Watch the debate: Should Miranda rights apply to terrorism suspects?
Last week, the Obama Administration announced a dramatic switch on the procedures law enforcement personnel should follow when interrogating “operational terrorists” on issues that involved an “immediate” threat.
The new rules, which were outlined in a FBI memo, expanded the previous “public safety” exception to Miranda rights — the requirement that suspects first be informed that anything they say may be used in a court of law against them, that they have a right to an attorney and to remain silent.
Heretofore, there had to be an “imminent threat” — a stricter standard than “immediate” — for pre-Miranda statements to be admissible in court. But the Obama justice department declared that the “magnitude and complexity” of the terrorism issue required a “significantly more extensive public safety interrogation without Miranda warnings than would be permissible in an ordinary criminal case.”
On March 5, in a public program presented by the National Constitution Center’s Peter Jennings Project for Journalists and the Constitution, two prominent Supreme Court litigators — Carter Phillips and Kanan Shanmugam — argued this very issue before a panel of distinguished federal judges. You can watch the moot court here.