“No person . . . shall be compelled . . . to be a witness against himself”



The surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings acknowledged to the FBI his role in the attacks but did so before he was advised of his constitutional right to keep quiet and seek a lawyer, U.S. officials said Wednesday.

Once Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was read his rights on Monday, he immediately stopped talking, according to four officials of both political parties who were briefed on the interrogation but insisted on anonymity because the briefing was private.

After roughly 16 hours of questioning, investigators were surprised when a magistrate judge and a representative from the U.S. Attorney’s office entered the hospital room and read Tsarnaev his rights, the four officials and one law enforcement official said. Investigators had planned to keep questioning him.

16 hours?

This leaky shitbag was brought into the hospital in critical condition Friday night, dripping blood from various new holes in his anatomy. He was intubated and could not speak. SO THEY INTERROGATED HIM FOR 16 HOURS?

What part of the right against self-incrimination do they not understand?

I could really give a fuck about Speedbump’s little brother. But I care about the rule of law and this shit is so stupid. We beat Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and Fascist Italy simultaneously, and we did it without having to torture anyone.

I still remember when the Vile Progs claimed to care about this stuff.

About Myiq2xu - BA, JD, FJB

I was born and raised in a different country - America. I don't know what this place is.
This entry was posted in Boston Bombing, Dzhokar Tsarnaev, Law and Constitution and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

61 Responses to “No person . . . shall be compelled . . . to be a witness against himself”

  1. votermom says:

    Ticking bomb scenario – they were interrogating him for public safety, not to build a case. Supposedly.

    • Propertius says:

      I dunno, VM, I just looked at the Bill of Rights and I don’t see the words “ticking bomb” anywhere. If the Constitution doesn’t protect murderous little shitbags, then it doesn’t protect anyone. What happens when some (current or future) President decides that opposing his/her policies constitutes an imminent threat to public safety?

      The State is much more powerful and much more dangerous in the long run than any bunch of ragtag “jihadis”.

      • votermom says:

        It is suspicious to me that a magistrate went to the hospital with a lawyer just to mirandize him – how often does that happen in any other arrest?

      • 49erDweet says:

        Why are you deliberately misstating the issue? “..If the Constitution doesn’t protect….” There was nothing he was saying that COULD have been used against him. Her WAS protected. That was already a “given”. The only thing the magistrate did was make sure to protect unknown others. Where does the constitution say “you may not testify against others”?

  2. votermom says:

    So, I tweeted this two thoughts:

    Are we sure there are no jihadi sympathizers inside DHS “fixing” records of suspicious immigrants like Tsarnaevs?

    Remember @MicheleBachmann was asking about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration. Now we see Tsarnaevs “fell thru cracks”. She was right to ask.

    I remember she was shut down by McCain et al on racism grounds, because how dare she accuse Huma.
    Just bec she’s paranoid doesn’t mean the MB haven’t infiltrated DHS.

  3. yttik22 says:

    Well, we have the right to question anybody without their miranda rights, as long as we don’t intend to use any of that info in court. People are questioned all the time, witnesses, persons of interest, etc. He is like a witness to any future threats and I think we have the right to try and collect some info outside of the legal system.

    I seriously doubt he was questioned for 16 hours. That sounds like the media making shit up again. He was unconscious, in surgery, and had a tube down his throat most of the time. They talked to him for a couple of hours at most, before the judge showed up.

    I don’t have a problem with questioning people to find out if there are anymore potential threats about to happen. That’s not the same thing as torturing somebody and then using that info in court against them.

    • Mary says:

      I think you’re right about the time. 16 hours from beginning (when he was conscious, etc) to end (when judge came in forMiranda rights). But not constantly for 16 hours– snippets of time in between the parameters, with breaks (doctors involved per his health , etc).

      Media’s playing you, myiq. Drama sells, ya know.

  4. 49erDweet (D) says:

    Seriously? Didn’t we have this conversation? Going in NOTHING he was saying could be used against HIM. It was always about others. But “for some unknown reason” a US Attorney doesn’t want too much known about “others”, apparently. The FIX FROM ON HIGH is in. We are so scroogled.

    • Mary says:

      Word is, the direction to the magistrate, an assistant federal attorney, and a defense attorney to go in and stop the questioning after 16 hours (not the 48 promised), came directly from Eric Holder.

      FBI wasn’t even told they were coming—hadn’t finished questioning.

  5. votermom says:

    Finally! Heard someone on tv say “What good is the Patriot Act?” if it lets Tsarnaevs slip thru.
    Of course it was on fox so I guess it doesn’t count.

  6. votermom says:

    Klown, is it constitutional for Congress to pass a law that supposedly applies to everyone in America and then exempt itself & its staff?
    Seems like it shouldn’t be…

  7. DeniseVB says:

    Bush dedication on Cspan 3 or live streamed here http://cs.pn/C3LIVE

    I love seeing all the living prezzies together 😀

  8. votermom says:

  9. HELENK says:


    backtrack and big sis have the power to decide which laws to enforce and which ones not to enforce.
    the times they are a changing

    • Mary says:

      Federal judge just declared yesterday that they do NOT have the power to to do so.

      Came as a result of lawsuit filed by the union employees (ICE, I think) who said such a command made them disobey the law. Federal judge agreed with employees. 🙂

  10. votermom says:

  11. votermom says:

  12. votermom says:

  13. 49erDweet says:

    It’s sorta cute the Tsarnaev kid thinks #muslimsr@warw/us when our administration knows so much better.#inconvenienttruth— 49erDweet (D) (@49erdweet) April 25, 2013

    • myiq2xu says:

      If the government had their way they would invoke the so-called “public safety” exception in every case.

      • votermom says:

        Without a doubt.

        But does that change the fact that this is a case where it would actually apply – bomber who may plausibly have bombs/accomplices out there primed to go off?

        • myiq2xu says:

          Plausibly – for about 5 minutes.

          Are there any other bombs out there? Where are they?

          • myiq2xu says:

            Public safety exception

            The Miranda rule is not, however, absolute. An exception exists in cases of “public safety”. This limited and case-specific exception allows certain unadvised statements (given without Miranda warnings) to be admissible into evidence at trial when they were elicited in circumstances where there was great danger to public safety.[8]

            The public safety exception derives from New York v. Quarles (1984), a case in which the Supreme Court considered the admissibility of a statement elicited by a police officer who apprehended a rape suspect who was thought to be carrying a firearm. The arrest took place during the middle of the night in a supermarket that was open to the public but apparently deserted except for the clerks at the checkout counter. When the officer arrested the suspect, he found an empty shoulder holster, handcuffed the suspect, and asked him where the gun was. The suspect nodded in the direction of the gun (which was near some empty cartons) and said, “The gun is over there”. The Supreme Court found that such an unadvised statement was admissible in evidence because “[i]n a kaleidoscopic situation such as the one confronting these officers, where spontaneity rather than adherence to a police manual is necessarily the order of the day, the application of the exception we recognize today should not be made to depend on post hoc findings at a suppression hearing concerning the subjective motivation of the police officer”.[9] Thus, the jurisprudential rule of Miranda must yield in “a situation where concern for public safety must be paramount to adherence to the literal language of the prophylactic rules enunciated in Miranda”.

            The rule of Miranda is not, therefore, absolute and can be a bit more elastic in cases of public safety.[8] Under this exception, to be admissible in the government’s direct case at a trial, the questioning must not be “actually compelled by police conduct which overcame his will to resist,” and must be focused and limited, involving a situation “in which police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety.”[10]

            In 2010, the Federal Bureau of Investigation encouraged agents to use a broad interpretation of public safety-related questions in terrorism cases, stating that the “magnitude and complexity” of terrorist threats justified “a significantly more extensive public safety interrogation without Miranda warnings than would be permissible in an ordinary criminal case,” continuing to list such examples as: “questions about possible impending or coordinated terrorist attacks; the location, nature and threat posed by weapons that might pose an imminent danger to the public; and the identities, locations, and activities or intentions of accomplices who may be plotting additional imminent attacks.” A Department of Justice spokesman described this position as not altering the constitutional right, but as clarifying existing flexibility in the rule.[11]

            Notice that the OBAMA administration decided to expand the PSE far more broadly than SCOTUS. No court has ruled on this broad interpretation.

        • votermom says:

          In 2010, the Federal Bureau of Investigation encouraged agents to use a broad interpretation of public safety-related questions in terrorism cases, stating that the “magnitude and complexity” of terrorist threats justified “a significantly more extensive public safety interrogation without Miranda warnings than would be permissible in an ordinary criminal case,”

          Wait, so is the DOJ, by charging dirtbag asap & therefore requiring the Miranda warning process etc to kick off, sending the msg that this is merely a criminal case and not a real terrorism case?

          Just like Fort Hood is a workplace violence case?

        • Mary says:

          Fox reported (Megan) that during those 16 hours, defendant told them they had been on their way to New York–TImes Square—next.

          Judge & attorneys came in and Mirandized before they could find out more.

          Now they can’t ask.

  14. HELENK says:

    Iowa Hawk

    David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog 58m

    Holder ignored warnings about Tsarnaev; probably thought it was a ruse to throw him off the trail of Lance Armstrong. #priorities

  15. votermom says:

  16. votermom says:

  17. votermom says:

    Michael Graham ‏@IAMMGraham 1m
    “Aw, they blow up so fast” #StuffTerroristsMomsSay


  18. John Denney says:

    What rational person thinks the questioning will lead to critical evidence of his guilt?
    The issue of self-incrimination is moot at this point for him. If he were not Mirandized and all his answers ruled inadmissible in court, I doubt it would have any effect on the determination of his guilt or innocence.

Comments are closed.