Monday Open Thread [4.22.13]
Those results are actually somewhat heartening since they either involved terrorists who were not American citizens or whose citizenship was left unclear. I can see the argument that noncitizen terrorists do not have constitutional rights and are enemy combatants. But citizens? Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev is an American citizen. Yes, he is a terrorist too, but he is an American too. Just as Jeffrey Dahmer was a serial killer, but also an American citizen. Just as Eric Rudolph was a right wing bomber, but he was also an American citizen. So since he is an American citizen, he has constitutional rights. That means Tsarnaev has his 5th Amendment rights and 6th Amendment rights, which are, respectively:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
So that is the end of that. For all those fascist conservatives like Lindsay Graham and Donald Trump who want Tsarnaev tortured and sent to Gitmo without a trial, I find it interesting that the only constitutional right you recognize is the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Everything else is merely suggestions. Hypocrites.
How the media failed in its coverage of the Boston Bombings and Manhunt. NBC and Pete Williams was the only network to distinguish itself as semi-competent.
We have some new polling, but not enough for a polling report, so here you go:
LOS ANGELES–MAYOR–USC Price/Los Angeles Times: Eric Garcetti (D) 50; Wendy Greuel (D) 40.
The poll suggests Greuel’s “dogged fight to win the backing of public employee unions appears to be undercutting her on her home turf in the San Fernando Valley… The survey also found no sign of success for Greuel’s effort to gain an edge among women by highlighting her potential to make history as the city’s first female mayor. Women preferred Garcetti, 50% to 41%.”
MASSACHUSETTS–SENATOR–DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY–Western New England University: Rep. Edward Markey (D) 44, Rep. Stephen Lynch (D) 34.
MASSACHUSETTS–SENATOR–REPUBLICAN PRIMARY–Western New England University: Gabriel Gomez (R) 33, Michael Sullivan (R) 27.
If the Boston suspect does not have rights, then none of us have rights–only privileges extended by the government when it is convenient.
Mirandize him.
There’s that damn “Militia” again screwing up an otherwise perfectly good sentence.
“If the Boston suspect does not have rights, then none of us have rights –- only privileges extended by the government when it is convenient.”
Having been born during the Cold War, I have never doubted that the latter phrase best describes our situation.
Mirandize him AFTER fully questioning him. The public safety exception in Miranda is fully justified here – there may be other terrorists out there he could inform us about.
my understanding of the exception is they dont mirandize, they question, then anything that comes out in that pre-miranda questioning can’t be used in his federal trial. Anything that he says AFTER Miranda and he waives, is.
am I wrong? it seems once he gets to trial he’s still protected. i can understand the grey area (ie, once he’s talked he’ll accidentally waive and talk post Miranda).
I don’t know the rules for the exception; the main thing is to discover any other persons or plots as soon as possible. Legal consequences for the suspect can be worked out later, hopefully with maximum respect for his rights.
How does this so called ” Pubic Safety Exception” get around Miranda
It’s in the Miranda ruling itself.
The public safety exception, however, actually requires evidence not mere suspicious IIRC in order to vitiate Miranda–it is literally in there for the “ticking bomb” scenario.
When puck says
the main thing is to discover any other persons or plots as soon as possible. Legal consequences for the suspect can be worked out later, hopefully with maximum respect for his rights.
I could not disagree more.
Regardless of when they Mirandize him, his rights are not violated unless and until prosecutors attempt to use information that he commumnicated prior to being advised of his rights.
As an extreme example. A suspected criminal is arrested and sent to trial without ever having been asked or answered a single question. Were his rights violated? No. Because his rights under the Fifth Amendment against self incrimination were not violated.
The Miranda Warning is not a set of rights. It is a reminder of one’s rights under the Fifth. So they never have to actually Mirandize him and could (in theory) still convict him, as long as they had other evidence which proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.
So when do they have to Mirandize him? They don’t. Not ever. The consequence is that he may not be convicted if they don’t have enough evidence without interrogating. That’s a judgment call for those who are responsible for prosecuting the case.
The public safety exception does allow certain non-Mirandized statements to be admissible when there is a public-safety need. Which by the way was a precedent established by the great conservative State of New York at the Supreme Court.
Steve, I sympathize with our point of view; I just came to the opposite conclusion. I’m not advocating trading liberty for security.
Normally when police don’t want to Mirandize someone it is because they want to build a stronger case against the suspect. In that case, I think the People’s right to evidence is outweighed by the suspect’s Fifth Amendment right to be silent and not incriminate himself.
But in a public safety exception, and certainly in this bombing case, I think the People’s right to be secure outweighs the suspect’s Fifth Amendment right. Getting more evidence against the suspect is not really the point. The point is to get evidence about other people. Perhaps a line should be drawn where the suspect is not asked to give evidence against himself, or if he is then it could be disallowed.
The irony is that when information about other parties are involved, prosecutors nearly always offer immunity or leniency in exchange for evidence about them. See US vs. Singleton, one of the great abominations of our legal system.
I’d rather hold off on Mirandizing this guy for a few weeks than offer him immunity or leniency. Somehow I don’t think offering a plea deal for life in prison instead of death will have much effect on a terrorist who is already committed to die.
Does it really matter ? The evidence against him is so strong already.
I haven’t been following that closely, but the “evidence against him” is that he dropped a backpack on the ground at the Boston marathon, no. Is there evidence he built the devices, conspired with his older brother, and knowingly placed explosives with the intent to kill? It would seem that this information would have to come from the suspect himself.
“So since he is an American citizen, he has constitutional rights. That means Tsarnaev has his 5th Amendment rights and 6th Amendment rights,”
His citizenship is irrelevant, he is under the jurisdiction of the United States, as in he is here , on our soil
He could be an extra-terrestrial. – the Constitution and the Bill of Rights still apply to him and apply to everyone under the jurisdiction of the US.
EXCEPTION, as you noted:
“except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger”
For those of you who are focused on hoping to make the higher income earners pay more (There fair share) taxes, read below
5. Report: Wealthy Americans Do Pay ‘Fair Share’ of Taxes
With the income tax filing deadline rolling by in mid-April, the Tax Foundation’s website offered a report refuting allegations from the left that wealthy Americans need to pay more of a “fair share” of taxes.
“Support is growing in Washington and among the public to raise tax rates on the ‘rich’ to reduce inequality in America,” the Tax Foundation stated.
“But much of the perceived rise in inequality is really the natural result of the business cycle as well as social and demographic forces far beyond the role of tax policy.”
Income tax returns showing an adjusted gross income of $250,000 or more account for only about 2 percent of all returns, according to the report, which was published last year and is largely based on figures from 2010.
These filers’ share of all income is 23 percent, but they account for 53 percent of all income taxes paid. Those earning less than $30,000 account for 23 percent of all income, but as a group they receive more back from the IRS than they pay in income taxes.
The top-earning 10 percent of taxpayers pay 70 percent of all income taxes, up from 55 percent in 1985, while the bottom 90 percent pay 29 percent, down from 45 percent in 1985. In fact, the top 1 percent pay more, 37 percent, than the bottom 90 percent.
The percentage of filers who pay no income taxes has soared from 16 percent in 1969 to 41 percent — 58 million filers in 2010.
The Tax Foundation report shows how a family of four earning as much as $45,000 could pay no income taxes. After taking into consideration the standard deduction, four personal exemptions, child credits, and the earned income tax credit, the family would not only escape paying income taxes, but they would receive a refundable credit of $637.
As for assertions that those not paying income taxes do at least pay Social Security payroll taxes (FICA), 23 percent of non-payers actually receive more in refundable credits than they pay in FICA.
The Tax Foundation concludes: “Thanks to misdirected tax policy, America is becoming divided between a shrinking group of taxpayers who are bearing the lion’s share of the cost of government today, and a growing group of taxpayers who are disconnected from the basic cost of government.
“This is a recipe for both fiscal and social instability.”
Rusty,
In 2011
Mitt Romney’s effective tax rate was 14%
Warren Buffet’s effective tax rate was 13.7%
My effective tax rate was 18.85%
What was your effective tax rate in 2011?
Note 1: An individual’s effective tax rate is calculated by dividing total tax liability by their taxable income
Note 2: Taxable income is the gross income or adjusted gross income minus any deductions, exemptions or other adjustments that are allowable in that tax year.
Millions of Americans have fallen into non-taxable brackets through job loss, income shrinkage, or both. Yet the wealthiest continue to get wealthier. It’s hard not to conclude that the former incomes of the bottom 40% have somehow found their way into the pockets of the top 1%. The solution is blindingly obvious – raise incomes of the bottom until they once again fall into a taxable bracket.
The wealthiest are not being taxed nearly enough – obviously their tax rate doesn’t put a dent into their fortunes. In spite of their alleged tax burden (Mitt Romney 12, 13% or whatever) their fortunes are still increasing, while any sizable tax increase would clearly sink most of the bottom 40%. Even the noted Socialist Barack Obama has imposed a cap of 20% on the tax rate of our wealthiest.
By the way, Warren Buffet, alleged proponent of the Rich paying more taxes has been arguing with the IRS for more than 10 years over a billion dollars they say he owes, and he says he does not, and has not paid!
Dave, I am just guessing, buy maybe you are not as smart as Mitt Romney and Warren Buffet. And maybe you don’t manage wealth as good as they do. They have already paid a higher tax rate when there monies were earned through earned income. Now, that they have been frugal with their money, and saved it up, their investments are taxed at a lower rate, because the money has already been taxed once before.
There are income taxes and total tax burden lower income people are paying a higher tax rate than conservatives like to show. I’m guessing if you took Mitt Romney’s real income which would include monies he has stashed for tax avoidance his rate would be much lower. If you have enough money, you can legally buy politicians. In fact they are a bargain.
What a bunch of nonsense saying earnings on capital gains should not be taxed because you were taxed on the amount you invested or the corporation supposedly paid corporate taxes.
Even if Mitt were paying double taxation (he’s not; that’s hokum), he’d still be paying a lower rate than the rest of us.