"Public Safety" Exception to Miranda Rights: How Secure Are Yours?
19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon bombing SUSPECT was not read his Miranda rights because the government is invoking the public safety exception to Miranda.
A thorough reading of Miranda shows the government's decision here is a clear abuse of the intent of that public safety exception to Miranda. After all, now that Dzhokhar in custody, is he still a threat to the public?
So what gives? Here's what: Holder and the FBI decided a few years ago--without congressional approval--that the public safety exception could be " broadened" (bit.ly/slate-on-miranda).
Do you mind that such an essential protection be gutted by law enforcement, the very organization from which Miranda gives protection???
When is it okay to allow government agents to upend our constitutional protections--the very ones that were put in place to protect us from government agents--in the name of "public safety"?
Now that the public safety exception to Miranda has been so publicly and righteously applied to Dzhokhar, could it be applied to you under similar circumstances?
Is this a morally-correct use of the exception?
And what did the Boston Manhunt accomplish? In the words of my liberty friend and relentless newsman, Danny Panzella, it "got the sheeple to accept a military style lockdown (including the closing of businesses in the Boston area!); warrantless searches of individuals homes; no Miranda rights for suspects... thanks for submitting Boston... beta test successful."
Will Kentuckians submit to martial law under these circumstances? Will you?
Under what conditions will you allow a warrantless search of your home?
Activist Post has an excellent article on the topic here, including the Twitter feed from that Protector of the Constitution Lindsay Graham. If you are liberty-minded in the least, Graham being in Congress should scare you to death. Which leads me to wonder where Mitch is on the topic? Hahahaha. Kidding. I don't wonder.