Is The Surviving Boston Marathon Terrorist an "Enemy Combatant?"

[rareboy]

I have to say that I find it poetic justice and quite funny actually, that the younger brother may have been the cause of his older brother's death by running over him in the stolen SUV and that he appears to have even fucked up his own suicide since the bullet he fired into his mouth just exited through his throat.

I find this all laughable, because apparently this little sociopath was able to party with his peeps on Wednesday and behave like nothing had happened. His humiliation and defeat at every turn now is wonderful to witness.

For anyone who even remotely believes that he was motivated by religious causes....get real. This guy was just another loser psycho, mad at the world and getting his rocks off by feeling like he was finally in control.

And now he will have a bitter lifetime to ponder his inability to do anything right.

 

[JayHawk]

I have to say that I find it poetic justice and quite funny actually, that the younger brother may have been the cause of his older brother's death by running over him in the stolen SUV and that he appears to have even fucked up his own suicide since the bullet he fired into his mouth just exited through his throat.

I find this all laughable, because apparently this little sociopath was able to party with his peeps on Wednesday and behave like nothing had happened. His humiliation and defeat at every turn now is wonderful to witness.

For anyone who even remotely believes that he was motivated by religious causes....get real. This guy was just another loser psycho, mad at the world and getting his rocks off by being in control.

And now he will have a bitter lifetime to ponder his inability to do anything right.

Out of curiosity, where did you hear his throat wound was a self inflicted suicide attempt? I was under the impression since the cops knew he was bleeding since the altercation the night before ...that he was shot in that firefight and then limped off to cower under the boat cover. Hence the owner seeing blood on the exterior of his boat, which alerted him to look inside and see the cowering killer.

If this guy had a suicide ideation then alll he had to do was stand up and start shooting. I am sure the 1000 cops surrounding him would have made sure he was with Allah or some other god of his choice.

 

[palbert]

.... yet again it begs the other question I have asked.... is telling you that you have the right to remain silent a RIGHT or a decision made by a court because people are ignorant of their rights?

If it is a decision to inform the ignorant then the decision can be changed or altered by the same body.

The Court in Quarles says the underpinning of Miranda was the opportunity for coercion by the police:

654*654 The Fifth Amendment guarantees that "[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." In Miranda this Court for the first time extended the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination to individuals subjected to custodial interrogation by the police. 384 U. S., at 460-461, 467. The Fifth Amendment itself does not prohibit all incriminating admissions; "[a]bsent some officially coerced self-accusation, the Fifth Amendment privilege is not violated by even the most damning admissions." United States v. Washington, 431 U. S. 181, 187 (1977) (emphasis added). The Miranda Court, however, presumed that interrogation in certain custodial circumstances[4] is inherently coercive and held that statements made under those circumstances are inadmissible unless the suspect is specifically informed of his Miranda rights and freely decides to forgo those rights. The prophylactic Miranda warnings therefore are "not themselves rights protected by the Constitution but [are] instead measures to insure that the right against compulsory self-incrimination [is] protected. " Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 433, 444 (1974); see Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U. S. 477, 492 (1981) (POWELL, J., concurring). Requiring Miranda warnings before custodial interrogation provides "practical reinforcement" for the Fifth Amendment right. Michigan v. Tucker, supra, at 444. [e.s.]

Admittedly the ignorant are more easily coerced. But I submit that even I would be intimidated if in custody. Miranda would help to balance that intimidation

 

[JayHawk]

True... so again... is the video evidence not enough to convict? Is that what you are saying?

let me ask you this... has Miranda since inception caused better prosecution? Vindicated the innocent? Or more often let actual criminals walk? There is a preponderance of case studies available for those answers.... take your time.

We are still talking Miranda right?

Also... I feel that the evidence in existence already... video that is indisputable, and eyewitness of fifteen officers that the suspect in custody drove through.... I am pretty sure those will never change regardless of the suspects statements on or off the record.

 

[JayHawk]

The Court in Quarles says the underpinning of Miranda was the opportunity for coercion by the police:



Admittedly the ignorant are more easily coerced. But I submit that even I would be intimidated if in custody. Miranda would help to balance that intimidation

Most who are mirandized (if that is a word) ...most simply begin talking if they are going to talk or don't if they weren't. the studies have proven that... the work has also proven that Miranda has simply allowed 3-6% of actual criminals to walk and saved nothing.

 

[palbert]

.... and that he appears to have even fucked up his own suicide since the bullet he fired into his mouth just exited through his throat. ....

Where did this information come from? I haven't seen this anywhere.

 

[JayHawk]

I don't think he will walk another free day, but he is not a convict yet, and I am not on the jury. The reason juries find verdicts, and not the public, is that juries are exposed to every fact, while the public often is not.



The criminal justice system should always favor the innocent, not the guilty. The point of the 5th amendment is to protect the innocent. If anything, Miranda helps the innocent the most. The guilty will get tripped up regardless, because the police can lie and play mind tricks.

I agree with all except that Miranda does anything ... it does to a purest looking in on a legal situation but in reality:

A number of empirical studies by both supporters and opponents of Miranda have concluded that the giving of Miranda warnings has little effect on whether a suspect agrees to speak to the police without an attorney. However, Miranda's opponents, notably law professor Paul Cassell, argued that letting go 3 or 4% of criminal suspects (who would be prosecuted otherwise but for defective Miranda warnings, or acting on defective waivers by defendants) is still too high a price to pay.

 

[palemale]

Remember that the Miranda warning is not a Constitutional right, but was created by the Warren Court, and contains the exception when necessary for protecting the public. Utilizing the exception is not a denial of the Constitutional right to remain silent.

Under the law, any waiver of a constitutional or statutory right must be knowing, voluntary and unequivocal. If a criminal suspect does not know of the constitutional right to remain silent, his waiver of that right will not be knowing and voluntary. Reading a suspect his or her Miranda rights makes any statements thereafter admissible because the suspect has waived the right to remain silent under the law, and the prosecutor does not have to prove that the suspect has knowingly, voluntarily and unequivocally waived the right.

 

[Benvolio]

That is incorrect, palemale. The Miranda case specifically said that the rules did not apply to "volunteer statements of any kind" and gave the examples of someone walking into the police station or calling to confess. Nor do they apply, it said, to general questioninging the fact finding process, because the "compelling atmosphere" of the in custody interrogation is not present.

It was never the intent of the 5th Amendment to discourage confessions, but to prohibit torture.

 

[TX-Beau]

WHAT!!!! The Constitution prohibits torture!!! SAY IT AIN'T SO BEN!

 

[Benvolio]

WHAT!!!! The Constitution prohibits torture!!! SAY IT AIN'T SO BEN!

Technically you are correct. It nowhere prohibits torture as such, but that was the rationale behind the prohibition against a person being "compelled" to testify against himself.

 

[Kulindahr]

Defining a person as an enemy combatant has to come down to demonstrating an intent to bring down the government or severely harm the nation. Most terrorism is meant to make a point, and it's hard to argue that constitutes an attempt to bring down the government.

 

[Benvolio]

The significance of the "enemy combatant" designation is that they are prisoners of war. They are detained to the end of the war and are not tried for crimes because, like soldiers, they may not have violated a criminal law, but if they are released, they will probably fight us again.

 

[JayHawk]

The significance of the "enemy combatant" designation is that they are prisoners of war. They are detained to the end of the war and are not tried for crimes because, like soldiers, they may not have violated a criminal law, but if they are released, they will probably fight us again.

Yeah well if that is the goal then I prefer that he be tried and convicted and have no opportunity to leave a 3 foot by six foot cell for life.

 

[palemale]

That is incorrect, palemale. The Miranda case specifically said that the rules did not apply to "volunteer statements of any kind" and gave the examples of someone walking into the police station or calling to confess. Nor do they apply, it said, to general questioninging the fact finding process, because the "compelling atmosphere" of the in custody interrogation is not present.

It was never the intent of the 5th Amendment to discourage confessions, but to prohibit torture.

Perhaps you ought to read the case, Ben. This is what the Supreme Court said:

The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights [against self incrimination], provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966)

The Supreme Court also said the following:

At the outset, if a person in custody is to be subjected to interrogation, he must first be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent. For those unaware of the privilege, the warning is needed simply to make them aware of it—the threshold requirement for an intelligent decision as to its exercise.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467-68, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 1624, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966)

 

[Benvolio]

Your second quotation is misleading, palemale. The words "these rights" refers to the new "rights" adopted by the Court applicable to questioning in custody. The same standards do not apply to purely volunteer statements as in the Courts examples of the individual walking in or calling to confess. Your statement in 125 was overly broad.

 

[Kulindahr]

Your second quotation is misleading, palemale. The words "these rights" refers to the new "rights" adopted by the Court applicable to questioning in custody. The same standards do not apply to purely volunteer statements as in the Courts examples of the individual walking in or calling to confess. Your statement in 125 was overly broad.

The Court didn't "adopt" any "new rights", it merely explicated the existing enumerated right.

 

[rareboy]

Out of curiosity, where did you hear his throat wound was a self inflicted suicide attempt? I was under the impression since the cops knew he was bleeding since the altercation the night before ...that he was shot in that firefight and then limped off to cower under the boat cover. Hence the owner seeing blood on the exterior of his boat, which alerted him to look inside and see the cowering killer.

If this guy had a suicide ideation then alll he had to do was stand up and start shooting. I am sure the 1000 cops surrounding him would have made sure he was with Allah or some other god of his choice.

I can't remember the original source, and shame on me for not posting the link originally but:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/boston-marathon-bomber-shot-himself-1846637

and a lot of other sources as well.

Why did he try this instead of a 'martyrs' death? Because he was a coward. Because he had no convictions behind his crime. This, perhaps more than any other action, shows that all of this was likely some nasty little piece of personal revenge.

 

[pat grimshaw]

^ revenge??

 

[Benvolio]

The Court didn't "adopt" any "new rights", it merely explicated the existing enumerated right.

You are quite mistaken. Miranda contains rules which police are required to folllow before questioning in custody. Scroll down to 119 wherein Palbert quotes the Quarles case: "The prophylactic Miranda warnings therefore are 'not themselves rights protected by the Constitution but [are] instead measures to insure that the right against compulsory self-incrimination [is] protected.'"
BUT now liberals talk about the warnings themselves as "rights", and in a sense they are now legal, but not Constitutional rights. The flip side of the police obligation to warn is the criminals "right" to be warned.
As I said earlier, Miranda is itself unconstitutional as a violation of Art.I, Sec.1.