Is Boston Bombing Suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Getting Constitutional Protections?

to enemy today’s adam winkler he’s a
professor of constitutional law at the u_c_l_a_ school of law also author of
gunfight the battle over the right to bear arms in america and great to talk to you again i want to
talk about that some of the controversy that started after the arrest of uh… these boston marathon bombing
suspect you are sar native and the fact that he was not moran dies he was going
to be spoken to under the public safety exception so let’s talk about what that exception is
and when it can be when it applies well that’s right the referral as so
many americans are now requires the government to warn you that
you have a right to remain silent and a right to counsel and then if you deny those things the
government can admit into evidence uh… the testimony that you give onto the police officer this before
uh… icd seeking counsel and that role has an exception michael known as the
public safety exception answers where there’s a imminent threat to
public safety the government can interrogate you try
to get information say it was our has had well other ron’s round boston for
instance they want to find out make sure they got that information
s_a_t_ within minutes but it is a limited requirement it does
require a korean imminent danger women in the dangers of saying we’re
trying their best to gate by his legs back in chechnya russia we have to be something that poses a
clear present danger imminently to citizens here in the united states
right away so the concerns from some have been that
buying by using the public safety exception due process was was not uh… that that
he was not getting due process and that somehow the the loop of the spirit of the law if
not the letter was being circumvented now of what i want to do first is just a
look at what we know he was a suspect in a in a terrorist
bombing he had engaged with police the previous
night and is alleged to have thrown pipe bombs it was unclear whether where he
got those pipe bombs and if there were more bombs do you think that broadly
speaking from an outsiders point of view those things make apob look safety
exception valid in this particular case well at least for a limited time they
certainly do have a have multiple arms we know that or loss of use five austin
our onsite are ’cause there’s a lot of another one the next night uh… and so we know that they have more
bombs the government we don’t what we really don’t know is what information
the government represent leave the government’s got more information about
these uh… the science uh… afterthought than they’ve made it
clear so far to their own intelligence karen so we don’t know maybe they had special reason to believe
that there was another bomb that had been planted but i do think it’s
becoming clear that the imminence that was that justifies the public safety
exception is no longer in effect we’ve already had
public officials and uh… including uh… the governor and
state of massachusetts say that the public represented once the public
represented to no longer and the public safety
threat uh… that uh… continue allow the government ngo terry okay so
that’s let’s address the concerns then what happens now our people right to be
concerned about what right i mean it’s kind of a a broad constitutional concern
argument about is he getting due process or not what should happen now and if it doesn’t
happen what may be the recourse of that what may be the repercussions woods with
certain things not be admissible in a potential trial and who would decide
that well likely questions vital questions
prayer law go to the supreme court in the supreme
court will issue a final determination i don’t know what the government wants to
do the government here today to protest began taking approach that we’re going
to treat him like a criminal uh… and provide them with basic uh…
right to counsel and due process be dropped bum out he is the titles of those things
clearly is american citizen the government may do what it’s done in some
other terrorism cases especially during the bush years which is to say you know what we think this is a special
exception we’re gonna treated differently and we’re going to let the
courts decide in the long run whether we’re right or wrong the process by
which date you wait to get a court decision ultimately the final ruling by
the supreme court could be four or five years down the
line so the government really does have discretion in some ways to say he you
know what this is a terrorism we think this is this is a terrace we think this
is a different question owen bennett what’s been interesting court before even on the board is set american
citizens are entitled to their constitutional rights i’d find myself
split given that on this issue because on the one hand i share a lot of the
concerns many people have about people being denied due process
indefinite cases of indefinite detention with no charges coming but i’d feel that this is really a
different case in that we know who this individual is we’ve had a and international following
of the case and these kind of the these cases where we have these unknown
suspects who may not even be the right person being held somewhere where we can
we don’t even know that’s a concern but this seems like a very different
situation from that and i don’t want to to mix the two issues this is a very clear-cut cases terms of
terrorism from what we know so far of course we don’t have all the evidence
yet so to make too many rush to judgment but we should recognize that has always
risky to put exceptions been or constitutional rights now for weather we thanks i have is a
terrorist cannot seems clearly has to make uh… he’s entitled for constitutional
right he’s an american citizen capture on domestic soil we don’t want our
government is just as a hang we think you’re terrace we’re gonna rest you know
we’re not going to see counsel in charge that determination that you’re a
terrorist uh… is finally got a day we just got through this debate and
opponents of gun reform sent hey you know what this is a slippery slope with
real our government at extended background checks the next thing you
know idle our government come take away our concept uh… what we really would
be deliveries are creating exceptions for american citizens captured here on
domestic sought uh… what do you want our government to of the contract with
the basically take someone off the streets and say you know what you think
you’re a terrorist uh… and uh… you know here we know a
lot of fastmail dot sign and we know about this whole case what if they come
by your house tomorrow and pick you up and you know when i was about it if governments got the power media so now you said earlier that alternately
the supreme court if it goes that far would decide whether keaton that in interrogators went too
far without moran dicing beyond the public safety exception given that the concerns that whatever it is people
worry about might happen if he’s not moran guys doors perfused counsel wouldn’t that alternately be appealed to
and eventually be made right in other words for whatever concern people may
have in the short term avenge truly if he wasn’t given due
process wouldn’t the supreme court make that call i think the supreme court would likely
incest on sayed being awarded due process they want to make clear his
coffee and france tel that american citizens were captured a
brought in this case i have gas tank uh… engaged in active also is against
the united states are still entitled to due process that
can go to federal court to challenge their detention so there’s no doubt that
so i would have at least that and quite obviously because he was
captured on domestic so elected much more so i think he’s entitled the
process of the supreme court will ultimately decide it nonetheless one of
the things that uh… anger a lot of people during the bush administration
was the government seeming disregard for constitutional rights and to draw
attention it’s not our responsibility but the courts make those decisions the
constitution should be checked one every branch of government and everything
lawmakers to executive officials to or other quarters you and it’s important
that uh… the president respect the constitution regardless of the supreme
court’s committeeman four years down the line so bottom line adam based on what we
know now that the initial public safety exception sounds like it was valid to u and now as
long as the the rest of this investigation is carried out in
accordance with the constitution you don’t see any problem our job but will have to see what the
administration doesn’t want course issues at stake all right we’ve been speaking with adam
winkler professor of constitutional law at the u_c_l_a_ school of law also
checked out his book gun fight the battle over the right to bear arms in
america i’ve read enjoyed it adam thanks as always for being on the
show thanks ron

33 Replies to “Is Boston Bombing Suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Getting Constitutional Protections?”

  1. By the way, everyone keeps saying "This doesn't shake America. This doesn't shake America", yet media won't stop talking about it. That's indicative to the terrorists that we ARE shaken and we ARE afraid. WTF?

  2. David it's reporting here in UK that this young man will face the death penalty – is it possible that USA don't know that to the Jihad that is the route to paradise – one hopes your courts act with wisdom

  3. Do you really think the US government would give a damn about his right? They treated him and his brother like shit. His brother "died" before he could prove himself innocent. If you really did your research on this incident you would find that there's something is not right. CNN reported a few days ago that his older has been arrested and a video showed that the policemen stripped him naked and took him into custody. Shortly afterward, they changed the whole story, he died from the shootout.

  4. I'd say the public safety exception is becoming stale quickly, if it's not already. However, given the weight of other evidence I don't think his statements are of great value. It's the potential intelligence, insight/perspective etc. that is of greater value. As long as other due process is provided, I don't see any need to provide Miranda.

  5. Apparently he is going to be tried in a federal court and he wont be tried as a terrorist or go to Guantanamo Bay where he belongs . Because he is a naturalised American . So Bush only came up with this law for foreigners .

  6. well he's at least guilty of shooting at/running from the police and driving over his brother. We actually saw that part.

  7. What on earth makes you say that? The homicide rate in the US is near the all time low in the 1950s. Overall, people in the US are extremely safe now, and the improvement has been enormous since the latest local maximum in the early 1990s. Current homicide rates are about half what they were then.

    Check out the statistics at the DoJ or FBI.

  8. "His brother "died" before he could prove himself innocent."

    Silly person. They were involved in a car chase in which they were lobbing hand grenades at the cops at one point. And no, CNN never reported that he was arrested. You are just making shit up. His brother also wore an explosive west when he was found dead so it was pretty fucking obvious that he had no plans to be caught alive.

  9. The President should respect the constitution. What are you kidding me? What constitution. The only rights in this country are given to the government, banks and corporations. Our congress and presidential cabinet are ROTTEN to the core. 100% rotten.

  10. Sandy hook, 27 killed including 20 children, Sikh temple in wisconsin, 6 dead, Norcross, Georgia, 5, Chardon High School, 3, TDKR, Aurora, CO, 12 dead, Pittsburgh, Penn. 2, North Miami, Fl., 2, Oikos Uni., Cali., 7 died, Seattle, WA, 5, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 3, Wilmington, Delaware, 3, A&M Uni., Tx, 3, Portland, Oergon, 2, minneapolis, minnesota, 5 dead, Brookfield, Wisconsin, 3 and more than 20 mass shootings recorded in 2012 alone. Yeah, i guess we are "extremely safe" in the US.

  11. And im surprised that none of them are done by muslims. Way to blame all the muslims for the killings. I guess they converted to Islam before they did the killings huh? Please do yourself a favor, educate yourself and do your research.

  12. The US population is over 312 million. Put it in perspective, Einstein. I'm guessing statistics isn't your specialty.

  13. I think that we have enough evidence on this guy that we probably should not need to have this conversation. By that I mean that he should get whatever normal criminal processes. The government does not need to do anything special with this guy to make sure that he gets put away. Hell even if he did get off on a technicality, he would probably just get taken out on the street shortly after release. There is no reason to erode anyone's rights over this.

  14. Whether he is Mirandized on not, he still fully and completely has the Right enumerated in the Maranda Warning.

    – You have the right to remain silent.
    – Anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law.
    – You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.
    – if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning, if you wish.

  15. A right is a "right"….the Miranda thing is really only a reminder. Regardless of what the guy did, citizens can still remain silent and not answer questions if they don't want to incriminate themselves, and the government can't refuse to give them access to an attorney if they ask for it. If the U.S. government refuses to uphold Constitutional rights even for the worst acts of our citizens, then we're no better than other countries we criticize for governmental abuses.

  16. Boring!! What ever happen to the crowd with pitchforks? God. We never get to have any fun anymore. Laws. Lawyers. Pa-LEASE! It's obvious from our government and media that these guys were guilty, so just fry the mo-fo's. Right? Isn't this the subtle message here? Let's ask Darren Brown if (God I hate that mic of yours David) there is any suggestions implicit in this "event". Law has no place where fear and anger is dominant.

  17. It was certainly on tape, but public viewing of a recording is not the same as a trial, which is a process with rules of its own. Quite a few defendants have been acquitted, even though a recording shows them committing what seems to be an illegal act. This includes, at times, law officers.
    Tsarnaev IS innocent until proven guilty, unless the law has actually been abrogated.

  18. You know with this kind of superpublicised thing, even if they somehow found that he was not behind these bombings (which would be pretty crazy, but still), his life is over. People will remember the Boston bombing whenever they hear his name for the rest of their lives. He will get no friends. He will get no jobs. He'll be prejudiced against. Frankly, he'd probably be murdered. This is the sole unfortunate things about publicizing these things so thoroughly so soon before trial.

  19. Miranda not being stated doesn't mean, by any means, he gets out. Many of you are acting like it does. Just means later some statements can be thrown out. But there's enough evidence whether he says everything or nothing.

  20. Um, belilieve me, he was behind them. Innocent until proven, although legally correct, doesn't mean he didn't do it. We know he did it. This is 2013 with video and pictures galore. It means he still must be convicted. But to state we don't know he did it is a real strech.

  21. Public security and safety laws are not there so that the law book is thicker, they are there so that you can interrogate a guy and make sure he didn't leave a "fuck yall" bomb under some school. Then you give him the miranda and let the courts do it's thing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *