According to the article, it defines it as applicable if the government believes someone may have information of urgent concern to public safety, which has been around since 1984. They expanded that in 2010 to include that: “there may be exceptional cases in which, although all relevant public safety questions have been asked, agents nonetheless conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat, and that the government's interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation.”

Imo the first part definitely applies to this particular case with the evidence against him and the scale of attack, considering they had to shutdown an entire city and many towns. Whether or not one agrees with the original rule is a different story. The 2010 revised part seems very non-specific and subjects one's rights to an individual authority's conclusion.

http://news.msn.com/us/boston-bombing-what-we-know?ocid=fbmsn

Well for one since "Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev lay hospitalized in serious condition under heavy guard Saturday as people around the city breathed easier and investigators tried to piece together the who and why of the deadly plot." It would make since not to read the Miranda because there still maybe a potential threat hence the whole purpose of this order. Is there more bombs should be the question and once they feel they have a good answer then he will be read his Miranda rights and given the right to seek counsel. Terrorists whether citizens or not should have to answer some questions before being set off to seek counsel.

so if he says no there is more bombs, then does he get his rights? what if the investigators don't believe him. then does he not get his rights back and gets subjected to more intense interrogation?

who is the decision maker on his rights? I know, he's a suspected terrorist, but he's a US citizen as well and we have rights as citizen that are protected by the constitution.

I dont know you tell me? Why the fuck do you think PB has the answers. Go ask somebod who knows. And fuck thais dudes right what about the rights OF THE INNOCENT PEOPLE MINDING THEIR FUCKING BUISNESS AND THEN GETTING ATTACKED WITH BOMBS. WHAT ABOUT THEIR RIGHTS? HE WAITED TO BECOME A CITIZEN THEN ATTACKED AMERICA DONT FORGET THAT MR.

WESTBORO!

sorry for assuming there was some intelligence on prisonblock that could carry out debate, I guess I was wrong.

"Mr Westboro", good one, way to start up the insults again.

contrary to what you think, we've got some good thinkers on this game who often have a very good opinion to share, we have a representation across a wide variety of countries, I think it is a great place to discuss current events.

so you're saying it's all good if someone looks like a terrorist, then they get no rights. we still haven't seen any evidence that these two guys actually dropped and set the bombs off. sure, media says that is what happened, fbi says that is what happened, is that all it takes to withdraw someones rights? look at how many people in boston opened their doors in fear to the droves of swat teams and armed forces conducting door-to-door searches without a warrant.

First off the guy CANT talk right now. And whether hes been read his Miranda rights He should know his rights I do!

so its okay because he can't talk then, great argument. Oh and he should know his rights because you do, so fuck him, another good argument.

so the boston officials have given the all-clear in boston to resume normal activity, does this mean there is no longer an imminent threat? isn't that the point of the "public safety option"? so we're just going to question him until we feel we get what we need, then give him his rights back?

i'm not defending this guy, i'm defending our rights as Citizens. What if they happened to pick up the wrong perp on camera and the media and everyone is assuming he is the one that did it. he gets no rights?

Why would a non guilty person get in gun fights with cops and be found with ied's strapped to them?

not questioning the actions of these guys, questioning the actions used to justify the denial of rights to this individual.

Amendment IV:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Last edited by hokiefan 13 years ago