The FBI’s decision that a “public safety exception” applies when they are interrogating a suspect after the crisis has ended and they are just trying to get a confession to use in court is bullshit, and just the sort of bullshit typical of a Presidential administration that took “George W. Bush was the worst President in history for civil liberties” as some sort of challenge.
While I’m certainly not reluctant to bash Obama, that doesn’t make sense. This guy has done more to enough to ensure life in prison or death with or without a confession. Wanting to know where any more bombs are makes much more sense as a motive that them wanting a totally unnecessary confession.
I’m not impressed that Miranda generally does much good. Lots of Mirandized prisoners have given false confessions. In this case, the purpose of questioning shouldn’t be to use stuff in a court of law, but to find out if the suspect has friends who are planning other militant attacks. I’d say to truthfully assure the defendant that nothing he says will be used against him in a court of law, in order to hopefully get him to be more candid.
There should be plenty of physical evidence in this case without having to rely on the defendant’s statements.
You expect police to read out the Miranda rights, making sure the suspect understands them (which could take time if they’re not a native English speaker), before asking where any other bombs are? It is of course possible that they’ve got the wrong guy, but if they reasonably think he is one of the men who just bombed Boston then that is a pretty obvious public safety exemption.
As far as I can tell, the exception only applies to things like “is there a bomb on this boat?” that actually do have to be asked immediately; if they asked about his reasons for the bombing, say, that might not be admissible.
He is in custody. It’s been four hours since they stormed the boat and nearly 24 hours since the initial shootout he fled from. Do you think he planted some of those Wile E Coyote bombs with a ten-mile fuse, or what? This is just establishing legal precedent for ignoring the Miranda decisions from a totally out of control law enforcement apparatus, nothing more.
You’re probably unaware of the latest technology.
There’s also the little problem of someone finding them. Homemade bombs can be quite unstable.
The “public safety exception” has been in place since 1984 when George W. Bush was years away from being the Governor of Texas much less the United States.
And no, them trying to find out if there are more bombs planted elsewhere or more members of any potential sleeper cell out there is not “bullshit.”
They were Muslim, yeah, but I’m guessing this is going to end up having more in common in motive to something like Columbine rather than Jihadists.
Read again. The point is not that the exception exists, it’s that it’s being transformed from what the original case said (the cop can ask the guy who just ditched the gun in a preschool where it is as he’s arresting him, for example) into a blanket excuse for law enforcement to unilaterally ignore Miranda whenever they feel like it.
“Members of a sleeper cell” is not an imminent threat any more so than the general existence of terrorism or crime is; this is exactly the sort of expanding the loophole to tear apart the whole garment that is being perpetrated.
Agreed. It might poison a third unknown party’s role, but if it saves lives its worth it.
He’s a bomb maker. That is a textbook example of imminent threat.
As for a sleeper cell, if you catch a member of a cell, don’t you think that might motivate other members to act more quickly than they might?
Yeah, that’s a no sale with me too, condescending robot, this is exactly the situation I’d say it was justified in.
And yes, I am proud I voted for Obama, twice.
Then they shouldn’t care if the interrogation was inadmissable in court, and this exception should not exist. If you don’t believe you already have sufficient grounds to convict him, you don’t have sufficient grounds to justify interrogating him without following due process.
Can you confirm and verify that the crisis has ended when they took bomber #2 into custody? Or is the possibility that there are other accomplices out there who did not make themselves visible to surveilance cameras on the day of the bombing.
You don’t know if the suspect in custody is coherent after bleeding for 20 hours and perhaps not eating or drinking water for a long period of time.
There appears yet to be confirmed that there was an exchange of fire in the backyard when the suspect was in the boat.
If he in fact did fire at officers, he is fortunate that he is alive for there to be an issue about Miranda
Police do not need to read Miranda before putting a bullent in someone’s head who is shooting at them.
I applaud these cops for taking him alive and I applaude the FBI and Obama for putting the public’s safety ahead of a someone who decides to have a shoot out with our police, after possibly being involved in committing the vile act of terror that killed and maimed so many.
He’s guilty of resisting arrest if nothing else.
His arrest has not ended this crisis whatsover.
Only investigation into all possible connections to this both domestic and abroad will end this crisis.
He is getting due process of the law (there is a reason that phrase is in there), which allows forgoing the Miranda stuff.
You don’t want a bomber to clam up and make the FBI wait until his lawyer arrives. This actually is the rare instance of a potential “ticking time bomb”.
Who knows, maybe because they read him and his brother all the rights they are entitled to some 2 years ago when they interviewed the older one?
how about these Tweets from Lindsay Graham?
He apparently has expressed regret that we we not tracking (an American citizen) with drones!
Only because the law was changed. I’m saying the reasoning behind the change is not sound.
Then question him, knowing that no matter what he says, you can’t use it against him. If that represents a sacrifice you are unwilling to make, it is because you shouldn’t be taking advantage of that opportunity in the first place.
That is what they’re doing, no? They’re taking the risk that the courts will rule they didn’t have the right to use the exception and his statements could be ruled inadmissible. It is only smart of them to try to build a legal basis to keep the statements admissible rather than just conceding the point up front.
Well, you need to do more than just “say” something around here. Why is it not sound?
Well, that’s exactly what is happening. Are you under the impression that they can use any answers he gives them in court? They can’t.