Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
let let's talk about why there's a piece by emily days uh... basil on
in uh...
slate i think it is
as too well why you should care
if joe guards arnab
uh...
has his miranda rights red
and we know
and we can talk about this briefly last week
i think it was on tuesday
monday or tuesday night
where uh... former f_b_i_ agent on uh... all in
faces show
had said they think they will be read their miranda rights
because of the public safety exception now understand that
nineteen sixty six
the supreme court said
that suspects
in a criminal case and remember that this will be tried
in a criminal court
suspects in a criminal case need to be read their rights they need to know what
rights the constitution grants them
right remain silent
the knowledge that anything they say can be used against them in a court of law
the right to have an attorney
and in nineteen eighty four
there was a case that the supreme court of united states heard
that carved out
an exemption
to win a suspect needed to be read
his or her granddaughters
he was in the context of a case
where a man was suspected of ***
the victim
said that her assailant had a gun
the guys added an empty holster
and so the cops have every reason to believe that the guy did have a gun
that it was somewhere else
and for the sake of public safety before they moran does them
they asked him where the gunboats
and the exception was allowable and anything they found in terms of finding
that gun was still admissible
because
someone could find that gone
shoot themselves
somewhat to find that gun shoot someone else
there was a public safety exemption here
in two thousand two
the s_b_a_ a f_b_i_ messed up apparently the interrogation as a carousel messiah
with the twentieth uh...
nine eleven hijacker never gone on to the point
former f_b_i_ special agent cali rally wrote a memo pleading
the quote that if prevention rather prosecution is to be our new main goal
subjective she agreed with
we need more guidance on when we can apply
the quarles public safety course is the case into in nineteen eighty four
public safety exception to the brand is fifth amendment requirements
so in other words
we needed to know that in that instance that we have the ability because it was
an imminent threat to public safety
to not miranda is this guy
following the apprehension of
the christmas day bomber
the f_b_i_ invoked the public safety's engine interrogated
they stopped and uh... they stopped
the interrogation after fifteen minutes
the dental and eye stem
after days after getting what they said was valuable information
uh... the suspect then ask for a lawyer stop talking
later
he ended up dead
talking
with his attorney after being miranda eyes
and gave them valuable information
but a significant period uh... time later after he was treated at the
hospital
then you add the times square bomber
he was interrogated without miranda warnings
the f_b_i_ claimed it did get useful information
following the time that he was then miranda ized he kept talking
at that time in two thousand ten falling uh...
holder is the at the justice department wanted
the congress to take up a bill
so that he had statutory authority
to expand
this exemption to the miranda award dim random right
to expand the definition
of public safety
to something that was not imminent
you may recognize that um...
beckoned seat we see that now with
who refused an imminent threat in terms of
being chosen to be assassinated by drones or any other means against them
congress did not take up this measure
so the department of justice wrote a memo
essentially expanding this exemption
on their own
unilaterally it's never been tested
never signed off by court
there may be exceptional cases in which all the relevant public safety questions
have been asked
agents nonetheless conclude that continued unwarranted interrogation is
necessary to collect a valuable in timely intelligence
not related to any immediate threat
and that the government intercepting his intelligence outweighs the disadvantages
of preceding with unwarranted interrogation
the courts may yet have the opportunity to do this
the f_b_i_ may in fact
harm their chances of getting a prosecution
if they go beyond what the court would find reasonable in this instance
but remember this is setting a precedent every time we do something like this
is setting a precedent that gets expanded an expanded we know
from reporting last week or the week before and mcclatchy
that the drone program is no longer and has not been used
solely for people who represent
even an expanded definition of imminent threat to the united states it is used
essentially as
and bargaining chip
where we offer the services of using our drugs to assassinate other people
on behalf of other governments to get things from other governments that we
want
maybe its intelligence maybe it's
i don't
rights to do a pipeline and who knows if they can be considered national security
this is the way that you expand
the destruction of these rights
doesn't happen at once happens bit bidyut bidyut
you