decides to.

This will certainly test Obama.

I'm not downplaying the extent of the crime Tsarnaev is being accused of, but all of our rights are in jeopardy, when rights can be denied by politicians in the heat of the moment.

And what's the deal with Graham? McCain's been angry and unhinged for years now, but Graham's always had as much fire as the typical tapioca pudding. He's under constant attack from the SC Tea Party, but that can't be all of it.

If you lie to become a citizen, the citizenship may be revoked, e. g. John Demjanyuk and many others.

As far as any problems in speaking, as long as young Dzoky-dokey can hear and write he can answer questions either through the operation of conscience or the external motivation of water-boarding.

One still HAS their Miranda rights, even if they are not read. But then, if they are not read they will probably not be honored.

If it is a choice between treatment that #13 would approve of and letting him go free because he was not read his rights, I say let him go free.

>13 DaiAlanye: Water-boarding is no longer in use. So I take it, you stand with McCain and Graham in saying that legal protections are meaningless if a senator says so?

--15 & 16
I say two things. First, neither McC or G speaks for me. Second, that torturing terrorists for purposes of gaining information to prevent future acts of terror is fully justifiable. Usually the Geneva Conventions are brought up in this regard, but only be those whose understanding of the conventions is incomplete.

I wrote an article on this some years back, which I won't post here due to its length. What it essentially said was, that if one of your loved ones was in imminent danger of murder by criminals you would probably be willing or even eager to bend your ethical standards. At least, I hope you would do what had to be done in order to save innocent lives.

Senator Graham simply needs to be disbarred: he's a lawyer who has publicly expressed disbelief in the efficacy of our legal system.

--18 I'll bet you think our legal system unfailing produces truly just outcomes. Or is his statement simply a convenient stick with which you can beat dear Lindsay?

In theology there is a concept known as Invincible Ignorance. Perhaps that's what we have here. While I admire most of you for your good principles and missionary endeavour, might I say a good word for the Member Block function we have here on LT? Save your time and blood pressure for better causes than trying to Spring-clean poor Dai's untidy consciousness. Peace to you all, even poor benighted Dai. -- G

--20 Congrats for putting your disdain of logic so nicely. If we stop trying to play King Canute toward each other's invincible ignorance we'll all save time for more productive pursuits. Theology is, of course, the best parallel to strongly-held biases that can never be disproved by rational argument. You decide to which of us this applies.

This is an example of why I rarely argue with convinced liberals. No sooner are their biases factually refuted than up comes a non-sequitur on the order of: You're so dumb, Reagan dyed his hair, What about Rigoberta Menchu?, We attacked Jerusalem first a millennium back, Bush's fault!, You're a racist hater/hateful racist, and so forth. Pretty tiresome. And I almost always wait in vain for rational counter arguments.

A conservative is perhaps a centrist with no sense of irony.

We heard an interview with John Aschcroft (former AG) on NPR on the way to church this morning, and he seemed to think that the enemy combatant idea (which he essentially pioneered) might apply.

I find that a terrible idea, because it raises the level of what these two kids did to that of war. It glorifies their actions, in a way. Instead, we should be treating him like any other criminal -- he's nothing special. And that means he should be mirandized, too.

At the same time, I am praying for the young man's recovery and for the Lord's mercy, forgiveness, and grace.

I support the idea of enemy combatants. If we discover someone fighting against us in Afghanistan turns out to be an American, I think we can treat them like a combatant, not a criminal. Certainly we don't need to stop the Big Red One because it turns out the Germans have a dual citizen defending Berlin. But this is almost the other extreme—one citizen, one green-card holder, operating on American soil engaging in acts that are straightforwardly criminal. I'm not sure where to draw the line, but far, far away from this.

As a big supporter of McCain, I'm saddened by his position here, although I'd like to hear what he has to say.

But Graham saying - while the perp was still on the run - that when we catch the guy, "we should not accord him any of his constitutional protections - heck , maybe we should torture him" - was not JUST disgusting, it was stupid.

On the one hand, the guy's family was encouraging him to surrender - and on the other hand, one of our Solons was saying "Yeah, c'mon in: SO WE CAN TORTURE YOU." That was not helpful.

#19 Or is his statement simply a convenient stick with which you can beat dear Lindsay?

WTF? Using HIS OWN (stupid) WORDS to criticize the fool is somehow unfair?

Bob, when their words make them look like mindless blowhards then, yes, totally unfair. Equally unfair to quote him when he says it the next six times.

I'm just going to agree with everything Mr Campbell said up in post 23.

Let me put it another way: Timothy McVeigh was mirandized when they arrested him, right? Ditto for Eric Rudolph, the Olympic Square bomber? And the Unabomber?

They committed acts of terrorism against the United States, but nobody bothered to label them "enemy combatants" for the sole purpose of stripping them of their civil rights.

I've harped on this before on LT and I'll do it again...but the unhappy truth that I've encountered, when making the rounds in a small way after writing about the torture debate, is that many Americans like the idea of torture. More than it is repugnant, torture is popular.

It's not about justice or the constitution. Rather, people feel hurt and affronted and, in response, principles get put aside because they want to get in some licks. That's the abiding sentiment.

Are Graham and McCain sincere? Or are they opportunistic, playing to voters? I don't pretend to know their minds, their consciences.

But I am pretty sure that, in either case, we are witnessing the ongoing seduction of the lynch mob.

#10: I would also point out that while I am concerned if a suspect is not read his/her Miranda rights, and I do not condone torture, I am also aware that the suspect's brother was wearing a trigger device, so there may have been justified concern that so might this suspect be wearing one. I can understand why the police might not be willing to risk being blown up while they stand there and politely read Miranda rights. I *do* expect them to read the Miranda rights at the first safe opportunity.

I don't think many people object to the concept of the public safety exception. It came out of a case where a cop saw an empty holster and wanted to know where the gun was, which is not an unreasonable request. To me it should more important that we don't have the time to read the Miranda rights, not that we hope it will let us screw more out of the suspect.

It may be worth re-reading Marshall, Brennan and Steven's dissent in New York v. Quarles.

#30: Interesting. I'm still not convinced it's a bad thing in theory, but it seems like the best you can say for it is "give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile".

#17: torturing terrorists for purposes of gaining information to prevent future acts of terror is fully justifiable.

Sure, if what you want is to manufacture bogus information. Like that time the Bushists decided to use torture to get testimony that would corroborate their bogus claims about a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. Too bad we can't have the idiot voters who clamor for such nonsense to bear the consequences of their own foolishness.

#18: Senator Graham simply needs to be disbarred: he's a lawyer who has publicly expressed disbelief in the efficacy of our legal system.

You've clearly put no thought whatsoever into your words here. Or maybe you actually think that anyone who thinks your system is a dysfunctional morrass of corruption should be disbarred and only true believers should become lawyers. In your case it's probably both.

In re #28. I agree with krolik's post, and am saddened (though not surprised) by the realities behind it. Even a passing glance at prime-time TV, especially FOX (I spit as I write the word) is painful confirmation of this dark fact. I might point out something else, however, to our far-flung constituency. As a resident of rural New England, I see considerable Boston-focussed or at-least Boston-influenced TV news. If that is any indication of anything, the mood in Boston is far more rational than that of the rest of the country.

It's not about justice or the constitution. Rather, people feel hurt and affronted and, in response, principles get put aside because they want to get in some licks. That's the abiding sentiment.

And I think that is what is happening in the Tsarnaev case. It seems clear that the police have sufficient evidence that show that the Tsarnaev brothers planted the bombs. What more information do those clamoring for torture think will be found?

No, the people demanding that the kid be treated as an enemy combatant, denied his Miranda rights, and tortured just want to make him suffer to satisfy their bloodlust.

And the real problem is that ignoring the Miranda warnings, and engaging in illegal behavior is not only not likely to result in usable information, it jeopardizes actually securing a conviction against Tsarnaev the will hold up in court. What the voices clamoring for torture and so on are actually asking for is for Tsarnaev to be set free as a result of procedure violations.

#34

I doubt that possibiltity (that Tsarnaev might be freed because of government bad conduct) has even occured to those advocating torture and abandonment of what few rights we still possess.

I can see no reason why the suspects in custody should not be treated exactly as any other criminal suspects. The conviction rate for arrested suspects is pretty high, after all, so somehow despite all those Consitutional 'shackles' that are placed on law enforcement, the courts, etc. we manage to lock away a lot of people.

This is completely aside of the fact that torture, with rare exceptions, does not work.

35: Oh, they almost certainly haven't considered that this is what their demands amount to, and they obviously labor under the delusion that torture is somehow an effective information acquisition tool. But the end result is that what they are demanding is useless interrogation followed by a freed suspect.

Oddly, they seem to simply be ignoring the damning report from a bipartisan commission that looked at the use of post-9/11 torture and condemned every bit of it as gratuitous and damaging, and concluding that there was "no firm or persuasive evidence" that the use of torture yielded "significant information of value."

That report was released a week ago, one day after the Boston bombings: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/16/17781845-bush-era-torture-use-indispu...

Some additional reference material on the subject at hand, concerning Miranda rights, questioning of suspects, and the use of such statements in a court setting:

http://wielandnotes.tumblr.com/post/48462839332/i-blame-dick-wolf-misunderstandi...

Inquisitor Graham. Inquisitor McCain. You'd think John would know better--having been a POW. Perhaps he's just playing to his base.

Just got word he will not be treated as an enemy combatant.

>40 Arctic-Stranger:
I suspected that would be the case but in the interval opportunistic bullies didn't waste the moment to show that they supposedly had more balls than their rivals by stirring up some fear and desire for vengeance.

And you expected it to be different?

I believe it was G.K. Chesterton who said that original sin was the only theological concept that could be empirically verified.

How?

Just watch Fox News. Or listen to talk radio. Attend a Democratic committee meeting. Listen to the "man in the street" interview.

Go to Boston and hold up a sign that says, "Jesus told us to forgive our enemies" on any random street corner.

All because two infants ate an apple. Wouldn't a time out have worked?

#44: Or maybe examples of "sinful" behavior just make for sexier stories than the more peaceful mundane goings-on of the human race.