Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,705 posts)
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:11 AM Apr 2013

What Am I Missing Re: The Miranda Warning?

The authorities had a legitimate concern that the alleged Boston bomber had more bombs in undisclosed locations and wanted to make certain he didn't before reading him his Miranda rights.

Once they ascertained he didn't and there was no longer any threat to public safety they presumably will advise him of his rights.

Seems legit to me.

8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
1. Lines of questioning made before the suspect is Mirandized can be kept off the record. That's why.
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:15 AM
Apr 2013

Think about it. Tamarlan was the focus of interest by the FBI and the Russians, who let him in anyway. After he returned, the FBI claims it didn't have any interest in him? Why?

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,705 posts)
4. Maybe Somebody Took Their Eye Off The Ball?
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:20 AM
Apr 2013

The FBI was watching Oswald too... But we're not a police state yet. The authorities can only do so much until a person actually commits a crime which by then it is too late... A paradox indeed...

But presumably the rationale for carving out a public safety exception to the Miranda warning is that if a suspect knows of a imminent threat to public safety he won't divulge the threat because he would be implicating/incriminating himself.

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
5. Could be. But, there are other explanations that make sense.
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:37 AM
Apr 2013

I don't think that this suspect was terribly worried about the consequences of incriminating himself about hypothetical "other bombs."

Rather, I think they had some off-the-record questions for him: what was Tamarlan doing in Russia, and what interest did other USG agencies (and the Russians, and any third-parties) show in him, and, most important, what did the younger brother know about that?

 

Life Long Dem

(8,582 posts)
3. You have a right to remain silent
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:18 AM
Apr 2013

Their just not going to tell him that for a day or two. Usually anything you say before Miranda rights can't be used in court. The defendant could still choose to remain silent (he still has that right). Just that they don't need to tell him his rights for a day or two.

Lone_Star_Dem

(28,158 posts)
7. I didn't know that about it not usually being used in court.
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:42 AM
Apr 2013

It that's true it makes this make more sense. He may be willing to share more information if that's the case.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
6. The fact that LE was upfront about holding off tells us they are STILL committed...
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:40 AM
Apr 2013

...to doing this by the book. If there was any nefarious intent to deprive him of his rights, they would have simply said, 'Yeah, we told him.'

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
8. "By the book" for LE also means not encroaching upon federal IC first jurisdiction.
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:45 AM
Apr 2013

There's no "nefarious intent to deprive him of his rights." You're right, it's just being done according to the book.

Here's the book (one of them, anyway): ITACG Intelligence Guide for First Responders 2nd Edition - ISE.gov
http://www.ise.gov/sites/default/files/ITACG_Guide_2ed.pdf

Here's another: http://publicintelligence.net/ncis-interviewing-and-interrogating-militant-islamists-guide/

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What Am I Missing Re: The...