Some people are making silly (dare I say ridiculous?) comments in this thread about how I’ve suddenly become a big-government authoritarian because I don’t think that the Boston bomber should be read his Miranda rights, or necessarily questioned with a lawyer present. I think that this criticism arises largely from ignorance of the law and Constitution (along with a healthy dollop of hysteria). Orin Kerr explains the legal situation:

A lot of people assume that the police are required to read a suspect his Miranda rights upon arrest. That is, they assume that one of a person’s rights is the right to be read their rights. It often happens that way on Law & Order, but that’s not what the law actually requires. The police aren’t required to follow Miranda. Miranda is a set of rules the government can chose to follow if they want to admit a person’s statements in a criminal case in court, not a set of rules they have to follow in every case. Under Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003), it is lawful for the police to not read a suspect his Miranda rights, interrogate him, and then obtain a statement. Chavez holds that a person’s Miranda rights are violated only if the statement is admitted in court, even if the statement is obtained in violation of Miranda. See id. at 772-73. Further, the prosecution is even allowed to admit any physical evidence discovered as a fruit of the statement obtained in violation of Miranda — only the actual statement can be excluded. See United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004). So, contrary to what a lot of people think, it is legal for the government to even intentionally violate Miranda so long as they don’t try to seek admission of the suspect’s statements in court.

Emphasis mine.

It’s just that simple. There is no need to get his testimony in court, because the other evidence against him is overwhelming. What there is a need to do is to find out if there are other co-conspirators, and other bombs, and other plans. And as Orin also points out, there are even ways to get the evidence into trial even under these circumstances, should it be necessary.

Well, they were white guys, just like the press was fervently hoping. But who knew that the Tea Party was so active in Chechnya?

I’m sure that all that Islam stuff on his web page is just to camouflage his right-wing militia racism.

[Update a while later]

Let’s hope that this isn’t the beginning of a trend:

Yet such freakouts [as the one today in Boston] are nothing compared to what is in store if the the Marathon bombing means that Chechen jihadis has come to U.S. shores. The Chechens mounted one of the most vicious terror campaigns ever against Russia in the 1990s, blowing up apartment buildings, and launching massive attacks on theaters and even schools. They are known as among the most violent and dedicated terrorists in the world. They can be found fighting in Libya, Syria and every other major jihadi campaign. Though usually they have to sneak into the target countries, rather than coming on a visa as the Boston bombers apparently did.)

Russia only succeeded in suppressing the Chechen Islamists with extremely brutal tactics that would never find support in the U.S – essentially leveling the Chechen capital. Yet dealing with such a threat would also be impossible with a politically correct approach to counter-terror that, for example, turns away from talking frankly about the terrorists profiles and motives.

But they’d rather talk about the Tea Party and militias, and “workplace violence” at Fort Hood.

[Update a while later]

What we know about the terrorists. Dan Foster has a roundup.

[Update a few minutes later]

It occurs to me that I’d have been a little nervous knowing someone who was named for Tamerlane:

Scholars estimate that his military campaigns caused the deaths of 17 million people, amounting to about 5% of the world population.

He reportedly built pyramids of human skulls of the vanquished. It would be sort of like naming your kid “Stalin” or “Mao.” Or Hitler, though he was actually a piker when it came to murdering humans compared to those two.

[Update a few minutes later]

Three places to know to understand the terrorists.

[Update a few minutes later]

An important point:

Because we know so little, and because the stakes are so high, it is imperative that the remaining suspect — if caught — should not be permitted to “lawyer up.” Were they an isolated pair, merely inspired by foreign terrorism? Did they have links to al-Qaeda? Did they have links to Chechen terror groups? Were they even inspired by jihad or something else entirely? Did they have help? Foreign terrorists with potential links to our deadliest enemies do not have the right to remain silent.

But the fools running Eric Holder’s Justice Department will probably give them one anyway. The smart media would start to ask now if this will be treated as a domestic crime or foreign terrorism, and it’s a decision that should be made before capture, it we’re lucky enough to capture him.

[Update a while later]

Here’s some dark humor — the hijacked car had a “Coexist” sticker on it.

[Bumped]