Search
Close this search box.

The Debate Starts: Why Boston Bombing Suspect Won’t Be Read His ‘Miranda Rights’


dzhA Justice Department official says the Boston Marathon bombing suspect will not be read his Miranda rights because the government is invoking a public safety exception.

That official and a second person briefed on the investigation says 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will be questioned by a special interrogation team for high-value suspects. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to disclose the information publicly.

The public safety exception permits law enforcement officials to engage in a limited and focused unwarned interrogation of a suspect and allows the government to introduce the statement as evidence in court. The public safety exception is triggered when police officers have an objectively reasonable need to protect the police or the public from immediate danger.

The American Civil Liberties Union says it’s concerned the surviving Boston Marathon bombing suspect will be questioned by investigators without being read his Miranda rights.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev remained hospitalized Saturday after being wounded in a firefight with police Friday. His brother was killed earlier.

U.S. officials say a special interrogation team for high-value suspects will question Tsarnaev without reading him his Miranda rights, invoking a rare public safety exception triggered by the need to protect the public from immediate danger.

ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero says the exception applies only when there’s a continued threat to public safety and is “not an open-ended exception” to the Miranda rule.

Meanwhile, U.S. Senator Carl Levin issued the following statement on the detention of the Boston bombing suspect:

“The bravery of our law enforcement personnel and first responders and the people of the Boston area yesterday and last night was inspiring, and I am deeply grateful that the two suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing are no longer a threat to the public.

“Some have suggested that the apprehended suspect should be held as an enemy combatant under the law of war. I am not aware of any legal basis at this point for such a designation in this case. Under the law of war, we have the authority to detain individuals who join a hostile foreign force engaged in attacking the United States. The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force authorizes such detention in the case of an individual who is a part of al Qaeda, the Taliban, or an associated force.

“I am not aware of any evidence so far that the Boston suspect is part of any organized group, let alone al Qaeda, the Taliban, or one of their affiliates — the only organizations whose members are subject to detention under the Authorization for Use of Military Force, as it has been consistently interpreted by all three branches of our government. In the absence of such evidence I know of no legal basis for his detention as an enemy combatant. To hold the suspect as an enemy combatant under these circumstances would be contrary to our laws and may even jeopardize our efforts to prosecute him for his crimes.

“The United States has a strong record of capturing, prosecuting and convicting dangerous terrorists in our court system. The victims of the attacks in Boston deserve to see the full force of our criminal laws brought to bear in this case, and I am hopeful and confident that it will be in our federal courts.”

(AP / YWN World Headquarters – NYC)



4 Responses

  1. We are no better then him if we dont read him is “Miranda Rights”. You may not like it, but he is entitled. We can’t bend the law to make exceptions.

  2. Not reading “Miranda” rights means they can’t use a confession. If they have evidence against him without needing to force a confession out of him, it makes no difference. This suggests the police are very confident they have a solid case against him (such as fingerprints or DNA on the bomb fragments, bombing making gear found in his house, better photographic evidence than what has been made public, etc.). Given that much of the world is dubious of confessions, especially ones made in private and repudiated in open court, not bothering with a confession as evidence is a good sign.

Leave a Reply


Popular Posts