Here is the problem with that
““3. There may be exceptional cases in which, although all relevant public safety questions have been asked, agents nonetheless conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat, and that the government’s interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation.””
In US law you have to protect the rights of the worst in order to protect all of our rights. You shouldn’t pick and choose.
Ex:
This person SHOULD know his rights so don’t read Miranda.
This person is deemed by DHS to be a terrorist (right wing Christian) so let’s interrogate for a long while under public safety exemption under #3 as expressed by Holder.
This is a huge slippery slope. I don’t trust Holder or anyone in Obama’s regime.
Here is one more question.
You want a lawyer. You tell Holder you want a lawyer.
Can he deny you one under his expanded Public Safety “your a terrorist “ regime so that he can further interrogate you.
My original post suggested we as society should not look for "exceptions" in the law as some are suggesting for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The importance for even and consistent execution of the law
If I understand your post correctly, item 3 re exceptional cases . . . yes I agree this is very much a dangerous and slippery slope
Sadly our own Republican leaders said the following . . .
“We have concerns that limiting this investigation to 48 hours and exclusively relying on the public safety exception to Miranda, could very well be a national security mistake. It could severely limit our ability to gather critical information about future attacks from this suspect,” they said.
They being Sen. King, McCain and Ayotte
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/20/should-boston-bombing-suspect-get-a-miranda-warning-debate-follows-friday-capture/