the boston shake

[dr.narcolepsy]

http://i.imgur.com/57DCUIW.gif

[frndthdevl]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYZ-H9xJc6g

[James Pablos]

On Apr 19, 10:31 pm, dr.narcolepsy <jmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://i.imgur.com/57DCUIW.gif

a bit soon for this, isn't it?

[dr.narcolepsy]

No, what was too early was calling these two dingbats "terrorists," as
though they (or the big bro, really) had some sort of political or social
agenda bigger than deluded, personal grievance. The pussification of
America continues - flag waving frenzy and internet circle-jerks as the
cops do their job and apprehend a 19 year old and a 23 year old who had no
plan beyond detonating their anarchist cookbook bombs - certainly no
tactical skill or plan for afterwards.

Calling these two fucks terrorists dishonors terrorists - allow me to
digress - if, by terrorist, what is meant is fighters with purpose who
don't follow our rules. It's a little empty for those powers with nuclear
weapons, tanks, fighter jets, long range bombers, long range delivery by
sea, and fucking computer controlled drones (can you believe they were
trying to establish a medal for "remote combat?") to insist that warring by
unapproved means is a lesser way of fighting. But these guys have more in
common with insane, youthful, school-yard shooters than they do with true
terrorists.

Don't get me wrong - what they did was crazy, horrible, and criminal, of
course, and they deserve the worst punishment (yes, at least one is dead) -
it's not like I'm switching sides, or anything, and I further identify
with runners and their loved ones and fans - even minor, local running
events have a beautiful, family, healthy vibe - and there is a positive,
attractive quality to some of the Boston and New England specific
chest-pounding, but let's get a fucking grip - the actual, nuts and bolts
of this went according to hopes and expectations - professional law
enforcement quickly neutralized a couple fuckwits, but the surrounding
circus of media coverage and acting like the final result is some sort of
validation of The American way is embarrassing. A couple community college
kids landed a lucky strike that was devastating to a few dozen families and
got caught.

[James Pablos]

On Apr 20, 6:27 pm, dr.narcolepsy <jmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Calling these two fucks terrorists dishonors terrorists - allow me to
> digress - if, by terrorist, what is meant is fighters with purpose who
> don't follow our rules.

Well, I'm not sure we know anything concrete about their motivation
yet. It sounds to me like the older brother was just a limp-dick
malcontent, but one who might have justified his misanthropy through
Islam. I guess we'll find out when the younger starts talking.

[dr.narcolepsy]

Thanks for ignoring my 9,999 other sentences (Hey, it's April the 20th) -
yeah, we don't know - for sure, you're right. I believed I saw "admired Al
Queda," at some point. I'm going to put my chips on the table that my 9th
grade poster of Cheryl Tiegs more made me her lover than those guys have a
rational, purposeful connection to Al Queda.

[James Pablos]

On Apr 20, 7:44 pm, dr.narcolepsy <jmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for ignoring my 9,999 other sentences

No problem. UFC fights as we speak, then Canelo v. Trout. It's hard
for me to concentrate..

Diaz looked like he might have had a little too much 4/20 fun today.
He looked so sluggish against Thompson.

I think you're right, though -- we'll probably learn that they
sympathized with al queda, but that's a far cry from being actually
involved in the organization.

[dr.narcolepsy]

Band Beyond Desu <t...@aiko.com> wrote:

> Besides your original post being completely tasteless (try running that one
> through on a Boston chat group), what you say *could* be true, but then
> there's this, publicly available current info about the brothers and the
> possible motivation for their (ramped-up if not outright radicalized)
> beliefs (and actions):
>
> http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_289563/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=U2nqPJTk

If you're saying that it would be foolhardy, for me, from a physical safety
perspective, to speak a provocative truth to an emotional,
perhaps-temporarily irrational group of human beings who out-strength &
out-number me, then I concede the point.

The article you reference was a hysterical version of what's been available
just about since the bombers' identity was known. If anything, it supports
my point - these guys have no tangible connection to anything that would
lead an intelligent, informed person to consider them "terrorists." What's
the definition of a "terrorist," again?

[dr.narcolepsy]

We're in the 2nd weekend of 3 consecutive great mma weekends! My kid gets
mad at me because I can't spell his latest favorite fighter's name as
quickly as he deems appropriate as he enters it into his damn iPod, between
rounds. I'll have to post his list of favorites - his favorite is Cruz -
and he tends to favor lean, fast, technical strikers who have a tricky
and/or dynamic, if not dominant, ground game.

[trb...@frontier.com]

On Saturday, April 20, 2013 8:14:34 PM UTC-5, dr.narcolepsy wrote:


> What's the definition of a "terrorist," again?

Whomever the Federal government chooses to
define as such. Thank goodness States and
towns cannot define someone as a terrorist
or I'd be doomed. Remember; they're doing
it for your own good. Unfortunately that
also means it's being done in your name.

Tom "Ain't it just like the night"

[Walter Karmazyn]

On 4/19/2013 7:31 PM, dr.narcolepsy wrote:
> http://i.imgur.com/57DCUIW.gif
>

Twisted sense of humor there, Kyle. Keep that shit to your beloved fb
crowd, or even better to yourself. It doesn't play well.

W

[Walter Karmazyn]

Well, that would be "somebody else's freedom fighter". I'm hoping the
kid lives long enough to fill in a bunch of blanks. Mostly, I'm
concerned with something called Miranda, and what I consider the abuse
of it with the younger brother, thank you, Obama Justice Dept.

W

BTW Kyle, that video was really bad form.

[sweetbac]

"James Pueblos" <james....@gmail.com> wrote in message

> No problem. UFC fights as we speak, then Canelo v. Trout.
> It's hard for me to concentrate..

James has evolved from his childhood love affair with
monster truck rallys!
How precious.
<Turns and stares at RMGD>

[dr.narcolepsy]

Paraphrasing a buddy, I hope that at least one person is cheered that
amidst all the infotainment, "patriotism," and outpouring of emotion, this
past week, the true heart of man still beats.

What can you do? It's fucking horrible. We can mourn and empathize, we can
be glad the bad guys have been caught, and now it's time to laugh at the
absurdity of life and move on.

Btw, joke was stolen from reddit.

[dr.narcolepsy]

I respect your position and am sorry you feel I've been inappropriate.

[B]

Very well said.

[Walter Karmazyn]

Beyond that, at this point I'm not ready to refer to this as a terrorist
act, the Tsarnaev brothers remind me more of the 2 kids at Columbine than
the 911 hijackers.

To illustrate my definition of terrorist above, think of Lehi, a Zionist
organization better known as the Stern Gang, active in what is now Israel
in the 1940's. Among other things, they perfected the modern day car
bomb. Set off a car bomb today, it's an act of terrorism. Israel back in
the early 80's issued the Lehi ribbon to any former members who wanted one
"for military service towards the establishment of the State of Israel".

As I said of concern to me is the Justice Dept expanding on what was a bad
ruling by SCOTUS by announcing they will not read the surviving brother his
Miranda rights right off.

W

[James Pablos]

On Apr 21, 3:41 pm, Walter Karmazyn <walterkarma...@yahoo.com@> wrote:

> As I said of concern to me is the Justice Dept expanding on what was a bad
> ruling by SCOTUS by announcing they will not read the surviving brother his
> Miranda rights right off.

That concerns me as well. There's no good reason not to avail him of
his rights -- and not doing doing so may in fact make his eventual
trial more difficult to prosecute.

[Edwin Hurwitz]

I don't think it's a big deal. There's plenty of evidence to bring him to trial, we don't need a confession to prosecute him. He's an American and went to high school in Cambridge MA, so he's probably
seen enough Law and Order shows to know the Miranda warning by heart and to know that it's not a right to receive the warning, it's just a reminder that he does have the right to STFU according to the
5th Amendment.

The good reason to not Mirandize him is that if he and his big bro are part of a bigger network of sleeper cells and the lack of a manifesto is because the big message hasn't been delivered yet.
Everything at this point is speculation and he's an American(-ized) 19 year old kid who's in way over his head and will probably cave like a wet noodle once they start talking to him. If they remind
him of his 5th Amendment rights, he might clam up and we might face more bad shit. So, we don't lose much by not doing it and we might gain a lot. Of course, the exception is narrow and the window of
opportunity is not forever.

The precedent for the public safety exception has passed muster with cases with far less public danger. If ever there was a case that applied to this exception, this is it.

I would be far more concerned if they classified him as an enemy combatant. I also hope he gets a great lawyer. He'll need it. If I had any skillz and a license to practice law in MA, I'd step up. But
I don't. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and all that.

[marcman]

On Apr 21, 12:28 pm, B <bg9...@bigYell.com> wrote:
> dr.narcolepsy <jmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Here here! Agreed, well said.

[marcman]

On Apr 20, 11:32 pm, dr.narcolepsy <jmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

A bit surprised. I didn't think your little ani-gif and its
accompanying caption was too funny, but it surely wasn't so
ridiculously twisted or in poor enough "taste" to even be worthy of a
mention as either. Wasn't surprised when short-round didn't like it,
afterall, he's got the market cornered when it comes to bad taste, but
Wally the K? Made me think twice. OK, thought twice. I think you're
good here.

[Walter Karmazyn]

On 4/21/2013 6:30 PM, Edwin Hurwitz wrote:
> In article <3e58cbf4-f05b-4c14...@i2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, James Pablos <james....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 21, 3:41 pm, Walter Karmazyn <walterkarma...@yahoo.com@> wrote:
>>
>>> As I said of concern to me is the Justice Dept expanding on what was a bad
>>> ruling by SCOTUS by announcing they will not read the surviving brother his
>>> Miranda rights right off.
>>
>> That concerns me as well. There's no good reason not to avail him of
>> his rights -- and not doing doing so may in fact make his eventual
>> trial more difficult to prosecute.
>
> I don't think it's a big deal. There's plenty of evidence to bring him to trial, we don't need a confession to prosecute him. He's an American and went to high school in Cambridge MA, so he's probably
> seen enough Law and Order shows to know the Miranda warning by heart and to know that it's not a right to receive the warning, it's just a reminder that he does have the right to STFU according to the
> 5th Amendment.

Well, The SCOTUS thought it a good idea that it be required citizens are
reminded they have this right, because some don't know they have it, or
in the confusion of a post-arrest moment forget they do. I think the
only place I agree with you is there is enough probable cause to bring
him to trial. they can present evidence to support conviction at trial.

>
> The good reason to not Mirandize him is that if he and his big bro are part of a bigger network of sleeper cells and the lack of a manifesto is because the big message hasn't been delivered yet.
> Everything at this point is speculation and he's an American(-ized) 19 year old kid who's in way over his head and will probably cave like a wet noodle once they start talking to him. If they remind
> him of his 5th Amendment rights, he might clam up and we might face more bad shit. So, we don't lose much by not doing it and we might gain a lot. Of course, the exception is narrow and the window of
> opportunity is not forever.

See below

>
> The precedent for the public safety exception has passed muster with cases with far less public danger. If ever there was a case that applied to this exception, this is it.

The SCOTUS decision dealt with a case that had far less public danger.
But that was the scope of it, dealing with immediate public safety.

The Obama Justice Dept expanded on that, here's from a memorandum that
it issued in secret, but was leaked to the NYT:


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

This hasn't passed muster. It's just the opinion of the current
administration's DOJ. All I've heard the last 2 days is that the danger
is over, blah blah. Not related to any immediate threat. If this kid is
as smart as you say, he'll know it would be to his advantage to provide
information. If he's hardcore, it doesn't matter.

What matters here is precedent. Need I say more?

>
> I would be far more concerned if they classified him as an enemy combatant. I also hope he gets a great lawyer. He'll need it. If I had any skillz and a license to practice law in MA, I'd step up. But
> I don't. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and all that.

He won't be classified as an enemy combatant. You know that. I would be
very concerned if that did happen. What appears to be happening is his
being questioned without Miranda. With no immediate public safety
threat according to all we're being told. That bothers me.

W

>

[Walter Karmazyn]

My comment was of course my own opinion of what Kyle posted, directed at
Kyle. If my saying something makes you think twice... well, that's
better than just thinking about something once, I guess...

About a month or so after Bill Graham's helicopter smashed into a tower
carrying a lot of high voltage killing him, his lady and his pilot, Paul
Kantner broke the ice with a joke of sorts:

Did you know there were drugs involved in Bill's helicopter crash?

really?

Yeah they found half a gram.

or something like that, I forget the exact wording. It made the column
of our #1 gossip columnist in SF at the time, but it was weeks after
the tragedy, not days.

If it were Mrs. Marcman or Kyle jr that that got their legs blown off or
otherwise had their bodies mangled and I posted that clip, what would
you guys think?

Kyle made some points worth discussing, I think he could have done it
without that clip. Imo, ymmv

W

[James Pablos]

On Apr 22, 1:52 am, Walter Karmazyn <walterkarma...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Kyle made some points worth discussing, I think he could have done it
> without that clip. Imo, ymmv

http://i.imgur.com/0p2iVlq.gif

[B]

Walter Karmazyn <walterk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> He won't be classified as an enemy combatant. You know that. I would be
> very concerned if that did happen. What appears to be happening is his
> being questioned without Miranda. With no immediate public safety threat
> according to all we're being told. That bothers me.

Yes, because its unusual for the Fed to not follow the letter if the law
with absolution.

[marcman]

OK, now I'm confused. Isn't this the clip that Kyle posted??

[Edwin Hurwitz]

In article <atjuuo...@mid.individual.net>, Walter Karmazyn <walterk...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > The precedent for the public safety exception has passed muster with cases
> > with far less public danger. If ever there was a case that applied to this
> > exception, this is it.
>
> The SCOTUS decision dealt with a case that had far less public danger.
> But that was the scope of it, dealing with immediate public safety.
>
> The Obama Justice Dept expanded on that, here's from a memorandum that
> it issued in secret, but was leaked to the NYT:
>
>
> "There may be exceptional cases in which, although all relevant public
> safety questions have been asked, agents nonetheless conclude that
> continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and
> timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat, and that the
> government's interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the
> disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation."
>
> This hasn't passed muster. It's just the opinion of the current
> administration's DOJ. All I've heard the last 2 days is that the danger
> is over, blah blah. Not related to any immediate threat. If this kid is
> as smart as you say, he'll know it would be to his advantage to provide
> information. If he's hardcore, it doesn't matter.
>
> What matters here is precedent. Need I say more?

Maybe. I'm not convinced the threat is over. It depends on the nature of the threat. If it was just the two brothers, yes, the threat is over, he should be Mirandized, etc. If the threat is that they
are one of a number of sleeper cells that are ready to activate and the kid can give us info on them, then I think the exception still applies. However, even under this scenario, I think it should be
limited. Given the potential scope of a large conspiracy, perhaps a week would be enough time.

Precedent does matter, but there are plenty of White House memos that lay out positions that never get used. I do think there's a line we are fast approaching, but I also don't think we've crossed it
yet. I think it's worth noting that the memo notes what the potential consequences of not Mirandizing are: inadmissibility in court. "the government's interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs
the disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation." That suggests to me that they are considering not just Mirandizing as a matter of course, but weighing whether the advantages of
Mirandizing (admissibility) are more important than the disadvantages of not. In a case like this, as we've both noted, they don't need his statements to prosecute. Perhaps I'm misreading the quote
you provide.

[Edwin Hurwitz]

Are they in the God bothering business now?

[mark...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, April 20, 2013 1:41:18 AM UTC-4, frndthdevl wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYZ-H9xJc6g

Willie Nelson doing reggae. That was cringe inducing.

Not unlike: http://www.youtube.com/v/9Kg0v0Er8Ak

[frndthdevl]

Well it was more for the sentiment as appropriatate for the day.
Surprised I could not find a live Jerry version. The harder they
come,the harder they fall. The brothers did fall hard.

[marcman]

That guy can SING!

[Brad Greer]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 22:08:41 -0700, Walter Karmazyn
<walterk...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 4/21/2013 6:30 PM, Edwin Hurwitz wrote:
>> In article <3e58cbf4-f05b-4c14...@i2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, James Pablos <james....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 21, 3:41 pm, Walter Karmazyn <walterkarma...@yahoo.com@> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As I said of concern to me is the Justice Dept expanding on what was a bad
>>>> ruling by SCOTUS by announcing they will not read the surviving brother his
>>>> Miranda rights right off.
>>>
>>> That concerns me as well. There's no good reason not to avail him of
>>> his rights -- and not doing doing so may in fact make his eventual
>>> trial more difficult to prosecute.
>>
>> I don't think it's a big deal. There's plenty of evidence to bring him to trial, we don't need a confession to prosecute him. He's an American and went to high school in Cambridge MA, so he's probably
>> seen enough Law and Order shows to know the Miranda warning by heart and to know that it's not a right to receive the warning, it's just a reminder that he does have the right to STFU according to the
>> 5th Amendment.
>
>Well, The SCOTUS thought it a good idea that it be required citizens are
>reminded they have this right, because some don't know they have it, or
>in the confusion of a post-arrest moment forget they do. I think the
>only place I agree with you is there is enough probable cause to bring
>him to trial. they can present evidence to support conviction at trial.
>

I'm with you on this, Walter. The reason we call them your "Miranda
rights" is because the SCOTUS ruled they have to be read to you. Under
pressure from the police you may not realize you have the right to not
answer questions.

>>
>> The good reason to not Mirandize him is that if he and his big bro are part of a bigger network of sleeper cells and the lack of a manifesto is because the big message hasn't been delivered yet.
>> Everything at this point is speculation and he's an American(-ized) 19 year old kid who's in way over his head and will probably cave like a wet noodle once they start talking to him. If they remind
>> him of his 5th Amendment rights, he might clam up and we might face more bad shit. So, we don't lose much by not doing it and we might gain a lot. Of course, the exception is narrow and the window of
>> opportunity is not forever.
>
>See below
>>
>> The precedent for the public safety exception has passed muster with cases with far less public danger. If ever there was a case that applied to this exception, this is it.
>
>The SCOTUS decision dealt with a case that had far less public danger.
>But that was the scope of it, dealing with immediate public safety.
>
>The Obama Justice Dept expanded on that, here's from a memorandum that
>it issued in secret, but was leaked to the NYT:
>
>
>"There may be exceptional cases in which, although all relevant public
>safety questions have been asked, agents nonetheless conclude that
>continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and
>timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat, and that the
>government's interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the
>disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation."
>
>This hasn't passed muster. It's just the opinion of the current
>administration's DOJ. All I've heard the last 2 days is that the danger
>is over, blah blah. Not related to any immediate threat. If this kid is
>as smart as you say, he'll know it would be to his advantage to provide
>information. If he's hardcore, it doesn't matter.
>
>What matters here is precedent. Need I say more?

I understand the concept of immediate public danger, I'm not sure it
existed in this case. I'm uneasy that they didn't read him his rights
and further decided to tell us they didn't read him his rights.
>>

[Walter Karmazyn]

Band Beyond Desu <t...@aiko.com> wrote:
> Band Beyond Desu <t...@aiko.com> wrote:

>> I thought the televised reports I saw said the judge at his bedside
>> arraignment did in fact read him his rights, ascertained that he understood
>> them and the process, and that any Miranda exception came earlier -- as was
>> previously explained by authorities -- before that bedside arraignment.
>
> That sequence of events is borne out in this story:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/us/boston-marathon-bombings-developments.html

From what the story said he should have been read his rights Sunday
morning, even by the SC rules. Might have been, that will come out later.
At your first appearance, the magistrate will again explain your rights.

The case that set the public safety exception was decided back in 1984,
with the more conservative justices led by Rehnquist voting in favor, and
the liberals against. I'll post more later today when my time frees up,
but I'll leave off with a couple thoughts. One is from Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor's opinion, she concurred with with the majority but also dissented
on one part, from her opinion:

"In so holding, the Court acknowledges that it is departing from prior
precedent, see ante, at 653, and that it is "lessening the desirable
clarity of the Miranda rule," ".

Which is why people interested in civil liberties were against this
decision at the time and still don't like it today.

Again, the other part I'm having a problem with is the Obama DOJ saying
that questioning without Miranda being read can go beyond the establishment
of " no immediate threat". This is very disturbing, to me at least.

W

[Just Kidding]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:31:22 -0400, Brad Greer <jjh1...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

I'm not sure how valid the "immediate public danger" exception is, but
I'd have to admit that it did exist in this case. At the time of
capture, there was a distinct possibility that these guys may have had
other accomplices or that they had planted other bombs that may have
been timed to explode.

[Just Kidding]

On 23 Apr 2013 15:50:47 GMT, Walter Karmazyn

Of course, the government always has the option of questioning a
suspect without Mirandizing even when no legal exception applies. The
failure to Mirandize would likely result in the exclusion at trial of
any information obtained from the suspect, but if the government may
feel confident that it has enough independent evidence to convict
without that information.

[the Felonious Kidd]

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 1:36:11 PM UTC-7, Just Kidding wrote:

> Of course, the government always has the option of questioning a
> suspect without Mirandizing even when no legal exception applies. The
> failure to Mirandize would likely result in the exclusion at trial of
> any information obtained from the suspect, but if the government may
> feel confident that it has enough independent evidence to convict
> without that information.

Cue sound effect...
http://www.hark.com/clips/bdtcbfrxlt-law-and-order-sound-effect-dot-mp3

[Walter Karmazyn]

On 4/22/2013 8:33 AM, Edwin Hurwitz wrote:
> In article <atjuuo...@mid.individual.net>, Walter Karmazyn <walterk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> The precedent for the public safety exception has passed muster with cases
>>> with far less public danger. If ever there was a case that applied to this
>>> exception, this is it.
>>
>> The SCOTUS decision dealt with a case that had far less public danger.
>> But that was the scope of it, dealing with immediate public safety.
>>
>> The Obama Justice Dept expanded on that, here's from a memorandum that
>> it issued in secret, but was leaked to the NYT:
>>
>>
>> "There may be exceptional cases in which, although all relevant public
>> safety questions have been asked, agents nonetheless conclude that
>> continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and
>> timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat, and that the
>> government's interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the
>> disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation."
>>
>> This hasn't passed muster. It's just the opinion of the current
>> administration's DOJ. All I've heard the last 2 days is that the danger
>> is over, blah blah. Not related to any immediate threat. If this kid is
>> as smart as you say, he'll know it would be to his advantage to provide
>> information. If he's hardcore, it doesn't matter.
>>
>> What matters here is precedent. Need I say more?
>
> Maybe. I'm not convinced the threat is over. It depends on the nature of the threat. If it was just the two brothers, yes, the threat is over, he should be Mirandized, etc. If the threat is that they
> are one of a number of sleeper cells that are ready to activate and the kid can give us info on them, then I think the exception still applies. However, even under this scenario, I think it should be

> limited. Given the potential scope of a large conspiracy, perhaps a week would be enough time.\

Hold an American citizen for a week to question them without advising
them of their rights!!??!! Or bring them before a magistrate??!!??
Am I reading you right?

>
> Precedent does matter, but there are plenty of White House memos that lay out positions that never get used.

And plenty that do, like the torture memos. For starters.

I do think there's a line we are fast approaching, but I also don't
think we've crossed it
> yet. I think it's worth noting that the memo notes what the potential consequences of not Mirandizing are: inadmissibility in court. "the government's interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs
> the disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation." That suggests to me that they are considering not just Mirandizing as a matter of course, but weighing whether the advantages of
> Mirandizing (admissibility) are more important than the disadvantages of not. In a case like this, as we've both noted, they don't need his statements to prosecute. Perhaps I'm misreading the quote
> you provide.

If you look at the case that brought the "public safety exception"
about, you would find it made its way to the SCOTUS via the State (aka
prosecution). The trial court agreed with the defense that the police
violated Miranda. This was upheld by higher courts within the state.
The conservative dominated SCOTUS at the time reversed the lower courts.

There was (and still is) a movement to water down, if not remove
Miranda. The Obama DOJ memo leaves a door wide open. If the
opportunity arose, they or some future administration would challenge
any opposition to its use (expanding exception past determination of
lack of any immediate threat). That would of course be ultimately before
the SCOTUS. Given the chance, don't think Obama wouldn't take it there.
And be arguing in its favor.

W

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/467/649










>

[Walter Karmazyn]

It didn't, at least when they finally questioned him on Sunday. IMO.

It is not the first but I believe at least the 3rd time since Obama took
over that the "public safety exception" has been used. It was pointed out
at this time (again IMO) because the tragedy in Boston is fresh in
everybody's mind and it is a perfect time to introduce a new concept that
will be more readily accepted by the general public given the
circumstances.
Sort of like how the Patriot act was over a decade ago.

W

[Edwin Hurwitz]

In article <779933239388412033...@News.Individual.NET>, Band Beyond Desu <t...@aiko.com> wrote:

> I thought the televised reports I saw said the judge at his bedside
> arraignment did in fact read him his rights, ascertained that he understood
> them and the process, and that any Miranda exception came earlier -- as was
> previously explained by authorities -- before that bedside arraignment.

Yup. He was Mirandized and the period of exception seemed reasonable. It's not public knowledge what he was questioned on in that time, but this doesn't go near what I would call rampant abuse. The
danger of more bombs or a larger scheme is one that is real in these scenarios. It seems that when it became clear that there wasn't a danger, they read him his rights. Works for me.

[Edwin Hurwitz]

They said it could but that didn't mean that it did. If every justice department followed the internal memos that float around, we would indeed be living in a police state. Memos don't create law or
even set policy. They just exist as thought experiments. In some cases lines are crossed (see Yoo and torture) but in this case, I don't think it was even close. Of course, Dzhokhar could be lying and
there could be a huge conspiracy to light up a bunch of sleeper cells in every major city, but I get the feeling that's not the case. I hope he gets a great lawyer. He'll need it and he deserves it.
He's just a kid.

[Neil X.]

On Apr 23, 10:37 pm, Walter Karmazyn <walterkarma...@yahoo.com@>
wrote:

> Brad Greer <jjh110...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 22:08:41 -0700, Walter Karmazyn
> > <walterkarma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 4/21/2013 6:30 PM, Edwin Hurwitz wrote:
> >>> In article

> >>> <3e58cbf4-f05b-4c14-ac92-a415d0674...@i2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, James Pablos

Walter, I think you're overreacting here. The government is and always
has been free not to read Miranda rights to suspects. They can do
that any time they want to. IMO, you need to save your outrage for
when the government doesn't read Miranda rights to a suspect, then
tries to use the information obtained during questioning at a trial.
Until that happens, there isn't a problem.

Peace,
\Neil X.

[Walter Karmazyn]

Neil, As I pointed out the "public safety exception" came about
because the state tried to introduce evidence gathered without Miranda
being read, and after the trial court and 2 other courts ruled in favor
of the defendant, it went to a conservative majority Supreme Court
which overturned the lower court rulings. It happened, there is a
problem. Or are you now backing the likes of William Rehnquist and
Warren Burger over Thurgood Marshall? I do NOT like that Obama wants to
expand further on that. Sorry that is not a problem for you.

W

[Just Kidding]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 20:14:19 -0700 (PDT), "Neil X." <nei...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Actually, that's happened countless times, but usually the police just
lie about having Mirandized the suspect. And they get away with it way
too often.

[Edwin Hurwitz]

In article <1126308390388461911.04193...@News.Individual.NET>, Walter Karmazyn <walterk...@yahoo.com@> wrote:

> > I understand the concept of immediate public danger, I'm not sure it
> > existed in this case. I'm uneasy that they didn't read him his rights
> > and further decided to tell us they didn't read him his rights.
> >>>
>
> It didn't, at least when they finally questioned him on Sunday. IMO.

Well, we know now it didn't. 20/20 and all.

[Edwin Hurwitz]

You know, at this point I consider us ahead of the game that not only did they Mirandize him fairly quickly given his condition, they didn't claim he was an enemy combatant and spirit him away for
rendition, extraordinary or otherwise. I share your concern about the expansion of the public safety exception, but it's fairly clear that it is accepted doctrine as it stands and it's not only
applicable here but it's almost required due to the severity of the crime. If they hadn't invoked the public safety exception, I can assure you the outcry from the Republican opposition would have
been overwhelming. I share your assessment of the Obama Administration's contempt for the law in several areas, but I'm far more outraged that they have basically given Wall St. a get out of jail free
card than over the fact that they questioned a 19 year old kid for a day before Mirandizing him about whether or not there was further danger. If anything is used, it will be corroborating evidence.
Or they may use it to impeach him if he tries to say he wasn't there or didn't do it if he gets on the stand, which, as I understand it, is a reasonable use of the statements, exception
notwithstanding. They can also use evidence from unMirandized statements if the prosecution can persuade the court that they would have inevitably found the evidence. In the grand scheme of things,
this is not really going to change Dzhokhar's life.

I don't really see this as an opportunity to take partisan sides on the behavior of the SCOTUS. They invoked the exception in Boston, but the exception is irrelevant. It was just a formality to
appease the conservative critics who would have howled if they hadn't. The likelihood of this being on a slippery slope is pretty slim because it's already on the other side of the slope. The other
times the exception has been used have been far less heinous crimes (not that rape at gunpoint isn't heinous) with a far smaller potential scope of public harm. If this had been the case that
established the exception and then it was applied to Quarles, you could make an argument that we were sliding down a slope.

I also have to say that I'm on the side of the kid. I think he got in way over his head. He ruined way too many lives while he was too young to really appreciate the consequences of his actions. That
doesn't mean I think he should get off, but, well, I don't know what it means, aside from part of me having compassion for him. I believe that anyone of us is capable of going off the rails (Ray
O'Hara, WTF?!), and the kid got sucked in for whatever reason. The fact that he went on with his life like he could pretend that nothing had changed shows me that he wasn't all in. It wasn't a moment
that defined his life as an extremist. I don't think that action was a defining expression of his being, the way it was for his brother. Who knows, maybe he ran over his brother for getting him caught
up in the whole mess. But I could be wrong and he could be an intractably sociopathic crazy. The truth is that we don't know all that much about it, even still except that the whole thing sucks.

But, thanks for keeping vigilant for our civil liberties! Much respect for that.

[B]

Edwin Hurwitz <ed...@indra.com> wrote:
>
> They said it could but that didn't mean that it did. If every justice
> department followed the internal memos that float around, we would indeed
> be living in a police state. Memos don't create law or
> even set policy. They just exist as thought experiments. In some cases
> lines are crossed (see Yoo and torture) but in this case, I don't think
> it was even close. Of course, Dzhokhar could be lying and
> there could be a huge conspiracy to light up a bunch of sleeper cells in
> every major city, but I get the feeling that's not the case. I hope he
> gets a great lawyer. He'll need it and he deserves it.
> He's just a kid.

Just a kid. You mean like the 8 year old kid he murdered on a sunny, spring
day? This kid will be federally prosecuted and convicted. He will then be
sentenced to death and some many years later, will be executed as was
McVeigh. And it's right. I'm personally sick of people so comfortably
removing responsibility from a "kid" because his older brother was more
influential. Sorry but your "kid" made a "man" decision to kill and maim,
destroying countless lives. The fucking "kid" made a decision.

Now it's his turn.

[B]

Edwin Hurwitz <ed...@indra.com> wrote:
>
> I also have to say that I'm on the side of the kid.

You're on the side if a terrorist murderer. Not a great game pick.

>I think he got in way over his head. He ruined way too many lives while he
> was too young to really appreciate the consequences of his actions. That
> doesn't mean I think he should get off, but, well, I don't know what it
> means, aside from part of me having compassion for him.

Crazy talk.

I believe that anyone of us is capable of going off the rails (Ray
> O'Hara, WTF?!), and the kid got sucked in for whatever reason. The fact
> that he went on with his life like he could pretend that nothing had
> changed shows me that he wasn't all in. It wasn't a moment
> that defined his life as an extremist.

This is far left liberal insanity IMO. The above proves he's a sociopath.
While people lie dying and maimed in hospitals, while families cried and
gave up their futures, he partied. Do you really believe what you wrote? He
was raised as a cultural sociopath. American life means less to him than
Chechen.

>I don't think that action was a defining expression of his being, the way
> it was for his brother. Who knows, maybe he ran over his brother for getting him caught
> up in the whole mess. But I could be wrong and he could be an intractably
> sociopathic crazy. The truth is that we don't know all that much about
> it, even still except that the whole thing sucks.

We know everything about it. Why are you so quick to remove personal
responsibility for so heinous a crime by a 19 year old man? Where's the
sense of justice and outrage for the destroyed lives? Are we so used to
this now that we look to sympathize with the perpetrator? "It was his older
brother's fault". Seriously?

> But, thanks for keeping vigilant for our civil liberties! Much respect for that.

Do you also sympathize with the 19 year old suicide bomber in Jerusalem?

[Edwin Hurwitz]

Clearly you didn't understand my point. I'm sorry that I communicated so poorly. What I meant to say was that I was on the side of the kid getting the full protection of the rights of being an
American citizen. I also do think that without the circumstances that he was in faced in his relationship to his brother, he probably wouldn't have done what he did. I also said that he had to face
the consequences of what he did. It's not a game pick, it's real life.

[Edwin Hurwitz]

I never said he shouldn't face his responsibilities. I think it sucks that a kid's life will be taken from him or he will spend the rest of his days in jail. But, that's his future. He's just a kid.

[B]

We'll disagree on the last point. He may be just a kid to some of us older
people but he's far from a kid. A kid is an 8 year old watching his dad
finish a race. That's just a kid.

Give the Chechen born "kid" his American due process by the book. Find him
guilty on Federal charges. Then, even though its more expensive than a
lifetime in prison, use the death penalty for exactly what it was meant
for, something we don't always do. Or, save us a few bucks and toss him in
the gen population at a max for a few days and let nature take its course
(ok, I don't really mean that last part).

[Walter Karmazyn]

We can perhaps agree to disagree with what "fairly quickly" is.
Evidently Dzhokar was questioned for 16 hours before he was read his rights.

As I mentioned earlier, this is the 3rd time the public safety exception
was used in relation to terrorism. Previous btw was the "underwear
bomber" who was questioned for about 50 minutes before his rights were
read, the other being the guy we refer to as the "Times Sq bomber". I
couldn't find the mention this morning, but iirc it was a matter of
hours, maybe as many as 8.

These two men had much heavier known ties to actual terrorist groups. It
took at minimum twice as long to determine there was no immediate threat
from someone who many felt that, along with his brother, were lone
wolves? I don't think so.

Up until he was read his rights, he talked freely. For some reason I
feel that they knew there was no public safety concern early on. At
that moment, his rights should have been read. According to the SCOTUS
decision.

I'm amazed that the investigators were surprised when a magistrate
showed up Monday morning and among other things, read him his rights.
You're a lawyer, familiar with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure?
esp. part 5?

Anyway, I asked in another post if I was reading you right when you
suggested holding a citizen for questioning without Miranda or a visit
before a magistrate for as long as a week would be reasonable to you.
The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (part 5) call for an initial
court appearance "without unnecessary delay". This why over the weekend
we heard of bringing a magistrate to the hospital as early as Sunday. Oh
yeah, part 5 requires the defendant be again advised of their rights at
the initial hearing.

If you really think it ok to hold a citizen for as long as you say
without being charged or informed of their rights, you might want to
hook up with McCain on that enemy combatant thing. It sure as hell
won't happen within our judicial system.

And speaking of that enemy combatant thing, I did mention that I knew if
wouldn't happen and suggested you probably knew that too. Mostly it was
hearing what was coming from the direction of the administration, and
this letter from Eric Holder to Mitch McConnell 3 years back, you can
read it here:

http://www.justice.gov/cjs/docs/ag-letter-2-3-10.pdf

> I share your concern about the expansion of the public safety exception, but it's fairly clear that it is accepted doctrine as it stands and it's not only
> applicable here but it's almost required due to the severity of the crime.

Almost required. It is accepted doctrine as it stands and my statement
was that I thought the SCOTUS erred in making that decision 29 years
ago. I am also not convinced it was necessary to invoke the exception in
this case. Of most concern to me is the memo that wants to expand on
what the Court established. That was defiantly invoked.

If they hadn't invoked the public safety exception, I can assure you
the outcry from the Republican opposition would have
> been overwhelming.

This is one thing that really bothers me about the Obama administration
and latter day liberals and democrats. If the republicans make a stink
about it, back off. To hell with our convictions, they might cost votes.

I share your assessment of the Obama Administration's contempt for the
law in several areas, but I'm far more outraged that they have basically
given Wall St. a get out of jail free
> card than over the fact that they questioned a 19 year old kid for a day before Mirandizing him about whether or not there was further danger.

I am more outraged at the continuing erosion of our civil liberties than
either of above.

If anything is used, it will be corroborating evidence.
> Or they may use it to impeach him if he tries to say he wasn't there or didn't do it if he gets on the stand, which, as I understand it, is a reasonable use of the statements, exception
> notwithstanding. They can also use evidence from unMirandized statements if the prosecution can persuade the court that they would have inevitably found the evidence. In the grand scheme of things,
> this is not really going to change Dzhokhar's life.



> I don't really see this as an opportunity to take partisan sides on the behavior of the SCOTUS.

Oh come on now Edwin. Quarles was decided along pretty strict
ideological lines. If you really think that a case involving our civil
liberties shouldn't be an opportunity to take partisan sides on the
behavior of the SCOTUS, might I suggest you apply the same rules to
other SCOTUS decisions? How about Bush v. Gore? Or Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission?

A couple of other cases you might want to apply your rules to to are
mentioned in what I am posting below, I wasn't going to pay 4 bucks for
the whole article just to post it to RMGD, but here's a bit about
Justice Stevens speaking to the American Bar Association convention in
August 1984, less than 2 months after Quarles. He's talking about the
SCOTUS at the time. Note Quarles is mentioned, though not by name.


JUSTICE STEVENS IS SHARPLY CRITICAL OF SUPREME COURT CONSERVATIVES

August 5, 1984, SundayBy STUART TAYLOR Jr., Special to the New York
Times (The New York Times); National Desk
Late City Final Edition, Section 1, Page 1, Column 1, 1014 words

[ DISPLAYING ABSTRACT ]

Associate Justice John Paul Stevens criticized his colleagues on the
Supreme Court in a speech here today as reaching out to express broad,
ill-considered opinions in three major cases that he said should have
been decided on narrower grounds. Justice Stevens disparaged ''my
present colleagues' enthusiastic attempts to codify the law instead of
merely performing the judicial task of deciding the cases that come
before them.'' His remarks to several hundred lawyers in connection with
the American Bar Association's annual convention here suggested, without
flatly stating, that ''members of the Court who are often described as
'conservatives' '' were casting judicial restraint aside in an effort to
move the law to the right. Justice Stevens criticized Supreme Court
decisions in the last few months that limited the use of affirmative
action quotas in job discrimination cases, created a ''newfangled''
good-faith exception to the rule that excludes the use of
unconstitutionally seized evidence in criminal trials and limited
Federal jurisdiction in civil rights cases.

They invoked the exception in Boston, but the exception is irrelevant.
It was just a formality to
> appease the conservative critics who would have howled if they hadn't.

Not as big a deal as you think in the greater scheme of things.

The likelihood of this being on a slippery slope is pretty slim
because it's already on the other side of the slope. The other
> times the exception has been used have been far less heinous crimes (not that rape at gunpoint isn't heinous) with a far smaller potential scope of public harm. If this had been the case that
> established the exception and then it was applied to Quarles, you could make an argument that we were sliding down a slope.

You are totally out to lunch here. I'll bother to reply if you insist.

>
> I also have to say that I'm on the side of the kid. I think he got in way over his head. He ruined way too many lives while he was too young to really appreciate the consequences of his actions. That
> doesn't mean I think he should get off, but, well, I don't know what it means, aside from part of me having compassion for him. I believe that anyone of us is capable of going off the rails (Ray
> O'Hara, WTF?!), and the kid got sucked in for whatever reason. The fact that he went on with his life like he could pretend that nothing had changed shows me that he wasn't all in. It wasn't a moment
> that defined his life as an extremist. I don't think that action was a defining expression of his being, the way it was for his brother. Who knows, maybe he ran over his brother for getting him caught
> up in the whole mess. But I could be wrong and he could be an intractably sociopathic crazy. The truth is that we don't know all that much about it, even still except that the whole thing sucks.

I don't believe in the death penalty, so I hope this guy spends many
decades somewhere on my tax dollar. Based non how it stands today.

>
> But, thanks for keeping vigilant for our civil liberties! Much respect for that.

well some folks have to. If you respect that space, you might at some
point think about becoming a part of it.

W

>

[Walter Karmazyn]

Having re-read this, I won't wait for you to respond to the rest of what
I posted (If you do) to flag this as an inappropriate response from me.
I obviously have issue with the above statement of yours, but should
have addressed it differently. My apologies. If you'd like me to
explain those differences, I of course will.

W

[Edwin Hurwitz]

In article <attfkm...@mid.individual.net>, Walter Karmazyn <walterk...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> You're a lawyer,

No, I'm not. I have not taken the bar and don't have a license.

Maybe you should be.

[Walter Karmazyn]

Sorry, remember you got of school, thought you also passed the bar. My bad.
I have spent time in the federal courts, over a year as a defendant.
Part of my rehab was going back to school, took courses dealing with
things political and policy And some stuff dealing with the law. Actually
took some courses related to becoming a paralegal, but never lost my love
for show biz. Did keep up with things legal and political over the last 40
years, and am very concerned with our civil liberties. Don't really want to
discuss past problems further, though this little peek into my past might
explain some of my views on things.

W

W

[Edwin Hurwitz]

I don't mind your view on things. With more research, I'd probably even agree with them. Your style, though, is a bit off-putting and inspired me to dig in to my position. You might go further in
convincing me if you didn't insult me. Clearly you have no respect for me, so let's just let it go.

[Walter Karmazyn]

Actually I do have respect for you, maybe it doesn't show. Otherwise
earlier I would not have written a post apologizing for going way over
the line in one place and saying I'd be willing to discuss the bit in
question further, probably before you saw the original post. I also in
20 years here and plenty of disagreements, never dragged my past out to
sort of explain where I'm coming from. My comment about you being a
lawyer btw came from you earlier in this thread saying if you had a bit
more skillz and a license to practice in MA, you might step in to help
the young man in trouble. Thought you had passed the bar and probably
working with a firm in or around Boulder. Anyway, you are one of my
favorite folk here, and I do have respect for you, believe it or not.

W

[B]

Hug it out fellas.

[B]

Walter Karmazyn <walterk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> As I mentioned earlier, this is the 3rd time the public safety exception
> was used in relation to terrorism. Previous btw was the "underwear
> bomber" who was questioned for about 50 minutes before his rights were
> read, the other being the guy we refer to as the "Times Sq bomber". I
> couldn't find the mention this morning, but iirc it was a matter of
> hours, maybe as many as 8.
>
> These two men had much heavier known ties to actual terrorist groups. It
> took at minimum twice as long to determine there was no immediate threat
> from someone who many felt that, along with his brother, were lone
> wolves? I don't think so.
>
> Up until he was read his rights, he talked freely. For some reason I feel
> that they knew there was no public safety concern early on.

I completely disagree. His mother jumped bail and the US, has an
outstanding felony warrant. The Russians warned the FBI about the older
brother's radicalizing. I think those 2 facts alone warrant consideration
of other entities.

>At that moment, his rights should have been read. According to the SCOTUS decision.

Only if they believed there were no likely add'l immediate threats and that
can be arbitrary and covered up easily.

More snipping.

[sweetbac]

Anybody see that new PBS show on those kids who went
"wilding" in late 80's central park?
Man...that was some F'ed up shit right there.

[Edwin Hurwitz]

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

[Walter Karmazyn]

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}