I do not assert that Mirandizing him makes him a suspect.
I only mean to address anything learned from him. I want any potentially useful information learned from him to be admissible. Is there any such information? I don't know. Will he say it? I don't know.
It’s when the entirety of the circumstances require that you treat a person of interest as a suspect that you are then required to respect certain constitutional rights and if you wish to question him, then mirandize him.
I mostly agree with this, except that it must be a custodial relationship. Merely suspecting someone of a crime is not enough, but that doesn't really apply here, I just point it out procedurally. If someone is free to leave but I suspect them of a crime, I can question them all day and the results will be admissible. The moment they either A) incriminate themselves, or B) are in my custody and not free to leave, the courts will begin to discern whether any statements made to me were done with an understanding of their rights.
In this case, that entire construct can be ignored by asking specific questions related to public safety. I see we have differing views about how to apply this stuff; I must say it's a pleasure discussing it with someone who knows what they're talking about. Hopefully we can get some clarity about their decision in the coming days if they either justify, or fail to justify, whatever way they chose to play this.
It's past my bedtime - have a good night and thanks for the discussion.
If this is what I think it is, Article III courts and their procedures don't matter at all.
I want as much information, as fast as possible, for use not by courts in a trial but by US and Russian special forces to prosecute in Pakistan and Chechnya (and maybe Saudi Arabia).
The kid is going to be convicted and executed, regardless of whether or not he is Mirandaized. We need to find, fix, and kill his chain of command, and most of them are not here and even if they are are not under the jurisdiction of Article III courts.
Thanks for the kind words.
My point anyway is somewhat theoretical - there is so much evidence already in possession against this guy that the miranda point we are discussing probably is not significant one way or another.
This is a slam dunk case from an evidence point of view. I don’t see anything significant right now that a defense lawyer has to work with - unless the cops or prosecutors foolishly screw up and hand them something to work with, and I would hate to see that.
Because of the overwhelming nature of the evidence, and assuming no screw-ups on our side, there should be no serious chance of this going to trial. The negotiating between the two legal sides should quickly arrive at negotiating over penalty in exchange for cooperation.
Of course if Holder won’t seek the death penalty, that weakens the government negotiating position. On the other hand, if this guy is a true believer, he may WANT to be put to death by the US and go collect his virgins, so it depends. And in that case, he’s certainly not going to cooperate and tell what he knows about other members of the terrorist cell or network.