Shortly after midnight during September of 1980, a woman approached two police officers in Queens and told them she had been raped by a man carrying a gun in a shoulder holster.
Police gave chase and caught the man, but the holster was empty. They asked him where the gun was, and he told them he had discarded it among a stack of boxes nearby, where they did indeed find the gun.
Courts in New York state dismissed the gun charges, saying the police were obliged to read the suspect his Miranda rights before asking where the gun was.
And so began the long fight to punch out exceptions to the Miranda requirement that suspects be told of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney.
Now we are plunged back in the thick of that debate in the wake of the bombings in Boston. The FBI did not initially read the surviving suspect his Miranda rights, citing a “public safety” exemption that grew from that rape case in Queens. The ACLU cautioned against using that exception to fish for intelligence.
But some Republicans are urging Obama to go further and classify the suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, as an enemy combatant. That would allow the authorities to hold him indefinitely, without Miranda, and without even a lawyer. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has suggested that Tsarnaev be held in this state for a month or so before being transferred for trial in the civilian court system.
Our sense is that Obama got this one right, but it is anything but an easy call. This is a balancing act, so those looking for easy black-and-white answers will find no satisfaction here.
* * *
First, on Miranda. The gun charges against the suspect in Queens were reinstated by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 1984 ruling that established the public safety exemption. Police acted properly, the court ruled, because the gun posed an immediate public threat.
In the post 9/11 era, that exception has been expanded by the Justice Department in ways that have not yet been tested by the courts. In October 2010, a memo from Attorney General Eric Holder gave the FBI permission to use the public safety exception “to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat.”
That appears to be what the FBI relied on last week when it captured Tsarnaev. There may have been no ticking bomb, but information on training or support he may have received could lead the FBI to other active terror cells within our borders. Most experts say this exception could last no longer than 48 hours.
And even if the FBI overstepped, and the suspect’s statements are excluded from court, Tsarnaev could be convicted on other evidence, including the admissions he and his older brother made to the man whom they carjacked after the bombing.
* * *
Holding Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant is another matter. Yes, this was a crime of terror and its purpose was to kill people, not a conventional crime intended for profit. And yes, Tsarnaev might talk more freely without a lawyer present.
But we lose something when we throw aside the hard-fought restraints on government power. And history shows that any power claimed by one administration can be abused by the next.
The New York Times recently published an op-ed from a prisoner at Guantánamo who has been held as an enemy combatant for 11 years with no charges and no trial, force-fed to prevent his death from a hunger strike. It is a grotesque description of the price we pay for compromising our basic values.
And it’s not necessary. Tsarnaev faces a possible death sentence and can be pressured to talk while in the civilian system, as criminals are every day. So far, no evidence has emerged linking him or his brother to al Qaeda. As demented as these Boston crimes were, they did not present the kind of existential threat that would justify throwing overboard fundamental values. –Nj.com
Police gave chase and caught the man, but the holster was empty. They asked him where the gun was, and he told them he had discarded it among a stack of boxes nearby, where they did indeed find the gun.
Courts in New York state dismissed the gun charges, saying the police were obliged to read the suspect his Miranda rights before asking where the gun was.
And so began the long fight to punch out exceptions to the Miranda requirement that suspects be told of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney.
Now we are plunged back in the thick of that debate in the wake of the bombings in Boston. The FBI did not initially read the surviving suspect his Miranda rights, citing a “public safety” exemption that grew from that rape case in Queens. The ACLU cautioned against using that exception to fish for intelligence.
But some Republicans are urging Obama to go further and classify the suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, as an enemy combatant. That would allow the authorities to hold him indefinitely, without Miranda, and without even a lawyer. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has suggested that Tsarnaev be held in this state for a month or so before being transferred for trial in the civilian court system.
Our sense is that Obama got this one right, but it is anything but an easy call. This is a balancing act, so those looking for easy black-and-white answers will find no satisfaction here.
* * *
First, on Miranda. The gun charges against the suspect in Queens were reinstated by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 1984 ruling that established the public safety exemption. Police acted properly, the court ruled, because the gun posed an immediate public threat.
In the post 9/11 era, that exception has been expanded by the Justice Department in ways that have not yet been tested by the courts. In October 2010, a memo from Attorney General Eric Holder gave the FBI permission to use the public safety exception “to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat.”
That appears to be what the FBI relied on last week when it captured Tsarnaev. There may have been no ticking bomb, but information on training or support he may have received could lead the FBI to other active terror cells within our borders. Most experts say this exception could last no longer than 48 hours.
And even if the FBI overstepped, and the suspect’s statements are excluded from court, Tsarnaev could be convicted on other evidence, including the admissions he and his older brother made to the man whom they carjacked after the bombing.
* * *
Holding Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant is another matter. Yes, this was a crime of terror and its purpose was to kill people, not a conventional crime intended for profit. And yes, Tsarnaev might talk more freely without a lawyer present.
But we lose something when we throw aside the hard-fought restraints on government power. And history shows that any power claimed by one administration can be abused by the next.
The New York Times recently published an op-ed from a prisoner at Guantánamo who has been held as an enemy combatant for 11 years with no charges and no trial, force-fed to prevent his death from a hunger strike. It is a grotesque description of the price we pay for compromising our basic values.
And it’s not necessary. Tsarnaev faces a possible death sentence and can be pressured to talk while in the civilian system, as criminals are every day. So far, no evidence has emerged linking him or his brother to al Qaeda. As demented as these Boston crimes were, they did not present the kind of existential threat that would justify throwing overboard fundamental values. –Nj.com
No comments:
Post a Comment