|“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a god damned piece of paper!"- George W. Bush
April 29, 2013 (AE) - A great misconception has been spread all over the media, via "Left Wing" vs. "Right Wing" arguments, on whether a Magistrate Judge, under orders from DoJ, should have "issued Miranda Rights" to Boston Bombings suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
I've heard various television lawyers and politicians (most are lawyers) making the most inaccurate legal statements such as these: "the Magistrate Judge GAVE HIM HIS RIGHTS", "we ISSUED him Miranda Rights", "we INVOKED his Miranda Rights", "we GRANTED his Miranda Rights".
There is no such thing as "Miranda Rights", the proper term is "Miranda Warning", and it's a legal requirement to warn a person being charged with a crime of their US Constitution, 5th Amendment, "right to remain silent". Giving this warning does not GIVE YOU your rights, your rights are there and are granted by the US Constitution. They do not INVOKE your rights, you INVOKE your rights by not speaking.
This is a very dangerous misconception being spread into the public consciousness... that you have NO RIGHTS unless they are GRANTED to you by some legal authority... this is a dangerous deception.
The short text below explains the "Miranda Warning". The first video below shows FOX News monkeys (some of them lawyers) promoting the"Miranda Rights" misconception. The second video below shows Judge Andrew Napolitano explaining the legal concept perfectly.
Miranda Rights (reference.com):
In the United States, the Miranda warning is a warning given by police to criminal suspects in police custody, or in a custodial situation, before they are asked guilt-seeking questions relating to the commission of a crime. A custodial situation is one in which the suspect's freedom of movement is restrained although he or she is not under arrest. An incriminating statement by a suspect will not constitute admissible evidence unless the suspect was advised of his or her "Miranda rights" and made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of those rights. (The term "Miranda rights" is somewhat misleading, as the mandated Miranda warning simply clarifies preexisting Constitutional rights.) However, a 2004 Supreme Court ruling upheld state "stop-and-identify" laws, allowing police to require biographical information such as name date of birth, and address, without arresting suspects or providing them Miranda warnings.
The Miranda warnings were mandated by the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda v. Arizona as a means of protecting a criminal suspect's Fifth Amendment right to avoid coercive self-incrimination (see right to silence).
2013.4.25 The Five Goes After The 'Injustice Department' For Reading Suspect Miranda Rights, 'It's Shameful' (FOX News, youtube.com):
4/25/13 - Most of Thursday afternoon's edition of Fox News' The Five was dedicated to former White House press secretary Dana Perino's extended interview with George W. Bush. But towards the end of the show, the hosts got a chance to tackle the latest developments in the Boston bombing case, and they were not pleased. Eric Bolling presented the reported scenario in which the suspect stopped speaking to FBI interrogators after a federal magistrate judge read him his Miranda rights. "They warned Dzhokhar Tsarnaev that he had the right to remain silent so he did," Bolling said.
Noting that a U.S. attorney was also in the hospital room when the FBI "stepped back," Kimberly Guilfoyle said, "There you go, Eric Holder, the head of the Injustice Department." She said this was a call made by the "D.O.J." because they "believe in just issuing Miranda rights. They didn't have to. What they needed to do was make sure America was safe." She later added, "It's shameful. Care more more about the safety of the country."
Andrea Tantaros speculated that it was the Obama administration made the call for "political reasons," a "knee-jerk reaction" to ward of critics claiming the suspects wasn't being afforded his Constitutional rights.
Before signing off, the hosts briefly discussed the video interview that emerged today of the suspects' mother claiming the bombing was a like a "play" with "paint instead of blood." Brian Kilmeade jumped in on this story, saying, "I don't know what kind of drugs she is on and what her role is, but she evidently is the one who radicalized her son."
Before the commercial break, you could hear Bob Beckel, off camera, suggest, "Mushrooms."
2013.4.25 Shepard Smith & Judge Napolitano Go Off On Those Who Want To Strip Bombing Suspect's Rights (FOX News, youtube.com):
'We Have Our Rights!'
While addressing the news that Boston bombing suspect Dzhokar Tsarnaev had divulged information about the attacks during 16 hours of questioning before a judge arrived to read him his so called "Miranda rights" to remain silent and not incriminate himself, Fox News anchor Shepard Smith and senior judicial analyst Judge Napolitano tore into the concept of stripping the suspect of his rights solely because of the nature of his alleged crimes. Smith has occasionally let fly his civil libertarian leanings (see the time he shouted "We do not fucking torture!" on-air), and this time he did so immediately at the outset of the segment:
"I want to get the facts out of the way here, because I think they are important: The reading of the rights does not activate them. The absence of the reading does not remove them. They simply are. They are rights and, he, like you and I, has the right to remain silent."
"What's confusing that this?" he asked the judge, who in turn said "Nothing" and heaped praise upon Smith for his eloquence on the matter. Napolitano then explained that the suspect was read his rights because of how, according to criminal procedure, he must be charged with a crime within 72 hours of being detained. Once a charge is filed, the judge noted, you must bring them before a judge. In Tsarnaev's case, the judge had to be delivered to his bedside due to physical impairment.
"This is not rocket science," the judge said, dismissing those (including his own Fox colleagues) who are appalled that the suspect was read his rights. "This is criminal procedure 101. It happens in every courthouse — state, local, and federal — every day in the United States of America." A clearly incensed Smith then asked: "What is the ruckus? It's as if people think because they didn't read him his rights, he did not have them. He had them. What they're suggesting is that we shouldn't have told him what his rights are." "That's where they are wrong," Napolitano responded before explaining why, exactly, the Supreme Court instituted what is now known as the Miranda rule for criminal procedure of civilians.
"I wonder how concerned you are that when these big, troubling events happen that bring us together as a nation and we mourn in unison, that we will go to the extremes of the Constitution and sometimes beyond it," Smith asked to conclude the segment.
"I am profoundly concerned that when the evidence of guilt is overwhelming and the people are weeping because they have been deeply disturbed and hurt and harmed and maimed and killed, the government will find ways to go around the Constitution," the judge responded.
"And when the government has done that, historically it has never worked," he concluded. "It has never brought about safety, it has only lessened freedom."