Skip to main content

Why did the Department of Justice make this announcement?

"The suspect is en route to the hospital for immediate treatment [...]  "But we plan to invoke the public safety exception to Miranda in order to question the suspect extensively about other potential explosive devices or accomplices and to gain critical intelligence."
There was no legal obligation to do so that I know of. Indeed, I would argue that the DOJ would have a very compelling tactical reason NOT to announce this -- you would not want potential 'terrorist cell' members to know precisely how you are handling the interrogation of the Boston terror suspect.

As Gary Norton explained, the issue regarding Mirandizing suspects is, in most instances, an evidentiary one. which goes to the exclusion of statements made by a suspect. Whether a proper Miranda warning was given becomes an issue only if the government seeks to introduce such statements into evidence. As Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote in Dickerson v. U.S.:

In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), we held that certain warnings must be given before a suspect’s statement made during custodial interrogation could be admitted in evidence. [...] We therefore hold that Miranda and its progeny in this Court govern the admissibility of statements made during custodial interrogation in both state and federal courts.
So when would the government have to announce whether a suspect was Mirandized or not? Perhaps never. So why did DOJ do it here? (Indeed, given what appears to be an  overwhelming body of evidence against the Boston terror suspect, the need for ANY statements from the suspect for criminal prosecution purposes seems extremely unlikely.)

My sad conclusion is that it was a political decision to make the "Not Mirandizing" announcement. There was no legitimate national security or law enforcement purpose to the announcement. (Indeed, as stated earlier, I believe a very plausible case can be made that national security concerns would militate against giving ANY information regarding the interrogation of the Boston terror suspect.)

So what was the political calculus behind the announcement? (Also who was involved in the decision?) Unfortunately, we have seen a pattern of behavior from the DOJ (and the Obama Administration) with regard to showing how "tough" they are on terror suspects. Most notably, in December 2010, the existence of a Department of Justice memo on interrogating terror suspects was leaked. In early 2011, the memo itself was leaked. What could they motivation have been? Maybe this:

The practice of reading Miranda warnings to terrorism suspects arrested in the United States has led to political disputes. In particular, Republicans, seeking to portray the Obama administration as soft on terrorism, criticized the reading of a Miranda warning to the main suspect in the failed bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25, 2009.
These controversies led the Attorney General to support weakening Miranda even further:
[I]n May 2010 Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. floated the idea of seeking legislation that would ask courts to interpret the public safety exception to allow lengthier questioning of terrorism suspects before the warning. The administration never produced such a proposal. But the October memorandum shows that the Justice Department.
Prior to the President's reelection, these types of noises from the Obama Administration were politically understandable (especially as they came before the killing of Osama bin Laden), if not defensible. But what about now? The election is over.

There is, in my view, a certain irony that President Obama gave one of his most fiery press conferences in the wake of the defeat of the gun control bill in the Senate. At that appearance, the President said:

“It came down to politics[.]”
I submit that the Department of Justice's announcement that the Boston terror suspect was not Mirandized also "came down to politics."  And I do not think "the politics" is defensible.

In this diary, eternal hope quoted Justice Thurgood Marshall's dissent in Quarles:

The irony of the majority's decision is that the public's safety can be perfectly well protected without abridging the Fifth Amendment. If a bomb is about to explode or the public is otherwise imminently imperiled, the police are free to interrogate suspects without advising them of their constitutional rights. Such unconsented questioning may take place not only when police officers act on instinct but also when higher faculties lead them to believe that advising a suspect of his constitutional rights might decrease the likelihood that the suspect would reveal life-saving information. If trickery is necessary to protect the public, then the police may trick a suspect into confessing. While the Fourteenth Amendment sets limits on such behavior, nothing in the Fifth Amendment or our decision in Miranda v. Arizona proscribes this sort of emergency questioning. All the Fifth Amendment forbids is the introduction of coerced statements at trial.
As Justice Marshall noted, there was no reason for the contortions and gyrations. Miranda does not preclude un-Mirandized questioning, just the introduction of compelled testimony. Justice Marshall continued:
The results of the majority's "test" are announced with pseudoscientific precision:
"We conclude that the need for answers to questions in a situation posing a threat to the public safety outweighs the need for the prophylactic rule protecting the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination." Ante, at 657.
The majority misreads Miranda. Though the Miranda dissent prophesized dire consequences, see 384 U.S., at 504, 516-517, 86 S.Ct., at 1643, 1649-1650 (Harlan, J., dissenting), the Miranda Court refused to allow such concerns to weaken the protections of the Constitution[.]

"A recurrent argument made in these cases is that society's need for interrogation outweighs the privilege. This argument is not unfamiliar to this Court. The whole thrust of our foregoing discussion demonstrates that the Constitution has prescribed the rights of the individual when confronted with the power of government when it provided in the Fifth Amendment that an individual cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. That right cannot be abridged." Id., at 479, 86 S.Ct., at 1630 (citation omitted).
 [Emphasis supplied.]

The recurrent argument about the "War on Terror" domestically is that our Constitution and our criminal justice system and its rules are inadequate to the task at hand.

While the Department of Justice does not wholly endorse the end result that the likes of Lindsey Graham and John McCain seek (Gitmo for every "suspect!"), they DO endorse the idea that our Constitution is not up to the task.

Whether that position is a sincerely held one or merely a political pose, I can not say.

But in either case, I condemn it.  

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Meteor Blades, claude, Ed in Montana, Angie in WA State, cslewis, Alfred E Newman, Paleo, Odysseus, hester, teacherken, Sparhawk, pelican, DR RD, donna in evanston, CleverNickName, meg, OLinda, Vico, saluda, xynz, Rachael7, WI Deadhead, the OTHER rasmussen, MarkInSanFran, hubcap, Eternal Hope, cinnamon68, cfm, TheMomCat, bronte17, susakinovember, Ian S, chuckvw, JJG Miami Shores, roses, mollyd, Iberian, psnyder, TexDem, jlynne, figbash, Kentucky DeanDemocrat, brainwave, yet another liberal, mnguitar, Steven Payne, renaissance grrrl, Calidrissp, riverlover, Dave925, walkshills, Tirge Caps, sachristan, vcmvo2, Skennet Boch, joanneleon, Bluesee, 3goldens, jrooth, Jeffersonian Democrat, LakeSuperior, run around, juliesie, viral, Dobber, Laurence Lewis, Gary Norton, cris0000, Dem Beans, where4art, Burned, skyounkin, Ice Blue, peteri2, WisePiper, Lisa Lockwood, Ekaterin, Paper Cup, Jim R, CJnyc, WuChier, martini, esquimaux, redcedar, BachFan, detroitmechworks, WB Reeves, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, Kingsmeg, vigilant meerkat, cybersaur, dharmafarmer, Yellow Canary, cookseytalbott, kck, blueoasis, triv33, MJ via Chicago, philipmerrill, gooderservice, Caoimhin Laochdha, NearlyNormal, middleagedhousewife, midwesterner, Dianna, Friend of the court, Aaa T Tudeattack, cpresley, BentLiberal, Thinking Fella, john07801, timewarp, out of left field, BeninSC, SpecialKinFlag, yoduuuh do or do not, FishOutofWater, Mary Mike, suejazz, NoMoJoe, HCKAD, Aunt Martha, cyncynical, gchaucer2, CT Hank, leonard145b, Roger Fox, ferment, poligirl, Sixty Something, Youffraita, Thomas Twinnings, Involuntary Exile, Calamity Jean, RandomNonviolence, MrJayTee, Wek, Jeff Y, alnep, Karl Rover, CIndyCasella, Louisiana 1976, MufsMom, Rick Aucoin, greengemini, ewmorr, CanyonWren, WakeUpNeo, jennylind, JesseCW, RageKage, asym, Flyswatterbanjo, Just Bob, flitedocnm, eXtina, mookins, TealTerror, sunny skies, renzo capetti, samanthab, Lady Libertine, albrt, Johnny Q, Publius2008, DrTerwilliker, Wisdumb, verdeo, no way lack of brain, StateofEuphoria, stone clearing, thomask, muddy boots, Calvino Partigiani, Wood Dragon, carl offner, James Protzman, dradams, jadt65, allergywoman, quill, anodnhajo, DeadHead, Williston Barrett, orestes1963, Joieau, Farkletoo, congenitalefty, Mr Robert, disinterested spectator, aznavy, BradyB, Hammerhand, Ray Pensador, Chaddiwicker, Tim DeLaney, 84thProblem, howabout, Demeter Rising, Kombema, sensetolisten

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site