3 ms·

Please outline the rights that were denied to him. The article that we are commenting about seems to have a completely deluded sense of what his rights are, bu

by evgen 9y ago

Please outline the rights that were denied to him. The article that we are commenting about seems to have a completely deluded sense of what his rights are, but maybe we can start the discussion around his specific rights. Contra the original article, a 23 year-old does not have a fundamental right to talk to mommy and daddy once arrested. Law enforcement is under no obligation to arrest you as you arrive in country so that you can become a cause celebre to the conference you are about to attend. Neither are they under any obligation to tell you ahead of time that they plan to arrest you. While the accused has rights, the friends, family, and casual acquaintances of the accused have none. Law enforcement must give Marcus' lawyer access to him, but need not tell random strangers where he is being detained. In the first day or so it is not at all uncommon for someone who has been arrested to be moved from the initial arrest point to a location in the jurisdiction of the indictment or from a local/county holding facility to a federal facility. What Marcus needs to do is shut his mouth, repeat "I am invoking my right to remain silent and wish to speak to my attorney", and NOT SAY ANYTHING. Oh, he didn't get to communicate immediately with his co-defendant and make sure they have their stories straight? Yeah, major violation of his rights there... I am not sure what fantasy-land the author of the original post lives in, but even someone with only a passing familiarity with the US legal system would know some of this. Yes, he will get to speak to his attorney and such access by his counsel must be allowed, but there are strict limits on how long he can be denied such access and he should expect the feds to go right up to that limit but not beyond. As someone who apparently has an appreciation for the grey areas in law and society, I am sure we will hear from Marcus how much he appreciates law enforcement taking advantage of the differences between MUST and SHOULD in the societal protocol docs that we call laws and legal precedent.

rileymat2 9y ago
"there are strict limits on how long he can be denied such access and he should expect the feds to go right up to that limit but not beyond" I disagree, the limits are minimum standards, not what we should expect.
65827 9y ago
I want to hate the FBI but also like this post. Also I'm hungry.
uiri 9y ago
I agree with a lot of your points but I still believe he had his rights violated. He was denied access to a lawyer for 48 hours. He doesn't even know who his codefendant is. How can anyone mount a proper defense (the strongest form of which would be "I don't know this person and I've never communicated with him") without that information? How can one properly exercise one's habeas corpus rights (that is, challenging the detention) without either of those things?
- zerapod 9y ago
  There's a difference between being "denied access" to a lawyer, and a fool not requesting one.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
ithought 9y ago
Yet with some high profile defendants, the government gives immense discretion to them by communicating with their lawyers ahead of time and arranging an amicable surrender. The problem with your post is the problem with the federal government. They exploit technicalities to punish innocent people and they game the system for their own extraneous reasons. Disclaimer: I've had several interactions with the FBI, federal prosecutors and senior executives at Homeland Security, that have demonstrated to me that they can be malicious, incompetent and oh so human. There's a two tier system of justice in the US, one that has access to former government officials who work in the private sector, who will do near anything necessary to protect a wealthy and privilege class of people.
_jal 9y ago
This is all generally true. It is also needlessly dismissive about concerns and naively sunny about the rights of arrestees and the respect LE in the US has for them. But the key advice is Do. Not. Say. Anything. other than "bring my my attorney". Remember that in the interrogation game, the FBI gets to lie, but it is a felony for you. The FBI also refuses to videotape interrogations, gets to write the reports, and has played this game far more than you. Add that up, and admitting that you like ice cream is dangerous. This can be especially dangerous for smart people, who will tend to start thinking about the questions, trying to guess where they're going, what is important. Don't. The rules are stacked against you, you're missing important information, and your interrogators are (probably) practiced experts at creating little set-piece dramas to manipulate you.

by evgen 9y ago

rileymat2 9y ago

"there are strict limits on how long he can be denied such access and he should expect the feds to go right up to that limit but not beyond" I disagree, the limits are minimum standards, not what we should expect.

65827 9y ago

I want to hate the FBI but also like this post. Also I'm hungry.

uiri 9y ago

I agree with a lot of your points but I still believe he had his rights violated. He was denied access to a lawyer for 48 hours. He doesn't even know who his codefendant is. How can anyone mount a proper defense (the strongest form of which would be "I don't know this person and I've never communicated with him") without that information? How can one properly exercise one's habeas corpus rights (that is, challenging the detention) without either of those things?

zerapod 9y ago
There's a difference between being "denied access" to a lawyer, and a fool not requesting one.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

ithought 9y ago

Yet with some high profile defendants, the government gives immense discretion to them by communicating with their lawyers ahead of time and arranging an amicable surrender. The problem with your post is the problem with the federal government. They exploit technicalities to punish innocent people and they game the system for their own extraneous reasons. Disclaimer: I've had several interactions with the FBI, federal prosecutors and senior executives at Homeland Security, that have demonstrated to me that they can be malicious, incompetent and oh so human. There's a two tier system of justice in the US, one that has access to former government officials who work in the private sector, who will do near anything necessary to protect a wealthy and privilege class of people.

_jal 9y ago

This is all generally true. It is also needlessly dismissive about concerns and naively sunny about the rights of arrestees and the respect LE in the US has for them. But the key advice is Do. Not. Say. Anything. other than "bring my my attorney". Remember that in the interrogation game, the FBI gets to lie, but it is a felony for you. The FBI also refuses to videotape interrogations, gets to write the reports, and has played this game far more than you. Add that up, and admitting that you like ice cream is dangerous. This can be especially dangerous for smart people, who will tend to start thinking about the questions, trying to guess where they're going, what is important. Don't. The rules are stacked against you, you're missing important information, and your interrogators are (probably) practiced experts at creating little set-piece dramas to manipulate you.