5 ms·

Tsarnaev and his brother planted bombs. It is not unreasonable for the FBI to be concerned that they may have left other bombs in place that could detonate late

by nhebb 14y ago

Tsarnaev and his brother planted bombs. It is not unreasonable for the FBI to be concerned that they may have left other bombs in place that could detonate later. Or, that there were other people involved that we don't know about. Invoking the public safety exception to the Miranda rights seems prudent to me.

cinquemb 14y ago
Or so thats what we are being told at this point without any evidence being presented in court with a trial in front of his peers… But believe in your State™.
- ptaipale 14y ago
  It is slightly unreasonable to require the State™ to present evidence in court at this time, when the first priority is to take the wounded suspect to hospital, and ensure that there are no explosives left behind that could kill others. I do believe that the State™ (in this case, not my state, as I'm not American) has the right and the responsibility to do what they are doing.
  - cinquemb 14y ago
    You also left out the plan to interrogate him for information that could be admissible in court that would/could conflit with self incrimination as reference in the 5th amendment. But hey, lets us tort laws because the ends justify the means, because we all know something like this will never happen again once this person or all possible related persons are brought to justice.
    - pyre 14y ago
      If you don't like the "Public Safety Exception," then lobby to get rid of it. I wouldn't suggest doing it in this case because there is likely enough evidence to convict him of multiple serious crimes without him uttering a peep (i.e. this isn't a good case to push towards the Supreme Court to make a decision on).
      - cinquemb 14y ago
        Who do you think I am? Goldman Sachs? I'm just a lowly peasant who has no say in the political process and the manufacturing of our laws, like most americans (and voting is much as a say in the political process as convicted felons chances at getting a job after being released from prison). Well if the FBI has to release photos to the public for people they were already well aware of, I'm sure anything they call evidence would suffice, much in the same manor Netanyahu could parade in front of the UN with his Wile-e-Coyote poster.
        pyre 14y ago
        | I'm just a lowly peasant who has no say in | the political process You could just start a group based around your ideas. Once you get enough people together the group becomes a political force. | Well if the FBI has to release photos to the public | for people they were already well aware of You do realize that there was a shoot-out with police, in addition to multiple other felonies committed after they released those photos. The guy doesn't even need to be convicted of the bombing to spend serious time behind bars. Additionally, they don't need to know who someone is to have evidence that they did something. They could have a video of him planting the bomb, for example. Just because they don't know who it is in the video doesn't mean that they don't have evidence once they connect the face with a name.
        cinquemb 14y ago
        "You could just start a group based around your ideas. Once you get enough people together the group becomes a political force." Well after consulting with people behind some of tech behind OWS, I doubt something like this would be effective. After all, you paint a big red x on yourself for the FBI spooks to go after, while senators and bankers call you domestic terrorists while the police and private security beat you in the streets for not staying in the "Free Speech Zones". I think letting the country go down the path most of its citizens are willing to let if come to will suffice. Yes, no doubt this person will be going to prison. But you suggest that they dont know who was in the video, and even the FBI has stated that they were well aware of who they were before the incident had even taken place. People have been saying matter-of-factly that they planted the bombs… gee wiz, I wonder where they got that idea since they haven't been convicted of anything yet. In the meantime I'll keep pushing code and my matsci knowledge to Defense Distributed, since we all know real political power comes from the barrel of a gun (or a drone…).
geuis 14y ago
No, Tsarnaev and his brother did not plant bombs as of the current moment. They are SUSPECTS in a criminal investigation in which one or more parties planted bombs. Be VERY, VERY careful before you throw out that distinction. One day you may find yourself arrested for something you did or didn't do, only to find public opinion very much against you based on little more than hearsay.
- jhaglund 14y ago
  Ya know, I'm all for "innocent until proven guilty" but blury pictures of them dropping a bag, a witness description, a car chase where they threw bombs out the window, a shootout where one brother got hit with shrapnel of his own pressure cooker bomb, etc. Let justice do its blind thing but it's OK for us to state the obvious. They did it.
  - itstriz 14y ago
    I'm getting the feeling the defense is going to have a hell of a time finding an impartial jury.
    - paulhauggis 14y ago
      We wouldn't want them to be confused with the facts.
    - cinquemb 14y ago
      Especially when the general public main source of intel is flipping to CNN or Fox between a Honey Boo Boo commercial breaks.
- nhebb 14y ago
  There's an apt civil liberties saying, "a conservative is a liberal that's been mugged, and a liberal is a conservative that has been falsely accused." I think the likelihood that they are being falsely accused in this case is very, very low, but your point is valid. I should have wrote that they were suspected bombers.
lurker14 14y ago
If they cared so much about public safety, they should be willing to disregard a bit of testimony to get it. It's insane that confessions are admissible at all really, since they are almost always false.
- jeffdavis 14y ago
  Can you provide a reference?
  - Blahah 14y ago
    This paper cites two previous studies showing false confession rates of 14% and 20%: http://web.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Russano_et_al_05.pdf http://web.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Russ... [pdf]
    - kvb 14y ago
      Good reference. Seems a far cry from "almost always false".
- nhebb 14y ago
  This is one of the greatest misconceptions about how interrogations are done. In the Spanish Inquisition and Salem witch trials, the tortured to get confessions. In terrorism interrogations (which do include water boarding and other tactics), the goal is to get information. The information they gather is not treated as factual unless it can be confirmed or corroborated from other sources. When Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was interrogated, they only asked him questions that they already knew the answers to. They weren't immediately trying to get information. They were trying to get cooperation. Once he started answering truthfully, then they asked him questions for information.

by nhebb 14y ago

cinquemb 14y ago

Or so thats what we are being told at this point without any evidence being presented in court with a trial in front of his peers… But believe in your State™.

ptaipale 14y ago
It is slightly unreasonable to require the State™ to present evidence in court at this time, when the first priority is to take the wounded suspect to hospital, and ensure that there are no explosives left behind that could kill others. I do believe that the State™ (in this case, not my state, as I'm not American) has the right and the responsibility to do what they are doing.
- cinquemb 14y ago
  You also left out the plan to interrogate him for information that could be admissible in court that would/could conflit with self incrimination as reference in the 5th amendment. But hey, lets us tort laws because the ends justify the means, because we all know something like this will never happen again once this person or all possible related persons are brought to justice.
  - pyre 14y ago
    If you don't like the "Public Safety Exception," then lobby to get rid of it. I wouldn't suggest doing it in this case because there is likely enough evidence to convict him of multiple serious crimes without him uttering a peep (i.e. this isn't a good case to push towards the Supreme Court to make a decision on).
    - cinquemb 14y ago
      Who do you think I am? Goldman Sachs? I'm just a lowly peasant who has no say in the political process and the manufacturing of our laws, like most americans (and voting is much as a say in the political process as convicted felons chances at getting a job after being released from prison). Well if the FBI has to release photos to the public for people they were already well aware of, I'm sure anything they call evidence would suffice, much in the same manor Netanyahu could parade in front of the UN with his Wile-e-Coyote poster.
      - pyre 14y ago
        | I'm just a lowly peasant who has no say in | the political process You could just start a group based around your ideas. Once you get enough people together the group becomes a political force. | Well if the FBI has to release photos to the public | for people they were already well aware of You do realize that there was a shoot-out with police, in addition to multiple other felonies committed after they released those photos. The guy doesn't even need to be convicted of the bombing to spend serious time behind bars. Additionally, they don't need to know who someone is to have evidence that they did something. They could have a video of him planting the bomb, for example. Just because they don't know who it is in the video doesn't mean that they don't have evidence once they connect the face with a name.
        cinquemb 14y ago
        "You could just start a group based around your ideas. Once you get enough people together the group becomes a political force." Well after consulting with people behind some of tech behind OWS, I doubt something like this would be effective. After all, you paint a big red x on yourself for the FBI spooks to go after, while senators and bankers call you domestic terrorists while the police and private security beat you in the streets for not staying in the "Free Speech Zones". I think letting the country go down the path most of its citizens are willing to let if come to will suffice. Yes, no doubt this person will be going to prison. But you suggest that they dont know who was in the video, and even the FBI has stated that they were well aware of who they were before the incident had even taken place. People have been saying matter-of-factly that they planted the bombs… gee wiz, I wonder where they got that idea since they haven't been convicted of anything yet. In the meantime I'll keep pushing code and my matsci knowledge to Defense Distributed, since we all know real political power comes from the barrel of a gun (or a drone…).

geuis 14y ago

No, Tsarnaev and his brother did not plant bombs as of the current moment. They are SUSPECTS in a criminal investigation in which one or more parties planted bombs. Be VERY, VERY careful before you throw out that distinction. One day you may find yourself arrested for something you did or didn't do, only to find public opinion very much against you based on little more than hearsay.

jhaglund 14y ago
Ya know, I'm all for "innocent until proven guilty" but blury pictures of them dropping a bag, a witness description, a car chase where they threw bombs out the window, a shootout where one brother got hit with shrapnel of his own pressure cooker bomb, etc. Let justice do its blind thing but it's OK for us to state the obvious. They did it.
- itstriz 14y ago
  I'm getting the feeling the defense is going to have a hell of a time finding an impartial jury.
  - paulhauggis 14y ago
    We wouldn't want them to be confused with the facts.
  - cinquemb 14y ago
    Especially when the general public main source of intel is flipping to CNN or Fox between a Honey Boo Boo commercial breaks.
nhebb 14y ago
There's an apt civil liberties saying, "a conservative is a liberal that's been mugged, and a liberal is a conservative that has been falsely accused." I think the likelihood that they are being falsely accused in this case is very, very low, but your point is valid. I should have wrote that they were suspected bombers.

lurker14 14y ago

If they cared so much about public safety, they should be willing to disregard a bit of testimony to get it. It's insane that confessions are admissible at all really, since they are almost always false.

jeffdavis 14y ago
Can you provide a reference?
- Blahah 14y ago
  This paper cites two previous studies showing false confession rates of 14% and 20%: http://web.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Russano_et_al_05.pdf http://web.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/Russ... [pdf]
  - kvb 14y ago
    Good reference. Seems a far cry from "almost always false".
nhebb 14y ago
This is one of the greatest misconceptions about how interrogations are done. In the Spanish Inquisition and Salem witch trials, the tortured to get confessions. In terrorism interrogations (which do include water boarding and other tactics), the goal is to get information. The information they gather is not treated as factual unless it can be confirmed or corroborated from other sources. When Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was interrogated, they only asked him questions that they already knew the answers to. They weren't immediately trying to get information. They were trying to get cooperation. Once he started answering truthfully, then they asked him questions for information.