Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Rick Moran

Bio

April 20, 2013 - 6:05 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

The FBI will use the “public safety exception” to the Miranda rule in order to interrogate Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving Boston bomber, without having to read him his constitutional rights.

From ABC News:

The exception, according to the FBI‘s website, “permits law enforcement to engage in a limited and focused unwarned interrogation and allows the government to introduce the statement as direct evidence.”

“Police officers confronting situations that create a danger to themselves or others may ask questions designed to neutralize the threat without first providing a warning of rights,” according to the FBI.

Anticipating that Tsarnaev may be in a condition to be questioned, expect the activation of the president’s High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG).

The group, set up in 2009, is made up of agents from the FBI, CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. They have been on standby waiting for the moment the suspect was taken in.

According to the FBI, the HIG’s “mission is to gather and apply the nation’s best resources to collect intelligence from key terror suspects in order to prevent terrorist attacks against the United States and its allies.”

We know very little at this point about the conspiracy to bomb the Boston Marathon. Did the brothers act alone or did they have help? Are they part of a larger terrorist cell of Chechens located in the U.S.? And, most importantly, is there another, deadlier attack being planned that puts Americans in imminent danger?

The employment of the public safety exception giving the FBI the ability to question Tsarnaev without reading him his Miranda rights is a pretty good indication that the government is worried that our lack of hard information about the bombers’ background and associates puts the U.S. and its citizens at risk.

The “ticking bomb” scenario has never actually occurred. There has never been a situation where we have had a terrorist in custody who might supply us with information that would head off an imminent attack. Our interrogations of several high-value terrorists have indeed led to the disruption of plots and the arrest of other terrorists. But there has never been an instance where a terrorist in custody has given us information — or even possessed information — that could have led to the dismantling of an active plot that had gone operational.

This doesn’t mean that, at some point in the future, a ticking bomb scenario won’t arise. But it hasn’t yet, and the fact that it was used to justify torture makes its use problematic, at least in some people’s minds.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (26)
All Comments   (26)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Fail, I agree with many of your insightful comments but this one is clearly written by someone who has never been arrested.

Police are taught techniques to circumvent Miranda. They engage in casual conversation, then ask questions that clearly have the intent of eliciting an incriminating response. They then edit their tape recordings to show that the suspect was just talking and "no questions were asked".
Then they get on the witness stand and lie from the moment they take the stand until the moment they step down, knowing that because they are cops a significant number of people will believe them.

An innocent person doesn't need to be asked a trick question. All he needs to do is give a cop any information and if the cop and the D.A. want to get him they will twist that information to find a way.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Send the guy back to Putin tied up in a bow. Maybe he can figure it out?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The downside is that anything he says (when not given his Miranda rights) cannot be used in court. So, say, he confesses to x,y,z (implicates numerous others, etc), well it is all useless in terms of being entered as evidence into court. Whatever he says can't be used. So, what's the point? Just mirandize him.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Does anyone doubt these men would've detonated a dirty nuke had they the ability?

When that happens, and it will, liberals will find their strange world of semantics afloat in a sea of unreality. "Losers" will exchange places with "ideology" and "anomaly" with "trend."

Liberals will suddenly wish these people were the raging "trend" lone wolf abortion clinic bombers and McVeigh were. When someone is running a radiation detector over their 5 yr. old daughter, that liberal will wish themselves straight to hell all they had to worry about had been white militia groups.

That liberal will wish themselves straight to hell they had not joined in defamatory hate speech against their own country that is indistinguishable from jihadi rhetoric. If words kill, then radical imams AND liberals are killing.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Our cursed "political correctness" has brought this on ourselves. We're "hoist on our own petard".

We refuse to admit that these Muslims have already declared War against us infidels in our United States.....we refuse to admit this lest we offend our Muslim enemies....resident inside our United States, many claiming United States citizenship. They of course are no more American than Chairman Mao of olden days........but he's long since been forgotten.

Elsewhere I've posted that this is circular madness.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Here you go again. I won't be surprise to learn soon that the brothers were the Tea Party members. What is the name of that "senior official"? David Axelrod?

"But, the senior official said, the emerging story of the Tsarnaev brothers more likely fits the profile of previous domestic terror attacks and a number of mass shooting events in recent history, specifically noting "very striking" similarities between the Boston attack and the killing rampage of Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian right-wing extremist who killed 77 people in 2011.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-boston-bombing-investigation-20130420,0,7218006.story
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Brevik has no white right wing country that shares his views he can go to. He was a lone wolf. On the other hand, liberals can find the "trend" they seek in a wide variety of nations that have institutionalized disdain for non-Muslims.

In terms of an intellectual space and how prominent that space is in the world, there are no similarities between Boston and Brevik. The Boston terrorists have many intellectual sympathizers around the world, not the least of which is the Dem Party, the DOJ and the NAACP, whose institutionalized, mainstream and federally funded anti-American and racial hate speech is non-stop.

The fact that Iraq and Afghanistan are entire nations that were seized at the point of a gun precisely because of hate speech and support of terrorists is lost on the Dem Party. No, they were just "losers."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
An awful article. Apparently no conservative sees the problem is with the Miranda decision itself. So Movement Conservatives once more show their predilection for coercive liberal procedures. And here I am thinking they were anti-Liberal. Silly me.

The problem is the Miranda decision. If the jerk wants to talk, let him. So I have to tell someone they might get in trouble if they spill the beans to the arresting authority. Like they didn't know that anyway without anyone telling them.

So the defendant was tricked into giving a confession. Tricked into committing the crime as well no doubt.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Miranda is nothing more than a meaningless disclaimer and legal pedantry that lets criminals of the hook far more than it protects innocent citizens. Innocent people don't have to be reminded to shut up, criminals do. What trick question is an innocent person going to trip over?

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Just like a lot of other decisions many here don't agree with, Miranda is the law of the land. The alternative to abiding by it is an AK and the hills.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I love the media twits who keep calling him a boy.
Even if his brother was the ring leader, he at a minimum participated in felony murder. He shot it out with the cops, participated in the killing of a cop and the wounding of another, and attempted to run police over with a car. That excludes the bombing, in which he killed three and wounded 183. He also was busy tossing military grade explosives out the window at police during the Watertown chase. He may know where other unexploded ordinance is and he may know other cell members, and what plots are planned. He knows who trained him and that they are training others to do harm.
Miranda should not apply until he answers very specific questions related to imminent threats to the public. He is an enemy combatant fighting under the Islamic flag out of uniform. He should be sent to Gitmo and tried under the military code of Justice.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
We are not legally at war and in any event, the military has little jurisdiction in the states. The case everyone relies on of the German infiltrators in WWII isn't on point because they were actual enemy combatants for an enemy with which we were legally at war. Since they were captured out of uniform, they could have been shot on sight but were given some legal rights.

The man, rightly or not, is a US citizen, captured on US soil by US civilian law enforcement, and the state and federal courts are functioning. Under ex parte Milligan and its progeny, I don't see how you deprive him of his 5th Am. right to refuse to be interrogated. There's been some wiggle room with this but I think mostly because we were dealing with heinous crimes and truly unsavory people and the courts have let things slide a bit, but unless somebody has a rationale for turning him over to the military and trying him by a court martial under the UCMJ, I think any court that approves his being deprived of 5th Am. rights and a Miranda warning would be purely political.

Besides, what's the point? He's probably well aware of his rights and what are they going to do if he refuses to talk? 'Course, with Democrats in charge, it would be "good" torture if they tortured him to get him to talk so it would be OK.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
This is the crux of our national Homeland Defense problem, our maddening, circular problem:

"We are not legally at war and in any event,...."

I've posted elsewhere that we Americans are "hoist on our own petard".

We're a nation of Laws. But perhaps, just perhaps, this definition of "War", when it's "declared", and by whom, exactly, and under these rapidly developing new circumstances, needs to be changed in light of 20th and 21st Century reality when our out-of-uniform-Muslim enemy has repeatedly declared that they are indeed at War with us infidel Americans...World-wide. Just ask them.

This isn't 1941 and we don't that shy, retiring, shrinking violet of a Democrat Franklin Roosevelt declaring that Day of Infamy!

They've attacked us at sea, on land, and from the air...this has been going on now for several years, starting perhaps with the Marine Barracks massacre at Beirut. It continues to these days just before the recent Boston Massacre.

And now....we've got hold of some young Muslim just a few years out of Chechnya caught red handed, literally bloodied from his own terrorist scene...... and we hear questions about "Miranda"? Good grief!

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
...omission...insert [.....we don't "have" .....that shy, retiring.....]
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All