There’s a lot of discussion about the Department of Justice’s decision not to read the bombing suspect a Miranda warning, due to the DoJ’s interpretation of the public safety exception. The public safety exception allows police to interrogate a suspect without a Miranda warning if there is a great danger to public safety, and still have the subject’s statement and the evidence gathered from it be admissible in court.
Scott Lemieux at LGM, and Emily Bazelon at Slate both argue that the exception should not be invoked. Here’s Lemieux:
[…] Miranda reflected this belief, and the intent of the rule was to inhibit coercive interrogations, because coercive interrogations were both wrong in themselves and produced unreliable information.
To refuse to inform Tsarnaev of his rights — outside of the acknowledged emergency exception to Miranda— sends the opposite message. It’s the message of the previous administration — i.e. that the rule of law and the “war on terror” are incompatible, that slapping the label “terrorist” on a suspect means that professional procedures that respect the rights of the accused can’t work. This isn’t right — it’s wrong in terms of the values it represents and it’s wrong in terms of the underlying assumption that less respect for the rights of the accused means more effective crime control. The appropriate course of action is for Tsarnaev to be treated like any other criminal suspect, consistently with not only the letter but the spirit of Miranda. Coercive interrogations are wrong because they’re wrong, not just because the state isn’t permitted to introduce evidence gained from them. This is why the Bill of Rights contains the Fifth Amendment rights Miranda was designed to enforce.
Doug Mataconis is less convinced:
These points are very well-taken but I think it pays short-shrift to what I noted above about what Miranda actually means and requires. If the government doesn’t intend to use anything Tsarnaev says at trial, then there’s nothing about Miranda and the cases that followed it that requires them to given him the warning before questioning him regardless of whether they formally apply the “public safety” exception. No sanctions will be suffered by the state at trial, and the defendant would not have any civil claims against the officers who interrogating him, unless the interrogation was in some way physically or mentally coercive in which case a whole other set of laws applies. Given this, I’m not sure that the failure to Mirandize for what is likely to be a relatively short period is an egregious a mistake as Lemieux makes it out to be.
I’m inclined to side with Lemieux and Bazelon–read him his rights immediately–but here’s the key point: what isn’t happening here is what Lindsey Graham and John McCain want to happen, which is to treat the suspect like an enemy combatant. If they delay Mirandizing the suspect, the Obama Administration’s decision will be subject to the rules of evidence as interpreted by the judge at the suspect’s trial, because he’s going to be tried just like every other US citizen accused of a crime. Tsarnaev isn’t Lex Luthor or Voldemort, he’s McVeigh, Kaczinsky or Eric Rudolph. We’ve dealt with his kind before, and we’re more than capable of doing it again.
Schlemizel
Given that the suspect is unable to respond that he understand his rights reading them to him is pointless.
All these wannbe lawyers (some of whom are actually lawyers) is depressing. I wish they would just STFU
Gopher2b
I think it’s important to note that they’re not denying him his rights, they’re just not telling him about them. He can still get a lawyer and refuse to talk if he wants to. Miranda is always so overblown.
MikeJ
The public safety exemption only allows them to ask about ongoing threats, e.g., “are there any more bombs?”
Also, the 48 hour clock started ticking the second they took him into custody. Is he even awake yet? I think it was Miss Lindsey that was upset about that.
Baud
I tend to agree with your view. And Lemieux immediately lost credibility with me when he tried to analogize this with Bush. I’m tired of that rhetorical device.
dr. bloor
@Schlemizel:
Because this situation will never, ever occur again in the future of our republic.
Thanks for chiming in first and getting your views out of the way quickly.
lojasmo
This is a moot point. 48 hours will have expired prior to the suspect being able to talk.
aimai
I guess I think the “read him his rights” part is besides the point if the government reserves the right to torture him. The point about Miranda, to me, is that it reminds the suspect that he has the right to have a lawyer present and he can insist on it. The government and the whole world should be insisting on having this kid have the lawyer present anyway, regardless of whether he’s been pro forma read his rights. Can “being read the rights” mean anything to a shot up kid in a hospital bed? Is he even conscious? If his rights “Get read” to him but he is not furnished with a lawyer the rights are meaningless. IF he is furnished with a lawyer instantly then he doesn’t need the rights.
At this point the government doesn’t need any information from the kid to convict him and send him to jail for the rest of his life. If they believe (which I don’t) that he could have any materially interesting information about other “terrorists” or other plans they can bribe him with a softer sentence/some perks rather than needing to use trickery or torture to get information from him. He’s a 19 year old kid, not a really good candidate for martyrdom. IF he’s anything like other 19 year olds the silent treatment, witholding his favorite pillow and a phone call from a sobbing mother will probably do the trick.
MikeJ
@Gopher2b:
And if he tries to argue that he was unaware of his rights when talking, the very next question the prosecutor will ask is, “have you ever watched a TV or movie in which someone is arrested?”
That doesn’t mean that the cops *shouldn’t* be required to make people aware of their rights, but arguing you didn’t know you didn’t have to talk is probably a tough sell.
c u n d gulag
A terrorist is nothing more than a criminal with some agenda – be it political, or religious, or whatever.
And a terrorist who happens to be a Muslim doesn’t have any Ebil Super-secret Moooooozlum Super-Powers, where we Americans can only be safe if we incarcerate him at Gitmo, where the sun, sea, sand, sharks, and solitary confinement, can neutralize those Ebil Super-secret Moooooooolum Super-Powers.
After reading him his Miranda rights, and going through a public trial, if he’s found guilty, a Super-max will do just fine.
Schlemizel
@dr. bloor:
Perhaps you misunderstood my point. Reading him his rights when he may not be able to understand them is not exactly an exercise in freedom. Once he is fully aware and able to respond to questions then he should have his rights read to him.
dr. bloor
@lojasmo: There are sitting senators who want to park the kid in Gitmo. There’s nothing vaguely moot about this discussion.
Xenos
McCain and Graham don’t give a damn whether or not this guy is tortured, in and of itself. They want the Obama administration to beat the shit out of him, and then waterboard him a few times, to ensure that no future Democratic administration dares to go after Republican war criminals.
MikeJ
@dr. bloor:
The public safety exemption is the law. You can argue that the law should be changed, and heck, I’d support that. But the current conversation is “should it be used in this case?” and as lojasmo points out, it’s moot.
It allows Obama to look like a tough guy without actually trampling somebody’s rights, so I don’t really have a problem with it.
aimai
@aimai:
I see that everyone else made the same point about reading/not reading him his rights while he is unconscious and in custody. Its not that I think it shouldn’t be done. I guess I think it should. But I think its as important that the meaning behind Miranda be observed as that the signs of it be observed. One other aspect of Miranda, culturally speaking, is to prevent the police from pretending that they are not arresting you and therefore that you are not a suspect/not in danger of being interrogated with a view to imprisoning you. That ship has definitely sailed for this kid. I think he’s aware that he’s the target of an investigation and a prosecution.
Yutsano
@MikeJ: Ticking time bomb! TICKING TIME BOMB! WATERBOARD THE HERETIC NOW!!
gopher2b
@aimai:
That’s why it’s being overblown. If they didn’t read him his rights, the consequence is excluding his statement as evidence at trial. They already have more than enough evidence to convict him anyway. If they want they can agree to not use his statements (happens all the time) in an interview. The real issue is keeping the defense attorney out of the room because they can be obstructive. However, a defense attorney can also be very helpful in explaining to the guy that his situation can only improve if he starts to talk. It really can go either way.
sterling
He’s got the right to consult with, and be represented by, counsel in dealing with the government. To waive that right he has to know it. That’s the idea behind the Miranda warning. We make sure the defendant knows he has that right so we can get a valid waiver of the right to an attorney. This isn’t complicated stuff.
The public safety exception is designed to be very narrow. It’s not supposed to be a tricksy way of depriving a suspect of his rights.
aimai
Lets propose a new law that sets a lower limit on the number of deaths associated with an incident of bombing/explosions–say three–and offer to torture all persons involved who knew or should have known the location and probability of the bombs going off. And then arrest the President and Vice President of the West, Texas fertilizer plant and ship them to gitmo. I don’t even care if they are read their miranda rights first.
Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS)
I admit that this discussion about Miranda readings in this particular case sounds like some pretty arcane shit, but I’d much rather have this discussion than whether he gets fed often enough on the sunny shores of camp Gitmo.
Xenos
@MikeJ: We have video of the kid carrying the bomb-laden daypack, and we have Baumann and others who can testify that they saw him there. The kid’s testimonial evidence is really not in any way needed to convict him. And this is not the sort of violation of due process rights that would invalidate other evidence found as a result of his talking to police – no ‘fruit of the poison tree’ effect will apply to choosing not to Mirandize him.
Then again, I took the bar exam ten years ago, so I may not be very up to date on this stuff.
gopher2b
@Xenos:
We have evidence of him throwing bombs at the police in a subsequent car chase!!! That’s what we call in the biz “consciousness of guilt.”
Schlemizel
@Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS):
But I read that the food there is fabulous! Why would he NOT want to retire to a sunny Caribbean island and enjoy those custom made meals?
aimai
Testimony from the carjacked guy that they told him they were the marathon bombers. Not an admissible fact but a pretty interesting factoid that every other person who was misidentified as a potential bomber in the various tweet and newspaper false IDS actually turned themselves in to the police to make sure they were not targeted in the manhunt and to explain that they hadn’t done it. Even if you thought that these guys were mistakenly identified as the bombers when that happened to other innocent people they went and turned themselves in and asked for police protection.@gopher2b:
Comrade Dread
We don’t know his status, so he might not be able to talk for the full 48 hours, but given his status as a bomber, I think invoking a public safety option is perfectly fine if the police want to find out if there were any more bombs lying around that they don’t know about.
That seems perfectly reasonable.
NobodySpecial
This is dumb. It’s analagous to a guy being pulled out of an accident with serious injuries. They don’t slap the guy in cuffs right then and there, OR Mirandize him. They stick him in the hospital, and when he gets well enough to understand the charges against him, then they charge him.
I swear, people will bitch about the sun not being yellow enough for them.
Schlemizel
@NobodySpecial:
exactly, thank you
MomSense
@Yutsano:
People on my facebook news feed (kids I grew up with) were saying that–but were serious about it. And others wanted to use electricity to shock him. They wanted to break his legs, etc. These same people are always complaining that the President is shredding the Constitution. I have given up trying to figure out what they think is in the Constitution.
Baud
@MomSense:
Article I, section 1: All criticisms of a Democratic president shall be deemed legitimate and credible.
MikeJ
@MomSense: I would like to beat him silly myself, but I’m glad we have laws in place that protect his rights. I see no contradiction there.
On the other hand I’m not a sitting senator campaigning to have his rights revoked.
Yutsano
@MomSense: They treat the Constitution the same way they treat their Bibles: they pick out the parts they like and ignore the passages that are inconvenient. That way nothing gets in the way of Tribe Über Alles.
Emma
@Baud: Article I, section 2: The only rights allowed are the ones that make me feel good. If my feelings change, the Constitution will be automatically changed to reflect the change.
As to the question at hand. If he is unconscious Mirandizing him makes no sense. For now.
Napoleon
I actually think Doug M’s take is spot on. They have this kid absolutely nailed without needing to use anything he says.
Baud
@Emma:
Article I, section 3: PIE!
:-)
cat
@aimai:
What a sad state of affairs we live in:
A) How easily it is to be misidentified and the whole world find out about it
B) you are afraid for your life as you are now guilty until proven innocent to many of your fellow citizens.
MomSense
@Baud:
That is definitely in there!
@MikeJ:
I tried to say that to them but it was useless. In their eyes I am now some kind of sympathizer because I said I didn’t think that chicken shit ass bomber was worth sacrificing our principles and Constitution.
@Yutsano:
Proof texting! I’m pretty sure Jesus would be stopped and asked to show his papers in AZ.
smintheus
Does any rational person think that the US military wants to be put in the position of having to try a citizen accused of an ordinary crime? That it would welcome the opportunity to become an alternative judicial system for convicting American civilians in high profile killings? That it wants to have the kangaroo court system at Guantanamo with all its due-process failures held up to further scrutiny? That it would dare to impose a death sentence on an American who’d been dragged through that kangaroo court? For a crime that the civilian courts have jurisdiction?
Baud
BTW, if i recall correctly, even in the ordinary case, police aren’t required to give Miranda warnings at the time of arrest. They are only required before an interrogation, and as pointed out, the only penalty for failure to comply is inadmissibility of the responses.
Valdivia
I think saying that this is equivalent to treating him like an enemy combatant is stretching it no? There is a long record of safety exception and given the total fog of war on friday night it seems to me if they were going to ask any questions they were going to be the kind that fell under that rubric. I think it’s actually immaterial since the kid is not even in condition to talk according to latest reports. Apparently he tried shooting himself.
Suffern ACE
Well I guess. Since it doesn’t really affect me, I can be concerned about messages and communications. But I’m thinking that he’s kind of lost me on this approach. I guess you worry about messages when the law isn’t in your side. If the suspect wakes up and asks for an attorney, will an attorney be granted access or not?
Todd
I find myself wondering if hanging accomplished and wannabe mass murderers (and their co-conspirators) like the Nuremburg defendants wouldn’t be a better approach.
Give a great trial, of course, but follow it up with a trip to the noose as opposed to a nice needle.
Discuss…
MikeJ
@Todd: He’ll look like a loser sitting in supermax, like a martyr if executed.
jon
The left trolls itself. Again.
The Excitable Facebook Betrayalists are in a lather over this nothingburger with a side of outrage. The tall glass of moot will wash it down until the next True Betrayal comes along.
beltane
@Baud: Exactly. And the information that is likely most desired here does not really relate to the suspect himself, but to any possible involvement of foreign/domestic extremist groups or of other individuals as of yet unknown. This is another ball of wax completely, and one which lies beyond the scope of Miranda.
The key issue here is that the suspect be tried in a civilian court subject to the usual rules of evidence, etc. Contrary to wingnut urban legend, this alone gives the prosecution a huge advantage over the defense. A “trial” in a kangaroo court/military tribunal sends the strong signal that the government can arbitrarily deprive a US citizen of ALL of his or her constitutional rights. Someone needs to tell these clowns that a government with the power to do this is a government that can easily, and legally, take their gunz away, disappear them to a FEMA death camp, and even force them to eat arugula and tofu.
Schlemizel
@jon:
Any chance you could translate that into English?
MomSense
@Todd:
We could have him battle lions in a stadium or fight other really bad guys.
Isn’t the point that our system of laws and protections are our attempt to preserve our own humanity and decency no matter what we are confronted with. To me it seems that our founders determined that humanity and decency are the most important and easy to lose qualities and worth going to great lengths to preserve.
J.D. Rhoades
What the people who’d deny Tsarnaev the Miranda warnings really want is not to deny him the hearing of the magic words. What they really want is to deny him access to legal counsel. This is not only unconstitutional, but counter-productive. As pointed out above, it’s highly likely that said counsel will be looking to make a deal from the word “go.”
Also, too: declaring Tsarnaev an “enemy combatant” (1)assumes facts not in evidence (what enemy, exactly?); and (2)gives him a status greater than “criminal,” which he does not deserve.
Amir Khalid
@jon:
I have no idea what you just said there, but I found it deeply moving.
Valdivia
They are filing charges today in Federal court so all the fears that the Justice Department wouldn’t treat this as the criminal case it should be can be laid to rest once that is done. Also-The FBI released information about his condition which is serious and the Police said he is not even able to talk.
This kid is not going to be denied counsel, miranda or no miranda by his hospital bedside Friday night.
beltane
I can’t verify yet, but a friend on FB just said the suspect has been Mirandized. If I’m not mistaken it’s been about 36 hours since he was brought into custody.
Higgs Boson's Mate
@jon:
I wash born here, an I wash raished here, and dad gum it, I am gonna die here, an no sidewindin’ bushwackin’, hornswagglin’ cracker croaker is gonna rouin me bishen cutter.
RSA
@MomSense:
A charismatic hippie preacher from the Middle East, wearing sandals and a robe? They wouldn’t even bother to ask for his papers…
Amir Khalid
@J.D. Rhoades:
It does seem to me that these people want to deny Dzokhar Tsarnaev more than just a lawyer. They don’t want Dzokhar to have any due process at all. That is, they want to see him lynched under colour of law.
Suffern ACE
@J.D. Rhoades: hmmmm. Yes. Although a person without counsel is also likely to make a bad deal. It’s tough in this situation, though. The number of serious crimes in the attempted getaway itself, let alone attempted crimes, is rather long. I have no idea what kind of deal I would look to strike. “Ok ill tell you where my brother went in Dagestan if you drop the kidnapping charge to reckless endangerment”.
MomSense
@RSA:
Yeah you are probably right–especially if in Arpaio’s territory.
cmorenc
@Gopher2b:
Oh, really? BULLSHIT. Let’s take an extremely common, simple case most of us have experienced which is (usually, at least) well-short of any threshold for invoking Miranda that any court has ever recognized. You’re driving down the highway when you see the car approaching you from behind turn on the blinking blue light, and you quickly realize it’s you the officer wants to pull over, so you stop. The officer comes to your window, asks for your registration and license, takes it, and disappears into his patrol car for an uncomfortable three or four minutes. And then, he comes back to you, and starts asking you questions about what you were doing, how fast you were going, perhaps whether you’d had anything to drink, and maybe he’s eyeballing your car for signs of anything potentially incriminating warranting further investigation. All the while asking you a few questions. JUST TRY to keep completely silent other than handing him your license and registration. Of course, most people are going to enter an interactive conversation with the officer, trying to sweet-talk their way into just a warning, or to convince him they’ve really had just one beer if there’s any alcohol on their breath at all. Even otherwise very intelligent people will find it more difficult than they suppose to avoid saying something they might regret if they try to contest whatever ticket they get in court…that officer, with the community college education nevertheless has training and the experience of hundreds, perhaps several thousand such encounters to draw on, which many people with advanced degrees from high-powered universities often find themselves unpleasantly surprised how poorly matched they are in any battle of wits with a police officer. Oh, and if you do happen to be a lawyer…that’s one of the WORST possible mistakes to tell that fact to try to impress a police officer making a traffic stop. The officer knows he/she’s the one holding all the high cards in the encounter, and that’s an invitation to have your ass handed to you on a platter in terms of what kind of ticket you’ll get stuck with.
How do I know this? Personal experience, plus I practiced law for a number of years, and my brother-in-law was a highway patrolman in N.C. for over twenty years. We’ve had many conversations about this very issue.
Todd
@MomSense:
Some folks have gone so far around the bend that they no longer are part of society, and should be excised after lots of due process.
A quibble – invoking The Sainted Founders as somehow wanting to do away with hanging is wrongheaded, considering that hanging was a common penalty in their times. The Sainted Founders are about as relevant to this as they are to modern day marriage equality.
beltane
@Valdivia: This might be what my friend was referring to. I presume defense counsel will be present. The suspect allegedly has throat wounds and will not be able to speak for quite a while.
J.D. Rhoades
@Suffern ACE:
If I understand correctly, he’s facing the Federal death penalty. That’s quite a bargaining chip for the gov’t. “Start talking and we’ll tell you when we’ve heard enough not to kill you.”
jon
@Schlemizel: Translation:
Panties are getting skidmarks on the inside and the outside.
gopher2b
@cmorenc:
None of this is news or interesting or complicated.
All you have to say is am I free to go. If you try to talk yourself of a ticket and make the situation worse for yourself, that’s your problem.
Oh, and also, this situation is nothing like you described. If his reluctance to talk was only about the use of his statements, that situation is easily remedied. They want FBI interrogators to have unfettered access to him because within 30 minutes he’s going to be thinking these are the best friends he’s ever had. A defense attorney gets in the way of that relationship.
smintheus
@cmorenc:
My few experiences with police officers in traffic court suggests that they are perfectly happy to lie through their teeth to justify anything they did. Not exactly what I’d call a battle of wits.
Gian
@MikeJ:
he wouldn’t have to testify. the person who took his statement would testify. the defense lawyer would object to the lack of Miranda prior to the statements. the judge would decide if they come into evidence or not.
to me the pants wetting from the right about Miranda is they don’t want Miranda for anyone, and they don’t want trials for Muslim terror suspects, period, they just want them to disappear. I think Miranda to them means that the rule of law will apply.
the pearl clutching and horror over it is just plain silly. If I recall what I once read, the “public safety exemption” came out of a case where the suspect was thought to have ditched a gun near a school full of special needs kids and the cops wanted to find the gun before some kid from the school did.
It all smacks of a symbolic argument to me, the reading of the damn card doesn’t confer any special fucking rights, it just means the cops are telling you that if you talk, the statements are coming in to court.
to the wingers I think it’s the notion that the Muslims get to go to court that freaks them out about the Miranda stuff.
some guy
note to Team Obama: this is what happens when you don’t prosecute the war criminals who approved of torture as official US policy.
Comrade Jake
I’m not a lawyer, but I have watched at least 100 hrs worth of Law and Order, and so I’m basically an expert when it comes to Miranda.
And my understanding is this: anything he says before he’s read Miranda can’t be used against him in a court of law. So, what’s the problem again?
Baud
@some guy:
WTF?
Suffern ACE
@some guy: what happens? Some guy on the Internet complains about Miranda?
Dr. Squid
All these people with their hair on fire over Mirandizing an unconscious suspect. It’s like they’ve got some alternate agenda they’re pushing that has nothing to do with justice did I say thaaat?
Frankensteinbeck
Let’s be clear that there are two issues here, because there’s some people talking past each other. There is ‘Is what the administration is doing right?’ and ‘Is what the Republicans are asking for right?’ I’m pretty sure everyone here believes that #2, locking the bomber up forever without civilian trial and torturing him, is not merely wrong but disgusting. How the administration is actually handling him is a separate issue.
From what I can tell, there’s one way that very superficially sounds like Obama is doing this the way the Republicans want ‘not immediately reading the suspect his Miranda rights’ but on looking at the details it’s a nothingburger legal detail that does not deprive the suspect of his rights at all.
MikeJ
@Comrade Jake:
Not necessarily true. If he also watched Law & Order, he knows his rights under Miranda and just waived them.
Valdivia
@Gian:
exactly. the miranda thing is not the crux of the issue. the main thing is will he be tried in our cirminal justice system like any american instead of the stupid enemy combatant bs the righties are clamoring for.
did we have the miranda discussion after the aurora massacre?
FlipYrWhig
@some guy: “This is what happens”? What happened? Some Republican clowns squawked for a day?
Davis X. Machina
@Gian:
For every freakout, there’s an equal and opposite freakout.
beltane
@Comrade Jake: It’s just the daily installment of ObamasoldusouthesworsethanBush.
MomSense
@Todd:
I don’t think they should be sainted–don’t think most of them would approve either. Certainly our founders didn’t get it right in a lot of ways–many of us were completely left out. I am just looking at the Constitution, at the idea of rights and protections for the accused, being tried by a jury of our peers, innocence until proven guilty, etc.
DavidTC
The idea we need some sort of ‘exception’ to Miranda rights is nonsensical and extremely dangerous.
If we feel strongly enough that there is ‘imminent danger’ after we arrest someone, that is what _immunity deals_ are for. It would be trivial to set up a standard immunity deal that says ‘If there are any more things you have done that are going to _become crimes_ (Like place unexploded bombs), and you tell us about them in time to stop them, we agree we cannot use those statements at trial.’
And, because at heart this is actually an idiotic hypothetical that occurs once every decade and is not actually important, actually give them a pass n the crime they were attempting to commit. Why do we actually need to punish people for crimes that did not happen? Especially since under this hypothetical, we’ve already arrested them for some other crime!
In this specific case, assuming there is some unexploded bomb somewhere, do we really need to add another change of possessing a WMD? Would it not be better to create a situation where the suspect has no motivation _not_ to reveal that location, by asserting that if he does reveal it, no charges in connection to _that_ bomb will ever be filed? Instead of having him decide to lawyer up (Which of course he can do even without being informed of his rights) and that bomb is left floating around out there?
Making a ‘small’ exception to Miranda, where you don’t have to read people their rights but _can_ use the results, is a good start to having all sorts of exceptions.
As I said on Facebook…our constitutional rights are not something the government should hope that we don’t know about so we don’t try to use them.
some guy
@Suffern ACE:
no, what happens is Senators Shouting At Clouds and Huckleberrey Closetcase get to demand he be sent to Gitmo. There is a public debate about whether a criminal receives Miranda warnings. this.
Schlemizel
@Amir Khalid:
Funny because a “movement” was what I thought it was
jon
@Gian: The case (Alonzo?) involved a gun in a grocery store. The officer asked where it was before reading the suspect’s rights, and the courts eventually let the gun be evidence because there was an immediate need for the public and the officer’s safety to ask why the guy’s holster was empty.
And I don’t see how these cases are similar.
Gian
this is off topic, but the simpsons tv sho redicted the ayn rand school for tots years ago, and now, here it is:
ABC News’ Becky Worley reports:
Share and share alike. Sharing is caring. We’ve all heard the sayings and most of us grew up being told we HAD to share with playmates, classmates and of course siblings. But now, some preschools are teaching kids that they shouldn’t share; saying that forcing one child to give up a toy gives the recipient a sense of entitlement.
Mommy blogger Beth Wankel’s son goes to a preschool where this no-sharing policy is in place, and she says it’s good for him.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/lifestyle/2013/04/should-little-kids-be-forced-to-share-in-preschool/
some guy
@FlipYrWhig:
fixed your typos
Schlemizel
@jon:
Yeah, no, thats no clearer. Do you have a point?
FlipYrWhig
@Frankensteinbeck: The complaint from the left is, I think, something different — it’s that the “public safety exception” shouldn’t be treated as broader than conditions of imminent threat. Holder at one point said something about how it could still apply outside of a state of imminent threat. Civil libertarians pricked up their ears about it. That’s the reason it’s been coming up in the blogosphere.
Frankensteinbeck
@FlipYrWhig:
‘some guy’ believes that attempting to prosecute Bush and Cheney for torture would have scared the Right and all future presidents into treating torture as unthinkable, removing it entirely from the public debate. I strongly disagree, but that is his consistent position.
gopher2b
@Davis X. Machina:
I think people in the know don’t want the FBI and DOJ to be involved because the public will find out that the DOJ and FBI are way better at this stuff than the CIA who hide every mistake with claims of national security until they leak their “version” to a Hollywood director.
Everyone else is just a racist fraidy cat too busy clutching to his gun to ward of government tyranny to recognize the irony.
MomSense
@Gian:
Oh my dog! So teaching basic courtesy is now considered what fostering dependency? AynRandification of preschool now???
Baud
@some guy:
I know it’s against your religion to believe this, but there is nothing Obama could have done to prevent this “public debate.”
gopher2b
@Frankensteinbeck:
Or put the country through a trial of a ex-president and vice president only to get hung jury after hung jury. What would that have accomplished. History will have to be the judge; it’s sadly the only option.
some guy
@Frankensteinbeck:
yes, because scareing your political opponents is so much more important than judicial precedent and adherence to treaty obligations.
Valdivia
@MomSense:
up next: little tots need to fend for themselves after one year of pre-school. No slacking!
FlipYrWhig
@DavidTC: seems to me the whole point is to be able to ask questions before making some kind of deal or reading some kind of statement. That’s why there’s only a brief time period under which it might apply. It’s designed for the Jack Bauer scenario of the terrorist in handcuffs and the agent yelling at him to give up what he knows. You can see why the legal system would come up with such a thing. You can also see why civil libertarians would want it to be as narrowly construed as possible.
some guy
@Baud:
remind me again what, exactly, you know of my religion?
why are all the Center-Rightists around here such blithering idiots?
dr. bloor
@Comrade Jake:
The problem is this: there are currently five SCOTUS justices dying to prove you wrong.
MomSense
@Valdivia:
Otherwise they will grow up and put their food stamp purchases on their granite counters before putting the food in their refrigerators or cooking it in their microwaves.
Darned mini moochers.
FlipYrWhig
@Baud: oddly enough, people have been expressing a desire for wrongdoers to be punished harshly and even tortured for, let’s see, what year is this, oh yeah, since the invention of language.
Suffern ACE
@Valdivia: I’m thinking the next step is having a pizza party and telling kids at the front of the line to hoard all the slices they can carry. One piece at a time is the path to the gulag.
Baud
@some guy:
I know your god is the great troll in the sky.
Valdivia
@MomSense: @Suffern ACE:
yes and all that nap time? and cookies? come on, soc1alists clearly thought of that.
furthermore: the hammock of laziness starts in the womb!
artem1s
I don’t really understand the intricacies of Miranda, but isn’t at least part of it premised on the concept of reminding arresting officers/interrogators that they cannot retain a suspect without counsel for an indefinite period of time for interrogation? And that not all the info they get can be used if they don’t formally declared someone a suspect. And that they can’t launch investigations into unrelated activity based on questioning that happened before someone was considered a suspect?
In other words, they had already formally declared this kid a suspect. There was no attempt to be deceptive about that. If they had merely said he was a person of interest, I could see why Miranda would be relevant. But it doesn’t see to be anything except picking nits at this point.
They were of course going to make sure the guy didn’t have any explosives on him after the previous nights firefight. Can’t imagine a judge in the country invalidating any product of that line of questioning for trial as there was clearly imminent danger.
The media’s obsession over it seems pretty much based on Gunhugger lunacy, like their obsession over crap like flag fringes, etc. Just more of their ongoing efforts to divide and separate and instill fear of ‘the other’.
MomSense
@Valdivia:
Yes, everyone knows that 47% of toddlers feel entitled to naps and cookies and toys.
Higgs Boson's Mate
Is anyone surprised that Congresscritters from both sides of the aisle remain deafeningly silent on re-introducing the gun control bill? Why it’s almost as if they’re more afraid of the NRA than they are of the terrorists.
some guy
I guess in Baud World people who don’t follow the BJ Center Right Fight Club party line are trolls.
gee, that sure makes life easy for those of limited intellectual capacity
Ben Franklin
Miranda is window dressing. It’s just another rung missing from the ladder of civil liberties.
Yesterday, we pieced together a photographic narrative of the very public events from Boston in the past week. Today, courtesy of NY Daily News, we get a first glimpse into ground zero: inside the suspect’s home, an apartment located on the third floor at 410 Norfolk St. in Cambridge. From the source: “photos snapped by the Daily News show the unit in a Cambridge, Mass., building in disarray with clothes piled everywhere and a half-eaten meal left on the table.” In other words, typical bachelor squalor, but that’s about it. Most notably: not a trace of any explosive, incendiary or other bomb-preparing equipment or residue, no evidence of terrorist activity, and no weapons. So where did the two put together the numerous bombs they are said to have prepared?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-21/inside-ground-zero-photos-suspects-apartment
Todd
@MomSense:
Justice Scalia agrees with your method of divination.
Baud
@some guy:
Only if they constantly hang out at the BJ Center Right Fight Club.
Valdivia
@MomSense:
:)
@Higgs Boson’s Mate:
yes interestingly no one seems to be up in arms about how these two guys managed to build up the arsenal they did. Given the defeat of the background check it’s highly relevant no?
MomSense
@Todd:
Wow-really? Whatever. I think only a few were Catholic. Some were Anglican. I think the whole saint thing was kind of a stupid addition on your part–I had thought it was rhetorical and didn’t take it all that seriously but apparently you take all the things incredibly seriously.
sonofsamantha
I cannot believe after all that has happened all you firebaggers are concerned about is the fact the suspect wasn’t read their miranda rights. Yea I know why it’s a concern but how about waiting till all the facts are in and things settle down a bit before flailing your arms about.
I hate teabaggers and most Republicans with the heat of a thousand suns but sometimes I hate firebaggers even more. They are the one and only reason I don’t like to call myself a progressive. A fucking embarassment to progressives and Democrats.
GregB
@Ben Franklin:
The Zero Hedgers sound like a brilliant bunch, making hay of some random pictures and drawing conclusions about how the FBI is in the process of framing the suspects, how much they hate the northeast and filthy immigrants, how there is so little evidence in the photos etc.
Is Glenn Beck one of their underwriters?
biff diggerence
Lindsey Graham to his constituency:
“I am not a pussy.”
dslak
@Ben Franklin: That site does a very good job with the “I’m not saying there’s a conspiracy, I’m just raising questions” shtick. It’s clear however that the guy hasn’t been following the story as closely as he pretends, because he still believes the brothers knocked over a 7-11, despite the fact that law enforcement said that wasn’t so on Friday.
I also like how they are ‘alleged’ terrorists, but the guy’s perfectly happy to say they robbed a convenience store. Clearly doesn’t understand what the word means and why media organizations use it.
Villago Delenda Est
Oh, no we’re not, because Jack Bauer and Antonin Scalia say so!
So there! Take that, libtard!
Ben Franklin
He was radicalized in…less than a year?
At the Cambridge mosque near where the bombing suspects lived, two worshipers who showed up for Saturday’s prayer service recalled seeing both men.
Tamerlan Tsarnaev was thrown out of the mosque — the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center — about three months ago, after he stood up and shouted at the imam during a Friday prayer service, they said. The imam had held up slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. as an example of a man to emulate, recalled one worshiper who would give his name only as Muhammad.
Enraged, Tamerlan stood up and began shouting, Muhammad said.
“You cannot mention this guy because he’s not a Muslim!” Muhammad recalled Tamerlan shouting, shocking others in attendance.
“He’s crazy to me,” Muhammad said. “He had an anger inside.… I can’t explain what was in his mind.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-boston-bombing-suspect-radical-fbi-20130420,0,4983624,full.story
Villago Delenda Est
@sonofsamantha:
Cripes you’re an idiot.
Villago Delenda Est
@Higgs Boson’s Mate:
Given that the NRA practices political terror all the time, you can understand why they’re confused.
dslak
@GregB: I also like that the information is given to us in the voice of a fictional character who is the product of a psychological disorder. Only someone stuck in male adolescence would read that character as a hero.
jon
@Schlemizel: The point goes like this:
1. Something bad happens.
2. ???
3. It’s Obama’s fault, proving he couldn’t be trusted in the first place.
Mark B
Given that the suspect is injured in such a way that ti’s unlikely that he’ll say anything, the failure to give a Miranda warning is a cheap way to score points with the right wing idiots who dominate the media narrative, but it makes no substantive difference in how the case is going to progress. I’d say it’s a cynical move by the president to further inflame the idiots who jump on every word he says so that they will move one step close to self immolation. I like it.
JPL
OT.. This has nothing to do with the Miranda rights but it says a lot about the Watertown and Boston police.
http://twitpic.com/ckydin
Villago Delenda Est
@J.D. Rhoades:
Well, the generic wingtard Muslim boogeyman, I do believe.
They guy does, after all, have a “funny name”, unlike say “Antonin Scalia” or “Joe Arpaio” or “Tom Tancredo”.
GregB
@Villago Delenda Est:
Check out the latest Arkansan nitwittery.
This prick should be Jared Loughner’s spokesman.
Link.
Jon
@Schlemizel: This.
dslak
@JPL: I can’t believe you would buy into such an obvious plant to make the BPD look like human beings, rather than the sociopathic tools of a massive conspiracy that they clearly are!
Corner Stone
@MikeJ:
You keep saying this and it continues to be utter bullshit.
It doesn’t matter if you were a former juror on the initial Miranda trial itself.
Mark B
@JPL: I like the look of rage on his face while he’s delivering milk to the children. I’m sure it’s just a weird moment caught on camera and has nothing to do with his real emotions, but it’s funny, nevertheless.
Corner Stone
@Baud: Only people who agree with you should be allowed in the door?
Ben Franklin
The girl-friend abuser was a control-freak. Mebbe the younger was bullied .
LAURA SULLIVAN, BYLINE: Well, these women were close friends and roommates of Tamerlan’s girlfriend, Katherine Russell, and they knew him for several years while they were in college. They described Tamerlan as very controlling and very manipulative of their friend. They say he was combative and angry. He would often call her names and insult her. He would call her a slut and a prostitute, and they remember fights that they would get into where he would fly into rages and sometimes throw furniture or throw things.
http://www.npr.org/2013/04/19/178027690/older-suspect-described-as-controlling-manipulative
Villago Delenda Est
@dslak:
A massive conspiracy headed up by the near sheriff.
Villago Delenda Est
@GregB:
That’s a even more interesting interpretation of the Second Amendment than the usual one.
This guy just put a “kick me (with the blowback of an AR-15)” sign on his back.
beltane
@JPL: You know that someone’s going to complain about the officer bringing them whole milk. Is he trying to harden their arteries?
TAPX486
Senator Grahmcrackers is now raising the freak-out level to how the FBI dropped the ball when they checked this guy out in 2011. After all when you get a request from the Russians to check on someone he must be guilty of something, right?. We all know that Vladimir Putin and his KGB pals would never lie about something like that. I’m sure by wed. Grahmcracker will be demanding to know why the government didn’t question this guy about the Benghazi attack. He must have known something he’s mooooslim.
There was an article on Slate about it would be better if this was an attack carried out by a white Christian because the ‘freakout’ level would be much reduced. Looks like the article was correct.
Cacti
That there is a public safety exception the Miranda warnings is beyond argument. It exists, period, full stop.
Whether it applied to this situation will be sorted out in a court of law, as will the admissibility of any information gained pre-Miranda warnings.
If the court finds it didn’t apply, the suspect’s statements will be ruled inadmissible.
So, why all the hand-wringing?
dslak
@Villago Delenda Est: Smells like Obama and the Illuminati, to me.
Baud
@Corner Stone:
I haven’t said anything about banning anyone.
Mark B
@Cacti: Plus, in this case, I’m fairly sure the government doesn’t need the suspect’s statements to make a case here. The eyewitness testimony and physical evidence they have is apparently pretty overwhelming. Even if the guy could talk, I doubt they’re interested in anything he says for the purposes of prosecuting him, they’re more interested in trying to find out if there were others involved.
Villago Delenda Est
I’d like to know what the motivation was for all this. If it was religious, from what I’ve read, it’s not too much different from Eric Rudolph’s, just a different set of theological niceties.
Villago Delenda Est
@Schlemizel:
I hear the lemon chicken is exceptional!
Mark B
@Baud: First rule of BJ Center Right Fight Club is that you don’t talk about BJ Center Right Fight Club.
What? Somebody had to say it.
beltane
@Villago Delenda Est: Everything I’ve read about the older brother indicates that he was a grade-A douchebag with a grudge against the world. If he had a purely religious motive, he could have gone the martyrdom route and taken a much larger number of victims with him. The fact that he appears to have no interest in sacrificing his own life, along with all those ‘How to fake official IDs’ on his Amazon wish list, indicate that he may have planned to get away, perhaps hoping to impress people back home with tales of his exploits.
I just don’t know why the younger brother went along with this. The survival instinct is obviously very strong with him. I guess the reason warfare has been a constant in human history is that young men can be easily persuaded to do really stupid things.
Schlemizel
@jon:
Interesting. And can you point to anything in either of your posts that would have led someone not inside your head to see that?
Corner Stone
@Baud: You haven’t said anything about big purple eggplants either. Glad I wasn’t commenting about you not mentioning them also, too.
Villago Delenda Est
@beltane:
Yes, it sounds to me like the older brother used Islam as a crutch for his own personal demons.
Not that this will stop the wingnuts (to include the sack of barnyard waste that is Lindsay Graham) from insisting that he’s the number three man in the Al Qaeda leadership cadre, mind you.
Schlemizel
It has become something of a cottage industry to recount tales of encounters with the brothers or their family. The tea-reading is pretty intense.
All I can think of when the shit funnel starts spewing these sorts of stories is how often after some event this is repeated and how often the stories turn out to be utter bullshit.
There is an interesting one associated with the Lindbergh kidnapping. One of the bits of evidence that convicted an innocent man was a reporter finding the Lindbergh’s phone number written on a door jam in Hauptmann’s home. Years later, long after the state had put an innocent man to death a reporter admitted he wrote the number there so that he would have a big story to tell.
Keep that in mind every time one of these turds floats to the top of the media bowl
Yutsano
@Villago Delenda Est: Durfs gotta Durf.
@GregB: Holy shitballs. They’re not even hiding it anymore.
Baud
@Corner Stone:
Yeah, I don’t know what I was thinking. I guess we’ll just leave it at big purple eggplants.
? Martin
Well, there was constant concern that these guys left IEDs around the area, and some concern he had accomplices (though that diminished considerably toward the end). I’d imagine they’d interrogate him about these matter and then read him in.
bubba
Maybe someone else mentioned this, but looking at it from the other side, could reading him his Miranda rights at the moment he was arrested also have worked against the government, considering his physical condition and from that his likely state of mind I.e. totally unable to comprehend what was being read to him? Lets say he was read those rights, but did not comprehend them. Then he began talking without being re- read those rights ( mistakes happen often). Then none of what he said could be used against him in a court of law. The possibility that this could cut both ways exists.
Laur
I wish people understood the whole point of Miranda besides what they see on Law and Order. Saying some magic words doesn’t do anything, dude can still not talk for the rest of his life.
Mary G
I’m sorry, but count me as one of those who thinks this is a very bad thing. Not in terms of convicting this guy or even spiting Republicans.
It’s principles – we should resist any further erosion of civil rights, which is allowing extensions of reading Miranda rights is. Also, PR. America looks hypocritical enough to the rest of the world without us announcing that everyone should copy our awesome democracy and Constitution, which we are faithful to, except when we don’t feel like it.
I am with Charlie Pierce who reminds us that John Adams defended the British soldiers accused in the Boston massacre, saying that everyone should have a right to counsel, or Council as he spelled it.
I feel so strongly about this that I am trying to figure out how to cancel my monthly donation to Organizing for Action. Unfortunately it seems like I’ll have to wait until they ask me for more money.
Baud
@Mary G:
What is the “this” you are responding to?
Mnemosyne
I think Law & Order and other cop shows have misled a lot of people about Miranda. On those shows, people are read their Miranda rights when the cuffs are put on because it makes a nice, dramatic ending to the scene and doesn’t require them to have a second scene at the police station where those rights are read before interrogation begins.
As others have pointed out, you can’t Mirandize someone who is incapable of being interrogated. The last line of the Miranda warning is, “Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?” If the person can’t understand because, for example, they’re barely conscious, then it doesn’t count, and any judge worth his salt will throw the interrogation out.
Mark B
@Mary G: I think the announcement that he wasn’t read his Miranda warning was cynical political posturing, but not substantive at all. The guy is going to get legal representation, and it’s going to be very good representation. I’m at the point of my life where cynical political posturing is something I’ll actually cheer for if it ends up making idiots look foolish. I almost wish I wasn’t.
Mnemosyne
@Mary G:
Read my comment above. The person being read their Miranda rights needs to be able to understand them. If, as has been widely reported, the kid is still unconscious or barely conscious, there’s no point in reading him his rights at this point because he is not going to be able to understand them.
trollhattan
Charles Pierce
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Midnight_On_Franklin_Street#ixzz2R7JsJoaf
Corner Stone
@Baud: This isn’t difficult. You called some guy a troll, he replied, you then said he was a troll because he disagreed but continued to comment here.
Comments here but doesn’t agree = troll
Comments here and agrees = Ok with Baud
Hill Dweller
@Mary G: This isn’t the first time the Obama admin has used the public safety exception. Why the freak out this time?
Higgs Boson's Mate
@Mary G:
I feel so strongly about this that I’m never going to vote for another Democrat. Never, ever, ever.
That’ll show ’em!
CarolDuhart2
@Mary G: Mary, the guy is sedated (maybe unconscious or semi-conscious), also probably on fairly heavy doses of painkillers, recovering from surgery. Reading someone his Miranda rights while unconscious is just formality for formality’s sake. Might have read them to a corpse-he can’t really understand right now. And any answers he gave could be thrown out later. Better to wait until he’s more stable.
A question: what if he goes into a coma? Can the Feds still proceed with a trial with a defendant unable to assist in his case due to medical reasons?
Ruckus
@Todd:
The death penalty is retribution, not punishment. Eye to eye is in the bible not in the law. We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not the retribution arm of some religion.
Besides all of that the death penalty is ineffective. If it were effective the mere threat of it would stop murders and bombings and whatever. But it doesn’t. Texas kills a lot of prisoners and they still have crimes. So they kill more but the crime is still there.
Maybe there is a better way.
Baud
@Corner Stone:
You said “allowed to comment here.” Now your backtracking after I pointed out that I didn’t talk about who should be allowed to comment here.
And he’s not a troll we disagree on a particular issue. He’s a troll because he believes we are the BJ Center Right Fight Club yet is a frequent commenter here. Is it a label? Sure. But so is Obot and any other labels we toss out on the tubes.
Mnemosyne
@CarolDuhart2:
As far as I know, the answer is “no” — the defendant has to be able to participate in the case. If he does go into a coma or is otherwise physically unable to stand trial, the trial has to be postponed until he’s able to be tried. The government can continue to gather evidence, interview witnesses, etc., but there can’t be a trial until he’s physically able to stand trial.
Mentally able to stand trial gets a lot trickier (see Ricky Ray Rector).
Corner Stone
@Baud: I’m not backtracking on shit.
And if you’re going to quote a comment then at least fucking make sure you get the quoted part correct.
beltane
@CarolDuhart2:
I’m assuming he’d be declared incompetent to stand trial.
People have to stop regarding Miranda warnings as magical words that do special things. If the guy is incapable of hearing or understanding them, the words carry the same importance as the last right read in Latin.
Ted & Hellen
@gopher2b:
It would have accomplished getting as much evidence out into the light of day as possible, regardless of the “jury” outcome. The PROCESS of the trial, and the airing of the filth would be the end in itself. If you don’t think that would have had a huge effect on the entire world, even if Bush and all the others slithered away free, you are kidding yourself.
Laur
@Mary G: You feel very strongly about something that really has no implications?
Baud
@Corner Stone:
Corrected, backtracker.
Hugh Sansom
Alan Dershowitz (who rarely sounds liberal these days) was on the BBC saying that not Mirandizing Tsarnaev when he was captured made sense since he was likely too injured to understand. But, Dershowitz said, any decision to not Mirandize him at all would be a mistake and would probably fail any court challenge. The exception pushed by Obama is expressly for the “ticking time-bomb” threat, which simply cannot be made with a suspect who is heavily guarded in a hospital bed.
Dershowitz also noted a great deal turns on how the crimes are formally characterized. The killing of the MIT police officer is murder, and thus a Massachusetts crime. If the bombings are deemed to be terrorist attacks, then they are federal crimes, invoking different legal procedures than if they are mass murders (and state crimes).
An obvious question: If the Obama administration is willing to try to keep Tsarnaev ignorant of his rights (and he is an American citizen on American soil), then what rights are they willing to deny him outright?
Xenos
Oh God. You people are just fucking incredible.
Corner Stone
@Baud: Listen Jackie. For the last time because your specific level of density is re-writing the elements chart.
The comment was about this being a “club”, hence “allowed in the door” to the club. One of the “club”, a member with standing. In the club. It’s all very clubby as we all agree on everything.
I did not say anything about banning, nor “allowed to comment” which is not even close to the same thing.
That was your introduction. I suspect, mainly, because you are an idiot.
Mnemosyne
@Hugh Sansom:
Please provide us with your evidence that the administration is planning to deny Tsarnaev his rights rather than waiting for him to be conscious enough to understand being read his rights and be interrogated.
Though it’s pretty rich for Alan “Torture is okay” Dershowitz to be criticizing the Obama administration on anything terrorism-related. I guess Dershowitz thinks it’s different when a Democrat is in charge.
Baud
@Corner Stone:
This is stupid. I’m done.
TriassicSands
@Gopher2b:
Wow! Did you ever miss the point of Miranda v. Arizona.
Corner Stone
The SCOTUS has ruled there is an exception (limited at this time, if I understand it correctly) to Miranda. That’s the law as it stands. That doesn’t make it right, nor does it make it eternal.
I am a strong proponent of fighting/pushing back against what I consider to be unjust actions or laws, even those deemed acceptable by the Supreme Court.
Corner Stone
@Baud: I agree. You are stupid.
Laur
@Hugh Sansom: Having live ammunition and explosives possibly hidden elsewhere or knowledge of accomplices certainly is a “ticking time bomb.” The asshole kid can’t talk now with tubes and a gunshot in his throat, but at the time it was reasonable.
Suffern ACE
@Corner Stone: ok. I know that at heart, civil libertarians protect us from so many evils. And they often have to do so by accepting less than ideal clients. But if said civil libertarians don’t start these episodes with references to the current state of the laws and instead wish to decry that these acts are novel, gross acts of injustice, then they are actually harming their cause. Making the boston bomber into a bill of rights martyr? Really?
Tonal Crow
As O’Connor said in New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984), the “public safety exception” is a way for the state to have its cake and eat it too. Nothing in the constitution prevents police from asking a suspect a question (if she hasn’t invoked her right to counsel), but that doesn’t mean they should also get to use the answer as evidence in court. If the purpose of the “public safety exception” is, well, making the public safe from dire, imminent threats, then why the effort to also use the evidence gained from it in court? Could it be that this is just another way of working around the 5th Amendment?
AnotherBruce
So I’m guessing that Senators Graham and McCain are not calling for Paul Kevin Curtis to be tried as an enemy combatant for trying to mail ricin to Senator Wicker and President Obama. I wonder why not? Not enough publicity around that case? Wrong ethnicity or religious affilation? At any rate it apparently is not worthy of their attention whoredom.
Tonal Crow
@Corner Stone:
You know what that makes you in this joint, right?
dslak
@Suffern ACE: It’s like when some death penalty opponents decide to make a poster boy out of someone whose guilt is not in question, as if that’s going to pull on anyone’s heartstrings. Those people destroy so much good PR work done by groups like the Innocence Project.
Tonal Crow
@Suffern ACE:
Making the Nazis who want to march in Skokie — and Larry Flynt — 1st Amendment martyrs? Really? FSM I love the A.C.L.U. Why don’t you, too?
Corner Stone
@Tonal Crow: the girl dancing in the cage suspended above the dance floor?
Corner Stone
@Suffern ACE:
My concern is more of the variety that I want every single thing he said and every single thing he did or didn’t do to be properly evaluated/adjudicated. I want the system to work. I want it to scream loud and clear and shine so brightly that any person who suggests we need extra-judicial means to handle “bad people” in the future looks even more foolish than they currently do.
Even if we reach an uncomfortable outcome, my goal, call it aspirational, is that we see it work.
What damage do we do, and what good do we do ourselves, if we reach the “right” outcome but fuck it sideways along the way?
Ben Franklin
@Tonal Crow:
You know what that makes you in this joint, right?
What? That firebaggers and obots wear shoes, but the firebaggers have shit on the outside, rather than the inside of their shoes?
The Raven on the Hill
The king, it seems, still can do no wrong…and neither, it seems, can the prosecutor who hounded Aaron Swartz to suicide.
“Let’s just have a trial.”
burnspbesq
@Suffern ACE:
Yup. The Federal public defender’s office in Boston will be available if he can’t afford to retain paid counsel. I’d be surprised if they aren’t hanging around the hospital in case the kid asks to talk to a lawyer when he regains consciousness.
The interesting issue is going to be how effective the FPD’s office can be as the sequester takes increasingly big bites out of its budget. The FPD’s office in NY has already told the judge in the case of in Laden’s son-in-law that it is going toneed extra time before trial because mandatory furloughs are adversely affecting its ability to do its work in a timely manner.
Ben Franklin
With him intubated and sedated how does this look?
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/21/boston-bombing-suspect-could-be-charged-today/?hpt=hp_t1
Baud
@Ben Franklin:
Perfectly fine. These steps don’t require the defendant’s presence.
Ben Franklin
@Baud:
Presentment is ostensibly more important than miranda, correct?
from the piece
While a presentment of charges could take place Sunday
The Judge is going to his bedside. If his presence not necessary, wazzup/
Robert Waldmann
“tried just like every other US citizen accused of a crime” is an insult of the constitution. the 5th and 6th amendment due process rights are the same for citizens and non citizens. the amendments are clear. Respect for the US constitution would have caused you to write “every other person accused of a crime.
I quote the text you ignore and insult
V”No person shall be …; nor shall any person …”
VI “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right …”
Simple respect for the simple text of the bill of rights would have caused you to write “any person” or “any accused” and not bring in the completely Constitutionally irrelevant fact that Tsarnaev is a US Citizen.
I am sick and tired of quoting the Constitution to people who claim to be its defenders and choose to ignore the text.
Baud
@Ben Franklin:
Where did you get the bedside info? It wasn’t in the piece you linked.
Ben Franklin
@Baud:
Heard that on CNN (facepalm) but it will be on Sunday…special session?
Tonal Crow
@Robert Waldmann:
That mistake shows the extent to which winger (intentional) mis-interpretations of the Constitution have permeated our culture.
Baud
@Ben Franklin:
Hmmm. Don’t know. It’s CNN, so we should wait 24 hours to see if there is a correction.
Tonal Crow
Sens. McCain and Graham are calling for the following offender to be declared an “enemy combatant”:
http://news.yahoo.com/texas-fertilizer-company-didnt-heed-disclosure-rules-blast-171654800–finance.html
Sorry, just joking. A corporation is a person who can do no wrong.
Corner Stone
@Tonal Crow: I’m curious what the CEO will use as his defense? “Let’s look forward, not backward.” or the essential, “Bygones, bitchez.”
Corner Stone
“I’m just the lowly CEO. I only make 435X what the average worker makes. How was I supposed to keep track of all the detailed paperwork the EPA and the SEC and the DHS and Big Gov want from us. I’M JUST A SIMPLE JOB CREATOR!”
Bob In Portland
@Ben Franklin: And I’m betting that the older brother was abused as a child and at some point figured out that hitting people was a solution to things in the world. My grandfather was a boxer and his anger and brutality fucked up family psyches for generations.
Jamie
I’m thinking you still have your rights even if no one tells you that you do.
Tonal Crow
@Corner Stone:
The real question is, will the authorities take the maximum-possible legal measures, or will they go easy because the case involves a business and one or more of its employees?
Mnemosyne
@Ben Franklin:
Not really — the suspect isn’t expected to answer anything other than “yes” or “no” when asked if he understands the charges being brought against him.
People seem to have a weird understanding of Miranda. It’s not a generalized outline of all of a person’s rights when on trial. It’s specifically informing someone of what their rights are while they are under arrest:
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.
If you decide to answer any questions now, without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.
Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?
Miranda is a lot more narrow and specific than a lot of people seem to be willing to acknowledge.
Tonal Crow
@Jamie:
I’m thinking that you sound a lot like a Republican and that you need to read Miranda closely.
Baud
@Mnemosyne:
So if the defendant has to answer questions, what happens if the defendant is unconscious?
The start of the court proceeding is good, because I believe that’s what guarantees him the right to counsel at all times (as opposed to just interrogation).
Tonal Crow
@Baud:
The right to counsel comes into being as soon as interrogation begins, per Miranda, or when charges are filed, whichever is earlier.
El Cid
In general, informing the accused of Miranda rights is unmanly. The most important aim in law enforcement or security is the projection of a tough, blustering personality, and this only inhibits that since of wild, manly abandon.
Baud
@Tonal Crow:
There are two constitutional rights to counsel. One is Miranda, which only applies to interrogations. One is the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, which kicks in when court proceedings begin. The Sixth Amendment is more robust, I believe, with greater consequences if it is violated.
Tonal Crow
@El Cid:
Now yer gettin’ it ya libtard! Y’ll be votin’ fer Rubio/Ryan before ya know it!
Tonal Crow
@Baud:
This is not quite correct. The Miranda right to counsel exists to prevent self-incrimination, and the 6th Amendment right to counsel to ensure a fair criminal process. But the suspect can invoke the 6th Amendment right by asking for counsel, even before charges are filed, though if she doesn’t, the formal accusation triggers the 6th Amendment right.
That’s about right.
El Cid
@El Cid: Arrrgh. Damn cognates & quick typing! SENSE not since not even cents damn you.
El Cid
@Tonal Crow: However, the only real Amendments are the 2nd and 10th, the others are just some sort of librul interference with Godliness.
Baud
@El Cid:
Not true. The other amendments exist for corporations and rich Republicans.
@Tonal Crow:
Thanks for the clarification.
Tonal Crow
@El Cid:
Well now yer not right there yet, ya libtard. See, that there 10th Amendment is fer th’ Godly states ta be able ta run themselves in a Godly way, without no libral “President” puttin’ his blah nose in there no way. But it ain’t fer abuse by libral states ta’ defy them there righteous laws of the Congress, like them that keep them hippies in prison fer smokin’ that there Devil’s Weed and readin’ that there obscene stuff.
Tonal Crow
@Tonal Crow: “prevent self-incrimination” should, of course, read “prevent coerced self-incrimination”.
Corner Stone
@Tonal Crow: Too late! All credibility = lost.
Tonal Crow
@Corner Stone: No doubt.
El Cid
@Baud: True but they have all rights all the time whether enumerated or not, so they don’t actually need Amendments.
Bruce S
The solution to this issue is to send Little Lindsey and Old Man McCain each a giant carton of Depends. That should take care of the underlying problem.
Tonal Crow
@Bruce S:
The solution is to give all Republicans a wall-sized flat-panel TV, a free lifetime subscription to The Torture Channel, and a daily delivery of toilet paper, in exchange for a pledge never to leave their basements.
Kay
I almost love how what Lindsey Graham says has no connection to reality, whatever:
Terrorists! In our midst! They’re completely ignored like all other prisoners in this country the second they’re shipped.
During the Boston ordeal, I heard Patrick say he was once a prosecutor but it had been a while and he didn’t want to weigh in, ya know, because he has no idea what’s going on. Something to that effect.
I just thought that was great. Lindsey Graham could learn from him.
Bruce S
@Jamie:
“I’m thinking you still have your rights even if no one tells you that you do.”
Yes, but until Lindsey Graham began to grandstand Miranda to keep his star power on the Sunday Babble Heads, only a very small, select group of people who have watched cop shows on TV or read a newspaper knew about the right to remain silent and ask for a lawyer.
LanceThruster
@smintheus: And they are as trusted as priests.
I have encountered the bald-faced lie by traffic cops b4 meself.
Hell, my former neighbor was an LA County Sheriff convicted of rape under color of authority (he trolled bar parking lots and threatened women with 502’s).
Tonal Crow
@LanceThruster:
There ought to be a jury instruction in every criminal case like “Evaluate each witness as an individual. You should not take a witness’s profession — of itself — to indicate that she is either more or less honest than any other person.”
Ben Franklin
@LanceThruster:
Sheriffs are the wurst…
Full Metal Wingnut
Scott is generally good on legal issues, but he’s shown himself to have a poor grasp on criminal procedure. It’s ok, 4th and 5th amendment jurisprudence is a clusterfuck. When I took crim pro it took me a while to untangle the web of cases.
Full Metal Wingnut
Some people (not here) seem to not realize that even if a statement gets excluded for being Miranda-defective, it doesn’t mean the case is dismissed (unless its a confession that was central to the case, which it won’t be here).
Anyone who thinks he walks because of a Miranda-defective interrogation watches too much TV.
David Koch
WAKE UP SHEEEPLE!1!11!
ØB0mBeR TZ WurST D3N HiTL3я
ØBomd3я c3ll3br8teD HitL3я BirThDaʎ Lɐsʇ Иi6hT
BGinCHI
Over 200 comments and no one got the Decemberists reference in the title??
Shame.
Corner Stone
Haters can hate, but Atrios gets this one right. Again.
“All of the discourse plays out in a predictable fashion. Stupid hippie liberals talk about “rights” and “justice” not because we love terrorists, but because we care about, you know, rights and justice, with the category of justice including harsh punishment for those who deserve it. Conservatives insist that the only justice involves torture before trial, because otherwise TEH TERRORISTS WIN.”
LanceThruster
@Ben Franklin:
Yeah, he was definitely a fooking brat.
Ba-dum-BUMP!
LanceThruster
@Tonal Crow:
Yeah, that would definitely be worthwhile jury instruction.
David Koch
Elizabeth Warren’s silence has been shocking.
She’s a lawyer, a noted law professor, she represents Massachusetts, and she’s a liberal. You’d think she’d be all over this Miranda issue. After all, it’s her home turf in every possible way.
Sadly, she’s cutting and running from the Constitution and civil liberties.
I expected this kind of atrocity from a DLC-Blue-Dog-Corportist-Warmonger-NeoCon like Hillary, but not from the leading liberal light, Liz Warren.
FDL and Naked Capitalism warned us she would be a failure. Unfortunately they were right.
Gian
@Baud:
Miranda is a court decision, it’s an advisal of rights, it’s not a right in and of itself.
look, there’s the 5th amendment right to not be forced to be a witness against yourself. that’s the “right to remain silent” that Miranda tells you about.
the 6th amendment is the right to counsel, and as that attaches to the accused in a criminal proceeding, the general idea is the government has to actually file some sort of criminal case in order to create an accused and a criminal proceeding. So when the feds file on him, that right attaches. If he asks prior to there being a case – for a lawyer he can have one, but I’m not sure it’s paid for by the same government. However, if he asks for a lawyer, they’re supposed to stop questioning him.
Gian
@Gian:
to myself if my old memory from reading years ago is correct, the notion is that the cops would pretty much ignore the 5th amendment and beat confessions out of people and the whole “read them their rights” idea was to increase court oversight into how confessions were obtained and try to keep the ones obtained by force out of the court, thereby discouraging cops from beating confessions out of people.
as the “enhanced interrogation” modern politicians love them some torture and beating, waterboarding and hypothetically crushing the testicles of a suspect’s offspring (thank you John Woo if memory serves on that last one) Well, I waffle on the whole rationality of why the wingers hate Miranda for terror suspects so much. I also seem to remember that Scalia may have some writings out there that the Miranda warning is obsolete because cops are so good now.
Ben Franklin
@David Koch:
She doesn’t want Balloon Juice turning sour on her.
burnspbesq
@David Koch:
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING?
There is no fucking reason for Warren to weigh in. None of crim law, crim pro, or con law are are areas of academic specialty. Her voice would add nothing to the conversation.
Go back to fucking FDL, ya idjit.
Ruckus
@Kay:
Lindsey Graham could learn from him.
Lindsey could probably learn something from a potato, if he was capable of learning. He may not have fallen off a turnip truck yesterday but he sure did at one time.
And now I apologize to turnips everywhere.
David Koch
@burnspbesq: you fascist Obots are all the same. On bended knee apologizing for Dear Leader Warren.
every fucking winger politician is falling over themselves to “weigh in” with their fascist positions against Miranda. And there’s nobody to push back and “weigh in” on the side of Miranda, on the side of the Constitution, and on the side of civil liberties. Not even the liberal Elizabeth Warren. Hell, she’s worst than Bush, because you could see it coming with Bush, while Warren took our money, our man hours, and our votes and sold us out!
Shameful. Fraud. Phoney. Failure.
You and Warren should go back to where you came from – the Republican party
Ben Franklin
@David Koch:
go back to where you came from – the Republican party
A shameful accusation for respected members of the Muddle.
Ruckus
@David Koch:
Maybe, just maybe she is staying silent because her position has no rational in this situation other than grandstanding. She’s not in the executive branch, nor local law enforcement, nor local/state prosecution agencies, nothing. Lindsey and Gramcrackers have no standing to say anything either but that hasn’t stopped them from spouting off and showing how big of assholes they are.
It’s not her place to interject anything other than maybe a note of sorrow for the losses and thanks/congratulations for the swift response from the citizens and agencies involved. And there is plenty of time for that. Anything else is acting just like a rethuglician. She is acting just like a reasonable person should act.
Kay
@Ruckus:
It’s so gross how they’re wedded to those military tribunals. Not because they even WORK, they don’t, 7 convictions, 2 overturned on appeal, but because they invented them so they must continue.
It’s disgusting and self-interested. NO ONE CARES if conservative legal theory is vindicated. It’s ABOUT them, and their huge egos and legacy-burnishing.
Elizabeth
@Tonal Crow–there is, in fact, a standard jury instruction very like that. And there’s also a standard voir dire question asking whether the potential juror is more or less likely to believe a witness just because the witness is a police officer.
Tonal Crow
@Kay: Naw. Republicans are wedded to military commissions because (1) It’s one of the few things that enable them to reach orgasm; and (2) It’s a grand way to keep cowering Democrats cowering. We can’t do anything about (1), but (2) is another story.
Ruckus
@Kay:
This won’t get me much love here but this is why I would like to see term limits on all national elected officials. Senators, congresspeople. We of course already have this on the president and it’s worked for decades to our advantage. I’d also like to see age limits for the same people. They have starting age limits, why not ending? Doesn’t have to be 65 but maybe 75? I’m not there yet but my perspective it a lot different than people half my age. And my stamina is a lot less than it was at even 50. And last time I saw my Dr he said I was the most fit person he would see that day.
I’m not saying real short terms BTW. Three or four for a senator, 8-10 for a congressperson. That’s 18-24 yrs and 16-20 respectfully. That’s longer than most of us workers ever get at one job.
Tonal Crow
@Ruckus: It’s not clear to me that legislative term limits accomplish anything but empowering the legislative staffs, who stay forever and thus learn the ropes better than any legislator. I dunno about age limits; maybe we should have annual competence tests instead.
David Koch
@Kay: actually, its not even about that. it’s just old fashion nixonian race card/soft of crime card. tricky dick made a big deal about Miranda in 1968 campaign, that appealed to the Archie-Bunker-low-information-white-working-clase voters. So much so that even the liberal Lyndon Johnson passed a law overturning Miranda at the federal level in june 1968 to deflect the political-racial-xenophobic demagogic coddling criminal attacks. The law was eventually struck down by scotus in 2000.
David Koch
@Ruckus: when will liberals hold Warren’s feet to the fire? what’s the use of electing her and promoting her as a savior if she’s just gonna be another cowering liberal afraid of her own shadow.
Ruckus
@Tonal Crow:
I suggest these because we use them other places. The president as I stated. We elect them for terms, not competence.(That’s an understatement!) My rational is that having the same stale old blood in there is not good for the long term health of the country. We are stuck with a bunch of self-serving blowhards, instead of people who might, just might want to do good for the country. Yes there are some who are outstanding public servants, who might have a shorter career under this. But many of the 535 people we continue to elect really are bad for all of us while being marginally good for a few. Turnover might just make this better. Can it be worse?
Ruckus
@David Koch:
You and your ilk are the one’s seemingly holding her feet to the fire.
I expect her to do her job.
You seem to expect her to play god.
We have more than enough elected officials playing god. I for one don’t think we need more.
Tonal Crow
@Ruckus: Once again, legislative term limits effectively delegate legislative power to the (unelected) legislative staffs, who come to know more about the legislature than the term-limited legislators. If you had staff term limits too, that might change something, though I wonder how well it would work.
Tonal Crow
@David Koch: Christ on a crutch go back under the bridge already.
Ruckus
@Tonal Crow:
You did make a very good point about the office staff. I have in the past thought about running for office. And office staff was one of the things that made me think very hard about it. I have one friend who I would ask to be my chief of staff or whatever the title is, right hand, etc. The rest? No idea. You are correct there is a revolving door of congressional staff along with the people an elected official would/might bring with them if they had been elected before.
On the other hand one would need at least some people with institutional memory, just to get anything done.
How would term limits change that?
Also I think a lot depends on the person elected. Are they a good manager? Or just another blowhard? Once again how would term limits change that?
Tonal Crow
@Ruckus: You seem to be agreeing with my initial point. I oppose term limits because they infringe my ability to vote for whom I choose, and because they over-empower legislative staffs. The solution to bad legislators is voting for good legislators. Also too, nationally we’ve got to do something about the Senate. It gives too much power to voters in small states.
Ruckus
@Kay:
I always try to remember that for most politicians but especially for republicans, it isn’t about if something works, it is about the resume, the press one gets and can it get them re-elected. When I factor in that thought it all starts to make sense. Well not sense exactly but to have some purpose. It’s not the purpose most of us voted for but that’s how the game is played.
I think most politicians must have a rather limited short and long term memory. They only remember the things they can use for their own benefit.
David Koch
@Tonal Crow:
what is Elizabeth Warren (senator representing Massachusetts) doing right now if not cowering in the corner, afraid to speak in support of Miranda being applied in her state?
of course, IOKIYAEW
Ruckus
@Tonal Crow:
I’m not fully disagreeing, that’s for sure. It’s a complicated issue and I can see both sides have some positive points.
One thing to ask is this:
If you voted for B but A got elected, do you want to wait for your fellow citizens to
A. Wise up
B. The person to die
C. At least have some reasonable future chance to see them gone.
D. Hopefully find another candidate that you like who can get elected against an intrenched incumbent.
Kay
@David Koch:
I see the race angle and I’m aware of the trumped-up Miranda controversy in the past, but I actually think “tough on crime” has lost its juice, politically.
They got so tough on crime they started pulling in PLENTY of working class whites and their kids.
IMO, talking to people here as a lawyer, “tough on crime” has receded as a race issue, and become a class issue.
So conservatives might want to watch that :)
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
@Tonal Crow:
We need a Sed Festival for all office-holders.
Ruckus
@The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge:
I’ll pass. I also don’t think we need any more royal families here. Most monarchies have reduced the power of the throne to ceremonial. We’ve never had the monarchy, why do we need the ceremony? Besides don’t most of them think of themselves a little too highly anyway?
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
@Ruckus:
Well, you’re right, it got purely ceremonial later on, but originally they had to prove they were vigorous and healthy…or we could go back to the system that preceded it and kill them at the end of their term.
Ruckus
@Tonal Crow:
Another way to think about this.
In any work group there are people who are subordinate and people in charge. When things are not running as they should be(I’m paraphrasing your position, I hope correctly) do you blame the workers or management? I blame management. I have spent about 80% of my working life in management. When I managed correctly things went smoothly, when I fucked up, not so much. I couldn’t manage everyone, every time, that worked for me but I feel that is normal, some people are unmanageable, at least by by some managers some of the time. So yes some workers are a problem, but they are not(or at least shouldn’t be) in charge or remain. If you elect the most liberal person ever as a senator, does that make them a good manager?
What you need for staff is to know how to provide you with the information for you to make good decisions. They have to know what your positions are and carry them out. If it works the other way then you have chosen very bad staff and are a seriously bad manager. That’s the crux of it. It doesn’t matter where they worked before, only that they do their job for you, the elected person.
Ruckus
@The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge:
Not to Goodwin the post but wasn’t Hitler pretty vigorous and healthy? Sill one of the most major assholes ever.
That’s why I’ll pass on subjective tests. Either nothing or objective. Right now I don’t think nothing is working very well.
Tonal Crow
@Ruckus: Well, staff have their own policy preferences, and again, they know far more about how the legislature functions than their new boss does, unless she’s had recent staff or legislative experience in the same legislature herself. This gives the staff an unusual amount of ability to shape what their nominal (I won’t say “titular”) manager learns and what she does with it.
Also, not all legislative staff report to a particular legislator. Researchers, librarians, staff lawyers, and others often report to some overall administrative body. And that body is “staff”, too.
It’s not so simple for a new legislator to come in and “clean house” the way a manager of a small business might (and even there it might well be very difficult, because some objectionable employee might be the only one who knows how the company makes its widgets).
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
But on a serious note, if any gLibertarian douchenozzles are lurking:
Notice the infrastructure immediately available to help the injured, the calm competence of all public agencies involved, the quick identification of the suspects, the instant response when they panicked, and the methodical manhunt that led to Dzhokhar being captured alive? That’s what governance looks like. That’s what you get for your money in “Tax-achusetts”.
If anything like this had happened in your Libertarian utopia, or for that matter, in any of the square states, a Beslan School Massacre would be the best one could hope for—500 Buford T. Justices running in with guns blazing. This, on the other hand, is what living in a civilization does for you. I know how I prefer to live. (I’m at the other end of I-90, and it’s not quite as good here, but better than you guys would leave us with.)
Tonal Crow
@The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge: You insult douchenozzles, which perform a very important service with great care and consistency. Why not call your targets “GOPheads” instead? We should take a page from Gingrich’s 1990s rhetorical manifesto, and redefine “GOP” as a horrid abomination, because even a rose called “shit” won’t smell as good as one called “blazing red beauty”.
AxelFoley
@some guy:
SMH at this dumbass.
Ruckus
@Tonal Crow:
For the moment I’m going to assume that you are 100% correct.
What effect does term limits have on that?
What effect does electing anyone have on that?
What you are saying is that it doesn’t matter who we elect it is always the staff that makes things work or not.
I do not believe this is true. And all I have to know if this is true is to see how things change when a new person is elected.
Now if you want to talk about how current staffing can bend the general direction I probably won’t have a huge argument with that. I think the staffs are too large and for a large part exist that way because it puffs up the elected person to have a large staff. “Look how many minions I have working for me!”
But on the other hand look how large the constituent base is for some states. Which was a point that you brought up earlier. CA for example has what 30 million residents and 2 senators. That’s going to take a larger staff than Montana with it’s 2 senators and
27 people1 million people living there.Corner Stone
@AxelFoley: STFU you stupid one note Obama troll.
El Cid
I really, really hate the verbization of “Miranda” — already a short-hand reference — into “Mirandize”.
Matt McIrvin
@Xenos:
And so that libertarian-ish types can then use that to prove that liberals are the real torturers, splitting the US left right down the middle.
Howlin Wolfe
@El Cid: EC, whaddya gonna do? Happens all the time to the nicest words.
I’m a real estate title attorney, and we have the “Torrens” system of land records here in my state. It’s a way to register title to land and has to go through a judicial proceeding to get registered. Once (and only once, thank FSM) somebody referred to it as “Torrenizing” the land. She was from out of state.
My co-workers and I laughed for a long time after seeing that.