This was the most concerning part of that article. It's easy to see that the United States was founded on a system of checks and balances, that's something that we all learn starting in elementary school. It's disturbing to see it willingly be thrown away (even with what can be argued just cause), and somewhat reminds me of the movie The Sum of All Fears.Who gets to make this determination? The FBI, in consultation with DoJ, if possible. In other words, the police and the prosecutors, with no one to check their power.
The Maranda rights should of course be read to him. If he confesses without being read the rights, his confession could be thrown out of court. they can question him about other bombs and immediate threats to public safety without being read the rights, because the goal at that point is safety. I don't particularly care about any charges of future conspiracy to commit crimes, we can already get him on the marathon bombings (if he indeed did it) and the other crimes. so there's no need to at conspiracy to commit crimes at the risk of public safety. so in short, ask him about any other bombs and things of that nature; we won't be able to use it against him in court, but who cares, public safety should come first. then read him his rights and ask him about the things he's already done, which we then will be able to use in court. if they don't read him his rights at all, they will have to treat his actions as an act of war, which will just make things more complicated and dangerous. what's the point?
Blah blah blah, okay, this is a decent history of the Miranda exception although it hasn't made an argument yet, okay, yes-- --uh, oh. Way to close the article with a sentence so ridiculously not up to the standards of journalism that you lose all credibility with anyone. That's the point of the article? "This is all fine, but actually someday someone's going to do something wrong soitsnotfineafterall."Because when they can make their own rules, sometime, somewhere, they inevitably will.