Terrorist activities within the United States have caused many people to want to take another look at how we Mirandize prisoners. Charles Krauthammer at the National Review posted a reasonable suggestion yesterday.
Mr. Krauthammer points out that under the public-safety exception in the Miranda Rights law, a suspect does not have to be read his Miranda rights immediately. The purpose of reading someone his Miranda rights is to ensure that any information obtained from the suspect is admissible in court.
Mr. Krauthammer points out:
"In this case, however, Miranda warnings were superfluous. Shahzad had confessed to the car-bombing attempt while being interrogated under the public-safety exception. That's admissible evidence. Plus, he left a treasure trove of physical evidence all over the place -- which is how we caught him in two days."
The thing to remember in dealing with terrorism is that any information a captured terrorist gives out is time-sensitive. It is fairly easy for loosely-constructed terrorism cells to move people and camps as soon as one of their members has been captured.
Let me be clear. I am not in favor of mistreating people we arrest. However, when someone admits or is seen carrying out a terrorist act (as in the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber), I think we need to be more concerned about public safety than we are about reading a person his Miranda rights. Being a terrorist should change the rules--even in America.
Leave a comment