Mr. Phipps said no such thing. He is just concerned about the precedent it will set if he is denied his constitutional rights as an American citizen.
Never said he said it. I said “apparently”.
How do you figure this would set a precedent? It happens frequently.
And, BTW, when you refer to “constitutional rights”, please explain where in the actual Constitution it says we have the right to be told we have a right?
The constitution does not give us any rights. It restricts what the government can do. In this case, the only penalty the government faces for questioning him without first Mirandizing him is that it cannot use any evidence they gain when they take him to court.
And if he doesn’t already know the government is forbidden from compelling him to be a witness against himself, he’s an idiot.
The information the government will be seeking without Mirandazing him is info about the involvement of others. So, by answering those questions, he won’t be testifying against himself as much as testifying against others.
So, spare us your uninformed concern for his rights.