What's the story on Miranda rights?

OK, I'm a couple days late on this, but I had an interesting realization that I want to share. If I'm just slow, you don't have to spare my feelings.

My first reaction to the Miranda rights complaints concerning the Boston bomber was:

"Of course he already knows his Miranda rights. There's no loss in reading them to him."

Sometime on Saturday or Sunday I finally realized that the issue isn't just informing him of his rights. It's an issue of respecting his Miranda rights. Luckily, there's the public safety exception (dating from 1980), so the police can question him without violating due process.

But I got to thinking, how often are the rights violated anyway? I'm pretty sure I've read about cases of suspects refusing to talk, asking for lawyers, and the police ignore it and continue questioning them.

So what would the FBI (if they're in charge) do if Tsarnaev invoked his rights? Would they just continue questioning him? Under the exception, they could, and I think that's fair. But what if he still refused to talk? How far would they go in disrespecting his rights?

Here's what I'm guessing: When Lindsay Graham says the bomber shouldn't be read his Miranda rights, what he really means if that the interrogation can and should proceed with no protections at all. Days-long interrogation--fine. Sleep deprivation--fine. No lawyer--that's a no-brainer. A beat-down--sure, if he's not talking. Water-boarding--maybe Graham is fine with that too. Torture--that's OK as long as you call it "enhanced interrogation."

Miranda is code... as with so many other political issues. Pro-Miranda means "no torture." Anti-Miranda means "torture is a go."

Image: monstersinmotion.com

Oddities in the Boston Bombing

I can't wait until the FBI starts releasing information from the computers of the Tsarnaev brothers. Because right now their motivation defies my ability to understand. On the surface, you can say that it's jihad. Leaving it at that level of detail isn't particularly satisfying because it doesn't help us understand why these guys and not the other immigrants and refugees who also happen to be Muslims.

If Tamorlan hated Americans, why did he marry an American girl? Why didn't having a baby girl with this American girl stop him from thinking it was OK to blow the legs off other regular American women and children? As I said, it's odd.

I think the logic of these bombers is going to defy reason even when the details are known. That's not unusual. Few people nail down their motivations with unimpeachable logic. I think the two most likely explanations are:

• Anger against the US for being involved in wars against various Muslim groups and in various Muslim countries. Many Muslims can't abide the deaths of Muslims at the hands of infidels, much like Americans bristle at the deaths of Americans not caused by our own citizens. [Rule: You're allowed to murder your own, but no one else is.]
• They hoped to achieve a kind of glory, with attendant monetary reward and perhaps a good living situation in a Muslim country. [This is most likely, in my opinion.]

One explanation I think is unlikely is that they were an al Queda sleeper cell. They had good knowledge of Boston, but their explosives were below the standards of most bombings. They also seem not to have had organized support to get them out of town or out of the country. Their plan depended solely on not being identified. They might have gotten away with it because they did very much blend in with the backpack-carrying and cap-wearing young audience.

It's disappointing that these two men who lived in this country for 10 years gained no love for it. So many who come to the US do love it here. Others don't love it, but acknowledge definite superior aspects over their home country. I haven't known any immigrant who wanted to blow up a group of spectators.

**********************************************************

Boy was I in a warm, fuzzy place, thinking that so many immigrants love the US. I don't really know that. I do know that many people harbor a lot of anger that gets directed at various targets, like schools, coworkers, the other political party, unfair bosses, the federal government, the prosecutor who humiliated them, illegals, the kids in the next hood, marxists succeeding at ruining this country, etc. I wonder that we don't have mass shootings and bombings every single day. But somehow we don't. Divine intervention, perhaps?

Image: usnews.com

Our favored terrorists

It's a strange phenomenon. Leftists seemed to hope the Boston bombers weren't Islamist terrorists. Their preferred villains are white supremacists or anti-government militia types. Rightists want the bombers to be Muslim.

This is curious. I can understand why you don't want the perpetrator to be in a group you identify with, but why does it happen when group identification isn't the issue? There's so much space between conservatives and any militia that would bomb a parade, why should they care?

Why? Because... it's the narrative! Who is going to win the narrative, who is going to get the better narrative out of the event. If it was Muslim terrorists, the conservatives can say that we shouldn't have all these Muslim immigrants, and look at what the tolerance gets us. Or maybe they say something else--I really can't speak for the conservatives because I've never been one.

If it was a militia type/white supremacist, the liberals could talk about how the subtle racism in conservatives (dehumanizing welfare recipients, bashing government programs) fosters the much more virulent, violent distrust of government, blah, blah, blah.

I have an idea. Let's not score points over terrorism. Let's not be gleeful that the other side will have mud on their faces. By all means we should talk about how it happened, what sort of preventive steps we could take. But let's refrain from hoping a certain group is responsible. I wish none of them had executed those acts. No narrative is worth those lives and limbs.

Image: fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com

Extras. Parade of yech:

• Salon: Let's hope the bomber's white.
• RedState: Salon is sick.
• Washington Times: Bombings will continue until we find solutions (that the author neglects to list).
• Atlantic Wire: Anti-Muslims are making hay.