General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat 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.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)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)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)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?
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Life Long Dem
(8,582 posts)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)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)...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)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/