"[Law enforcement] interviewed Mr. Shahzad . . . under the public safety exception to the Miranda rule. . . . He was eventually transported to another location, Mirandized and continued talking."
-- John Pistole,
FBI deputy director, May 4
All well and good. But what if Faisal Shahzad, the confessed Times Square bomber, had stopped talking? When you tell someone he has the right to remain silent, there is a distinct possibility that he will remain silent, is there not? And then what?"
So begins Krauthammer's analysis of the use of Miranda warnings for terrorism suspects. He ends his column-
My view is that we should treat enemy combatants as enemy combatants, whether they are U.S. citizens (Shahzad) or not (the underwear bomber). If, however, they are to be treated as ordinary criminals, then at least agree on this: no Miranda rights until we know everything that public safety demands we need to know.
I couldn't agree with Krauthammer more strongly. Treating these folks as "ordinary criminals" is too great a risk for public safety.
What do you think?
Read the full column here.