Why did someone just ask if he had been given his Miranda Rights?

[Heather MC]

Who asked that stupid ass question?????

I read earlier today that I think Lyndsey Graham suggested he not be read his Miranda Rights

[elleng]

1. 'Cause, as I just learned, there's a 'national security' exception/waiver

possible re: Miranda requirement, so it ends up not being a stupid ass question, tho I thought it was when I heard a similar discussion earlier.
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/february2011/legal_digest

[Heather MC]

13. Learning the to. I felt it was dumb because

I had heard earlier that they shouldn't mirandize him at all.

[elleng]

15. A list of 'exceptions:'

Are there Exceptions to the Miranda Rule?
The following are situations where courts have deemed that Miranda is not necessitated:

■Even if a suspect is in custody, officer's statements do not meet the standard of custodial interrogation unless they are either express or equivalent statements, which are reasonably likely to illicit an incriminating response
■Police hostage negotiations are not interrogations
■A secretly taped meeting between a suspect and a police officer, where the suspect attended voluntarily
■While in custody, Miranda is not required if the suspect is unaware that he is voluntarily talking to a police officer
■Police may ask standard booking question without necessitating Miranda warnings
■The police may question a suspect without reading Miranda warnings if such questioning is necessary for public safety

[Heather MC]

23. Ahh public Safety exemption

[hlthe2b]

2. Hardly a stupid question. He was NOT read his Miranda Rights under the "public safety" exception

For those of us who still believe in civil rights and our constitution, this IS a big damned deal.

[patricia92243]

6. Yep! n/t

[KittyWampus]

7. Why is it a big deal, in this case. In this case, it's obviously a public safety exception.

[hlthe2b]

9. Because I still believe in our constitution.

and we have done so with others accused of terrorism or similar, including the shoe bomber.

[KittyWampus]

11. again, there is a public safety exception. So you need to grasp pretty basic facts.

[hlthe2b]

14. No, I do NOT... You need to become civil, however.

This provision was added and erodes our constitution. I resent the hell out of that, as should anyone who gives a damn about our constitution. We have managed to get information from many a terrorist/criminal without this and based on our constitutional provisions.

Once you give it away, it is gone.

[TDale313]

20. There obviously is such an exception.

But it's also valid for us to discuss if there *should* be.

[Riftaxe]

24. What civil right law has been violated

If you find the public safety exception so heinous, where have you been in the nearly 30 years since New York v. Quarles?

[hlthe2b]

25. what a ridiculous rejoinder.

Regardless, this 48 hour interpretation was initiated under Obama/Holder and yes our Supreme Court has upheld it--but since when have THEY given a damn about the constitution (at least five of them)

[Riftaxe]

26. So now you are FOR the public safety exception

good to know.

Inconsistent, but good to know. Does this about face also mean you no longer believe in civil rights and the constitution as related in post #2?

[hlthe2b]

27. You appear not to read/comprehend. Perhaps take some time and learn the difference between

the court decision that lead to a very very brief public safety exception and the new (decimation of consitutional Miranda rights) that our President has enacted. yes, I support Obama, but that does not mean I have to support this grotesque overreach.

Thursday, Mar 24, 2011 08:24 AM CDT

New Justice Department rules say terrorism suspects do not need to be informed of their rights for lengthy periods
By Justin Elliott

The Obama administration has created a new interrogation policy in which investigators may waive the Miranda warning if they think it necessary to get timely intelligence from a terrorism suspect, the Wall Street Journal reports.

I reported in January that the Justice Department had created a new — but secret — policy on Miranda. The rule, named after a 1966 Supreme Court decision, holds that information from an interrogation is inadmissible in court unless the criminal suspect has been informed of his right to remain silent, and to a lawyer.

Now, the WSJ’s Evan Perez has gotten his hands on Obama’s new policy. While the WSJ didn’t print the full text, here is a taste:

A Federal Bureau of Investigation memorandum reviewed by The Wall Street Journal says the policy applies to “exceptional cases” where investigators “conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat.” Such action would need prior approval from FBI supervisors and Justice Department lawyers, according to the memo, which was issued in December but not made public.

The Supreme Court had previously recognized a “public safety exception” to Miranda under which police could interrogate suspects, typically for an extremely short period of time, about matters that could be an imminent threat. The classic example is: “Where’s the gun?”

But now there appears to be a new standard under which investigators can waive Miranda in order “to collect valuable and timely intelligence,” in the absence of an immediate threat.

http://www.salon.com/2011/03/24/obama_rolls_back_miranda/

[lob1]

3. My guess is the military doesn't give Miranda Rights,

and jerko wants the military to prosecute the guy.

[Luminous Animal]

12. Obama and Holder rolled back Miranda rights in 2011.

Obama rolls back Miranda rights
New Justice Department rules say terrorism suspects do not need to be informed of their rights for lengthy periods

http://www.salon.com/2011/03/24/obama_rolls_back_miranda/

Now, the WSJ’s Evan Perez has gotten his hands on Obama’s new policy. While the WSJ didn’t print the full text, here is a taste:

A Federal Bureau of Investigation memorandum reviewed by The Wall Street Journal says the policy applies to “exceptional cases” where investigators “conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat.” Such action would need prior approval from FBI supervisors and Justice Department lawyers, according to the memo, which was issued in December but not made public.

[Squinch]

4. Why is that a stupid question? I am getting that he wasn't mirandized. To me, that's significant.

[Heather MC]

18. I thought the Question was an attempt

set up the idea He would never be given miranda rights. I am glad to know they have to Mirandize him after 48 hours. No matter what he is accused of we must maintain our law and order

[Squinch]

22. And the civil rights of US citizens. Even when we abhor what they have done.

I am glad they'll have to Mirandize him eventually too.

[cthulu2016]

5. Because he wasn't (but not for the public safety exception)

[City Lights]

8. I'm glad someone asked. There were conflicting reports on it.

Glad to have clarification directly from the source.

[Luminous Animal]

10. Obama and Holder rolled back Miranda rights in 2011.

Obama rolls back Miranda rights
New Justice Department rules say terrorism suspects do not need to be informed of their rights for lengthy periods

http://www.salon.com/2011/03/24/obama_rolls_back_miranda/

Now, the WSJ’s Evan Perez has gotten his hands on Obama’s new policy. While the WSJ didn’t print the full text, here is a taste:

A Federal Bureau of Investigation memorandum reviewed by The Wall Street Journal says the policy applies to “exceptional cases” where investigators “conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat.” Such action would need prior approval from FBI supervisors and Justice Department lawyers, according to the memo, which was issued in December but not made public.

[Enrique]

16. you answered your own question

the reporter very likely asked exactly because of what Graham said. I don't get what is stupid about the question. I am curious what the answer was.

[Heather MC]

19. When I first heard the question

My perception was the question was being asked just start the conversation about taking away our rights to due process. Just found out they have to Mirandize him after 48 hours

[backscatter712]

17. He hasn't been interrogated yet.

Presumably, they disarmed & arrested him, stabilized his injuries, and rushed him to the hospital.

IIRC, you need to have your Miranda rights read to you before you're questioned.

And I'd say just read him his rights, because it won't be long before he gets a defense attorney anyways, so we want to make sure his arrest, questioning and prosecution go completely by the book, so the defense can't get his charges reduced or dropped.

[Heather MC]

21. Apparently they don't have to read him his rights for 48 hours

It's the new America