Following lauraw’s recent post highlighting the Special Administrative Measures imposed upon Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, I have decided to follow up with a quick recap on the abuse and denial of rights,  so consistent thus far, in regards to the events following the bombing of the Boston Marathon and, of course, DT himself. These issues should, I believe, be of great concern to all and I am astounded that so few, to my knowledge, have expressed their concern publicly.

I will begin with a brief mention of the residents and business owners of Greater Boston. Were their rights not violated by the “shelter in place” order of 19th. April, 2013? This order was said to be “voluntary”, but many beg to differ. (Although, I must acknowledge, the main stream media claim, at the time, that Boston residents were “thrilled” by the reaction of law enforcement!)  Civil Rights attorney Harvey Silverglate’s thoughts on the “man hunt” can be found here: http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/23/mass-civil-libertarians-react-to-fridays

I wholeheartedly agree and would ask when and under what circumstances these tactics may be used again? A few pictures from the house to house search mounted by police can be seen here:  http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/photography/2013/04

In picture twelve, does the woman descending the steps have her hands half raised and if so, why? ( Is this not disturbing?)

Whilst on this subject I must also mention the residents of Watertown and my belief that residents must, in fact, have been endangered by police gunfire at both the “shootout” at Laurel and Dexter Streets and the, now famously, one sided “shootout” at the boat on Franklin Street. This was mentioned by WGBH in this article: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/photography/2013/04/boston_marathon_boming_standoff_photos_of_dzhokhar_tsarnaev_from_watertown.ht

No residents of this area were injured or killed. Was this a miracle or simply luck? ( In my opinion it was, most certainly, one or the other!)

In the remainder of this article I plan to focus on the denial and abuse of rights in regard to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. It must be noted that while the people of Boston and Watertown are free to protest the violation of their rights, DT is not.

I would question, in the first instance, if DT was in fact fit to be interrogated by the FBI while hospitalized at Beth Israel Deaconess. When you take into account that he had suffered multiple gunshot, (and other), wounds, had undergone extensive surgery and was heavily medicated is this really likely? ( I think not.)  In many other nations interrogation of a suspect in this physical/mental condition would not be considered ethical. Furthermore, what value as regards reliability, could be placed on any information obtained by interrogators from a suspect in this condition? (I would conclude, very little.)

The withholding of Miranda rights, in the case of DT, is another issue which should concern all. ( It is my personal belief that this should never be applicable, regardless of the circumstance.)  If law enforcement can withhold or delay in providing Miranda warning in this case, it would appear to give them the option of withholding Miranda rights when and where they choose. Judge Marianne Bowler is to be applauded in that she chose to visit DT’s hospital room on Monday, 22nd. April, 2013, reportedly against the wishes of the FBI, and read him his (much belated), Miranda rights.

As lauraw’s last diary more than adequately addressed the issue that is the SAMs, I am not, at this point going to attempt to add anything. Andrew Cohen’s article entitled “Dzhokhar Tsarnaev: Defender of the Constitution” may be of interest to anyone who has not already seen it. This article can be viewed here: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/11/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-defender-of-the-constitution/281363/

As with law enforcement and Miranda warnings, it would appear the DOJ can and could in the future, impose SAMs when and where it suits and with scant reason to justify this.

Please feel free to inform me on any points I’ve missed. (And I am sure there are points I’ve missed!)

Footnote related to the conversation on the last thread:   The visit at which DT allegedly said something “to his detriment” or “inculpatory”: Isn’t the category of this visit difficult to define? As DT’s sister was present it might suggest that this visit was “social.” However, doesn’t the presence of an investigator on the behalf of the defense team equally suggest that this visit could be defined as “legal”?