The Boston bombing and civil rights

[JewelSong]

[Note: I split this off from the discussion about the Boston Bombings and probability - VtF]

I agreed with the lock-down action. It has nothing to do with probability or how many people are killed in traffic accidents or anything remotely like that. I don't even think it had to do with risk to the public.

It had to do with Getting the Guy.

The police had a good idea of where this guy was - he had fled on foot and they knew he couldn't get far. They suspected he was wounded.

By locking everything down, they prevented him from moving freely. He couldn't grab a cab or bus or train. He couldn't carjack another car because no one was driving. If he moved or tried to get from one place to another, he'd be spotted.

They also prevented him from seeking medical help or even getting food and water. Sure, he found the boat to hide in but then he was forced to stay there. When they lifted the order, he had been there for about 18 hours, thirsty, weakened and out of options. Had they lifted it earlier or if there had been no lock-down, he could well have escaped - even if it was on a bicycle.

Maybe you have to be from the Boston area to understand how important it was to GET THIS GUY. Having him escape would have been completely unacceptable.

I think it was absolutely the right move.

It was about the police seeking vengeance.

If the police were seeking vengeance, the guy would be dead. You're off base on this one, hal.

It was about FINDING the guy. If you lived in Boston, you'd know that.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

This probably is getting too Lasto-ish, and maybe I'll split it, but I agree with Jewel. I'm not from the Boston area, but I do have a connection to it, and I could have very easily been standing at the very spot where the bombs went off, at the moment they went off. That left me with a pretty visceral connection to the situation. With violence erupting again Thursday night, the discovery that they had more explosives, and the apparent desire to use them, getting the remaining suspect became an imperative. Only then could the healing even begin to begin.

[Lalaith]

I agree with Jewel, hal.

I'm surprised at your comment, actually.

Beyond that, I'll get too worked up, so I'll shut up for now.

[halplm]

Normal operating procedure for a crime is to track down the criminal, arrest them following correct procedures, and then let the justice system proceed. Because this attack was so horrifying (well, as long as you're not comparing it to a disaster like in West, TX, or the earthquake recently in China), these criminals were treated different.

I stand by my statement, it was out of a desire for vengeance (the tone of which is presented obviously in Jewel's post) that the law with regards to how we track down and treat criminals was completely suspended.

That I do find terrifying.

[JewelSong]

Hal, I can tell you that living near Boston, I found it immensely relieving (is that a word?) that the police were being so diligent in tracking down such an obviously dangerous individual.

They tracked him down, withstood a THREE HOUR STAND OFF in which he repeatedly fired upon them and then arrested him. How was he "treated different?" I am serious here. What law was suspended?

Also, you keep saying "criminals" plural. The lock-down and subsequent arrest did not happen until Friday, when the 1st suspect was already dead (from gunfire, explosives and apparently, his own brother running him over.)

There was only one guy to arrest.

And I am curious about what you see as my "tone." I fell supreme sorrow for this 19 year old boy that did such a horrible thing...when I saw his picture, I felt great grief. Not "vengeance."

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I stand by my statement, it was out of a desire for vengeance (the tone of which is presented obviously in Jewel's post) that the law with regards to how we track down and treat criminals was completely suspended.

I have followed this story extremely closely, and I have not seen any indication of any suspension of the law. Any searches that were conducted were pretty clearly justified by exigent circumstances. The initial questioning of the suspect before reading him his Miranda rights was certainly justified by the public safety exception, and he now has been read his Miranda rights, and has indicated that he understands them.

That, of course, was mocked by members of the GOP, particilarly Sen. Lindsey Graham, who believes that the suspect should be treated as an "enemy combatant" with all rights as a U.S. citizen completely suspended.

Now that I really do find terrifying.

[elfshadow]

If I'm not mistaken, the bomber who died in the shootout actually had explosives strapped to his body at the time of his death. Someone do correct me if I'm wrong. If true, to me this suggests that it was absolutely right for BPD to go on a "manhunt" and initiate a lockdown. These two men were almost certainly intending to cause more destruction, and in places where a lot of people were gathered. They targeted the Boston Marathon because of the number of people in attendance, so it stands to reason that BPD call for a lockdown to prevent any further mass targets.

[River]

That, of course, was mocked by members of the GOP, particilarly Sen. Lindsey Graham, who believes that the suspect should be treated as an "enemy combatant" with all rights as a U.S. citizen completely suspended.

Now that I really do find terrifying.

Yeah, that's pretty effed up. I think it's just political grand-standing, but it's still effed up. If that American kid that got captured fighting with the Taliban gets treated as a citizen, so should Tsarnaev.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

If I'm not mistaken, the bomber who died in the shootout actually had explosives strapped to his body at the time of his death. Someone do correct me if I'm wrong. If true, to me this suggests that it was absolutely right for BPD to go on a "manhunt" and initiate a lockdown. These two men were almost certainly intending to cause more destruction, and in places where a lot of people were gathered. They targeted the Boston Marathon because of the number of people in attendance, so it stands to reason that BPD call for a lockdown to prevent any further mass targets.

Yes, that is quite correct. In addition, they threw additional explosive devises at the police, and considerably more were found at at least one of their domociles.

[Lalaith]

Not to mention that he killed an officer and nearly succeeded in killing another. (Who knows if that may still happen?!) Given the fact that he'd already demonstrated a total disregard for any lives, I think the police were acting very reasonably.

They did track down the criminal (cordoning off an area is SOP), arrest him according to the law, and are continuing to proceed according to the law.

I don't like the enemy combatant stuff I'm hearing, and I'm glad it doesn't seem to be going that way.

[halplm]

I have no real way to respond when people fail to see what's right in front of their faces, which is why I don't post here anymore anyway.

[Lalaith]

Or maybe you're the one not seeing what's right in front of your face. (I'm actually saying that gently and not snarkily.) Not to be rude, because I like you and try not to be rude in general, but what you just said can easily be turned around to you. It doesn't help a discussion or help anyone see your point of view.

However, I do understand being reluctant to post. I've discussed that elsewhere already.


ETA: to clarify something

[WampusCat]

hal, what is everyone not seeing?

If vengeance was the aim, the police had plenty of chances during his capture to kill him. I, for one, was quite relieved that they seemed to take care to keep him alive.

[elfshadow]

In my mind, the police took the only reasonable course of action that was in front of them--searching for the perpetrators and locking down the city while they believed the public was in imminent danger. I would be curious to hear what other options they might have had; after all, I have no experience whatsoever in this area.

[Impenitent]

Sen. Christopher Bond: "We've got to be far less interested in protecting the privacy rights of these terrorists than in collecting information that may lead us to details of broader schemes to carry out attacks in the United States."

Sen. John McCain: "When we detain terrorism suspects, our top priority should be finding out what intelligence they have that could prevent future attacks and save American lives. Our priority should not be telling them they have a right to remain silent."

McCain and Bond are apparently both on the right wing of the Republican party, from what I've read, so perhaps their assault on Miranda isn't going anywhere.

But then, Attorney General Eric Holder in October of 2010 widened the exception to Miranda beyond the Supreme Court’s 1984 ruling: “Agents should ask any and all questions that are reasonably prompted by an immediate concern for the safety of the public or the arresting agents,” stated a DoJ memo to the FBI that wasn’t disclosed at the time.

“There may be exceptional cases in which, although all relevant public safety questions have been asked, agents nonetheless conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat, and that the government's interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation.”

Is Miranda in danger?

Here's the whole article:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... orism.html

[Primula Baggins]

So . . . Miranda rights don't exist until you've been given the Miranda "warning"?

So . . . someone who is perfectly aware that they have the right to remain silent and the right to counsel cannot exercise those rights before the official warning?

[axordil]

The Slate article is straining at gnats to connect this case, where the public safety carve-out is transparently justified (tick, tick), to cases where it's not nearly so evident.

A far better discussion of the Miranda issues can be had at

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... ts/275189/

Basically, the public safety exception does not change the strictures on how much of what the accused says can be used against him in court.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

You beat me to it, Ax. Except that I would have been less charitable to the author of the Slate piece.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

In a related subject, now that the Obama administration has made the (in my opinion correct and only possition) decision to try the suspect in the civilian court system rather than (illegally) treating him as an enemy combatant and trying him in a military tribunal, the question becomes, "how will they possibly find an unbiased jury not tainted by exposure to news coverage of the case?" And if they can find sufficient jurors, what kind of people will they be to not be exposed to news coverage of this case?

[JewelSong]

Maybe the the guy will plead guilty to avoid the death penalty...