19 votes

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Defender of the Constitution

*Court is starting in 3 minutes. I have friends there who will be giving account on the proceedings. I will update later.

The Atlantic~ANDREW COHEN NOV 12 2013, 7:38 AM E

The Boston bombing suspect is back in federal court to argue he has a constitutional right to speak to his lawyers without "special" restrictions on his communications.

Snippets: Even if you have little sympathy for Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, you ought to support his lawyers' efforts to curtail the government's sprawling use of so-called "Special Administrative Measures" in his case. Whatever you think of him, and the capital crimes of which he stands accused, he has a right to counsel, a right to counsel who can privately and effectively communicate with him, and the Justice Department's efforts to undermine that right in this instance are unfair and perhaps even unconstitutional.

First employed in 1996, SAMs are designed to prevent criminal defendants— before, during or after their trial—from inciting violence behind bars through secret communications with their lawyers or others. The attorney general may authorize the prison's restrictions on an inmate's mail, on his telephone calls, and on his visits with lawyers or access to media, if he or she finds that "there is a substantial risk that a prisoner's communications or contacts with persons could result in death or serious bodily injury to persons."

Tsarnaev's Argument

Defense attorneys in this case—including the inestimable Judith Clarke—led off their request to end the special measures imposed on them and their client with two temporal arguments. It took four months, they told U.S. District Gerald O'Toole, for Attorney General Eric Holder to implement the communication restrictions upon Tsarnaev and his lawyers. And there are no allegations, much less evidence, that the defendant during that time communicated or attempted to communicate in any sinister way to justify the imposition of the SAMs. Here is the crucial paragraph from the defense motion:

[T]he underlying charges arising from the Marathon bombing and ensuring events in Watertown, for which Mr. Tsarnaev is awaiting trial, are grave. However, the government has not alleged, nor is the defense away of any evidence to suggest, that these events were directed by others still at large or that Mr. Tsarnaev ever had operational authority to direct the activities of others... Nor is there any evidence whatsoever of co-conspirators with whom Mr. Tsarnaev could arrange further terrorist or criminal activities.

The defense says the SAMs cannot lawfully be imposed because Tsarnaev told his friends before his arrest to take his stuff or because his worldwide notoriety since his arrest has generated "nearly one thousand pieces of unsolicited mail." It would be perverse, Tsarnaev's attorneys argue, to punish him for letters he neither sought nor has responded to. Nor should the restrictions be imposed because his mother in May released portions of a phone call with him to gin up sympathy for her son. Preventing sympathy for a defendant is not part of the legal calculus of the SAMs, the defense argues. Here is the link to Tsarnaev's "Motion to Vacate Special Administrative Measures.

The Federal Response

The Justice Department responded to this motion first by making a procedural argument. Judge O'Toole "lacks jurisdiction to hear the motion" at this time because Tsarnaev failed to comply with the requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a federal law that generally requires inmates to exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking relief in court. Tsarnaev needs to ask prison administrators to release him from the restrictions, federal lawyers argue, and only if (or when) they do not can he come back to court for help. This is the just the latest version of federal government's standard terror law line: "Don't-worry-your-pretty-little-head-about-it-judge."

On the merits, the Justice Department says that Tsarnaev merits the restrictions on his communications with his lawyers, and others, because he inspired "others to commit acts of terrorism." Here's their argument:

Tsarnaev’s desire to inspire others to commits acts of terrorism is evident in the message he wrote in pen on the inside of the boat where he took refuge after his own ability to commit terrorist acts was exhausted. He wrote: The U.S. government is killing our innocent civilians but most of you already know that. As a M[uslim] I can’t stand to see such evil go unpunished, we Muslims are one body, you hurt one you hurt us all . . . [T]he ummah [i.e. the Muslim people] is beginning to rise]. . . . Know you are fighting men who look into the barrel of your gun and see heaven, now how can you compete with that. We are promised victory and we will surely get it.”

This was a clarion call to radical militants to follow in his wake. Tsarnaev’s self-evident goal in writing these words was to motivate others to commit acts of the same or similar nature, putting the American people at constant risk.

Much more~Very interesting if you are interested in Constitutional rights. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/11/dzhokhar...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I Bet No One Pledges Allegiance To The American Flag,

In Judge O'Toole's Courtroom.
Because the pledge includes the words,"With Liberty and JUSTICE For All"!

How can true justice be heard if the defendant is not allowed to build his own defensive argument ????

beesting

Liberty candidates: 6th Amendment Right to Counsel under attack!

SAMs IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Release the Sandy Hook video.

Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel

Does not mean "Right to Counsel" as the government sees fit.

Bump, up-vote.

Release the Sandy Hook video.

Mr. Tsarnaevs Constitutional Rights Are Covered Completely,,,

In Amendment VI {6} of the U.S. Constitution.
Please read it, "Everyone" !

beesting

Ruling on this motion?

I thought he won his motion to be removed from isolation, but now I'm not sure. If he loses it means isolation and limited access to lawyer is the new normal.

Release the Sandy Hook video.

though he may not be 'innocent', and though he may be a . . .

CIA tool, I don't trust that this man was the person who really did the bombing (Tsarnaev)--

but it's an interesting concept, that he might be trying to invoke the constitution--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

They are trying to change the rules

for this case and it will be used in all other court cases. These new rules could be used on you or someone you are close to. They aren't letting him see his lawyers or investigators on a frequent basis. The govt. is not turning over evidence needed for the defense to work on his case and a timeline has been put on them. They can't present their case by the date if the govt. has not turned over stuff. Some things the govt. is just letting them have a peek at, but refuse to turn over, like an autopsy report of his brother. Small things and big things. It does not matter how minute the evidence is, they aren't giving it.

Unfortunate title

I think the title of this post is unfortunate. Most people don't even read articles...we should think carefully about how titles like this reflect on the limited government movement.

Check out http://iroots.org/
"If you’re into political activism, at least for Ron Paul if not for anyone else, I strongly recommend spending some time with iroots.org." - Tom Woods

Looks like you didn't read it either.

Government is trying to take away his constitutional rights that other prisoners have always had. The outcomes of these decisions can affect all trials in the future, no matter what people's thoughts are on Mr. Tsarnaev.

You play their game, and you lose.

The only one choice a man has IF he is innocent, is to not play their games and force them to play by your rules.

You can follow play by play at the hearing right now.

https://twitter.com/davidfrankmlw

or me: https://twitter.com/RalphHornsby I will re-tweet him and another person there.