Miranda rights flow from a landmark United States Supreme Court decision, Miranda v. Arizona, in which the Court held that statements made by a defendant in police custody would be admissible in court only if the defendant was first advised of certain rights. The Court explained that no confession could be admissible under the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination clause and the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a defendant had been made aware of these rights and explicitly waived them.
Accordingly, all persons arrested since the Miranda decision are read what has been come to be known as their Miranda rights. The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that they have the right to remain silent and that anything they say will be used against them in court. They must also be clearly informed that they have the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with them during their interrogation. Miranda also mandates they be told that if they are indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent them.
The Miranda warning can likely be recited verbatim by any regular viewer of American television
The apocryphal tale now being actively disseminated out of Boston is that accused bomber, Dhzokhar Tsarnaev, was speaking freely during his initial questioning, revealing a veritable treasure trove of terror fighting information, until Federal Magistrate Marianne B. Bowler arrived upon the scene and read him his Miranda rights. Versions of the story differ, but all seem to stress that Tsarnaev took his Miranda rights to heart and immediately stopped speaking upon hearing them. The clear inference is that we are all now in mortal danger because of Miranda and its prophylactic effect upon terrorists.
The story is ridiculous on many levels. It ignores the fact that the vast majority of arrestees, some estimates are as high as 80%, waive their Miranda rights and opt to speak freely with their inquisitors. It also begs the question of why a cooperative arrestee would suddenly stop speaking after being read rights that anyone watching American TV knows exist. Nevertheless, this is the story now coming out of Boston and it is being vigorously propagated.
Dhzokhar Tsarnaev is alleged to have spoken freely with investigators until being read his Miranda rights
Certainly there is nothing new about highlighting constitutionally guaranteed rights being afforded to society’s most hated offenders. Murderers, rapists and pedophiles are all routinely read their Miranda rights and opportunistic journalist, politicians and others have been know from time to time feign outrage at such protections being given to those who are accused of committing heinous offenses. Still, there is something different about the latest incarnation of this outrage.
Terrorism has become a viable means by which to enhance the powers of police and prosecutors. Sweeping loss of civil liberties through legislation like the Patriot Act were met with barely a whimper as a large segment of the populace gladly traded freedom for supposed safety. In reality, safety is not even part of the equation as terrorism is merely a convenient and proven opportunity to strengthen the power of the State.
Just as the Patriot Act was in the box and ready to be unleashed at the right moment, so too does this recent assault on Miranda appear to be a program that was ready to be rolled-out when the opportunity arose. What we are witnessing is a multi-pronged, all-out assault on Miranda that is using the events in Boston as a mere pretext to further the ongoing erosion of civil liberties and strengthen the growing power of the State.
The assault on Miranda, just like the repressive Patriot Act, appears to have been prepared in advance, waiting for the right opportunity to be unleashed
The Miranda story began to take shape on April 19 when Justice Department officials announced that Tsarnaev would not be read his Miranda rights prior to questioning by law enforcement officials. Initial reports indicated that a “public safety” exception would be employed when a special interrogation team, typically reserved for high-value suspects, questioned Tsarnaev. The cited public safety exception permits law enforcement officials to engage in a limited interrogation of a suspect and allows the government to introduce any resulting 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.
Despite the delay in reading Tsarnaev his Miranda rights, Magistrate Bowler remedied the situation on April 22. The assault on Miranda immediately went in to high gear as numerous media outlets, citing “unnamed sources familiar with the investigation,” claimed that the supposed flow of “valuable information” stopped abruptly upon the defendant being read his rights. Tsarnaev had been questioned for over 16 hours prior to being Mirandized, but the story being disseminated was that still more time was needed.
United States Magistrate Marianne Bowler has been vilified for seeing that Tsarnaev receive rights normally afforded to the accused, including his Miranda warning
Congressman Peter King, a reliable Islamophobe who is perhaps best known for regularly uttering baseless and unfounded sound bites for the camera, called the decision to give Tsarnaev his legal rights “disgraceful” and was highly critical of Attorney General Eric Holder for not expressing opposition. “This was not required by American law,” King puzzlingly claimed. “The fact is the FBI was only 16 hours into an interrogation. They had already gotten some significant information, but much more was still not there. Who else was involved? What was his mother's role? Did his father have any role? Where did the radicalization start? How did it start? Are there any other conspirators out there? Who was part of it? Who assisted him in any way?” King asserted that we may never know the consequences of the FBI not being able to properly finish their interrogation.
A later interview with King further embellished the value of Tsarnaev’s pre-Miranda interview. "This was such a productive interrogation, and so much information was coming out," he said. King’s statement highlighted the notion that the valuable flow of information suddenly stopped once the suspect’s Miranda rights were read and doubtlessly would have continued had he not been needlessly Mirandized.
Congressman Peter King wasted no time hitting the airwaves with scurrilous claims regarding the Boston bombing
King’s statement is disingenuous on several levels. Authorities are always free to question an arrestee before Mirandizing him, but statements elicited by such questioning ordinarily cannot be used to prosecute him. Considering the plethora of evidence against Tsarnaev, this distinction likely mattered little in this instance.
The Times reports that in addition to saying he knew of no additional bombs or terrorist plots during the initial interrogation, Tsarnaev confirmed his involvement in the attack on the Boston Marathon. Without the "public safety" exception, that admission of guilt could not be used against him in court. But given all the other sources of evidence in this case—including video, photographs, witnesses, and leftover bomb-making materials as well as any statements Tsarnaev made after he was read his rights—that exclusion is probably insignificant.
Civil liberties advocates have said a suspect should rarely be questioned without a lawyer and without being told he does not have to respond. "Miranda rights are an incredibly important civil liberties safeguard," said Hina Shamsi of the American Civil Liberties Union. "The public safety exception must be read narrowly, as it has been by the courts."
Hina Shamsi of the ACLU spoke out against questioning Tsarnaev without a Miranda warning
But California Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff, a former federal prosecutor, said he has questions about how the court proceeding came about. "I would have thought the public safety exception would have allowed more time for the questioning of the suspect prior to the arraignment and/or advising of rights," Schiff said.
Congressman Adam Schiff spoke out against reading Tsarnaev his Miranda rights
The Associated Press reported that the surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings acknowledged to the FBI his role in the attacks, but did so before he was advised of his constitutional right to remain silent and retain counsel. Once Tsarnaev was read his rights on Monday, he immediately stopped talking, according to four officials of both political parties who were briefed on the interrogation, but insisted on anonymity because the briefing was private. The AP also reported the 16 hours of uninterrupted cooperation that preceded the reading of Tsarnaev’s Miranda rights.
Various media accounts claim that investigators were “surprised” by the actions of Magistrate Bowler. These sources similarly claim that the defendant has not spoken to interrogators since being Mirandized. The uniformity of the claims made by these unnamed sources is interesting to say the least. These sources have been careful to all remain stridently on point.
The various media accounts appear to have been systematically coordinated to report that Tsarnaev was an unusually cooperative terror suspect until such time that a federal magistrate insisted upon his Miranda rights being administered. Having received his rights, his desire to aide his inquisitors all but vanished. The media has breathlessly parroted this story, but failed to delve into its glaring improbability.
It appears odd that a cooperative suspect would furnish 16 hours’ worth of vital information only to stop suddenly upon receiving his Miranda rights. Not only has the media failed to explain this glaring rough patch in the story, they have not even attempted to meaningfully examine the matter. The media’s stunning lack of analysis leaves many unanswered questions and casts serious doubt upon the official account.
All of this begs the question of who is seeking to craft the story in this direction and what is their motive for so doing. No one has come up with a plausible explanation as to why a cooperative defendant would suddenly become unresponsive just because of the formality of being read his Miranda rights. Instead, all that has been reported is an account which suggests that Miranda is aiding terrorism and placing people in mortal danger. While it cannot be readily proven, a wider agenda appears to be at work.
(Originally published at Online Publishing Company, www.onlinepublishingcompany.info)