SO WHICH IS IT?:

Miranda Worked!: The bizarre criticism of the Faisal Shahzad interrogation. (Emily Bazelon, May 5, 2010, Slate)

The case of Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bombing suspect, is a spectacularly bad test case for arguing against the Miranda warning. But don't take my word for it. Listen to Glenn Beck, suddenly turned constitutional scholar: "We do not shred the Constitution when it's popular. We do the right thing," he said. Also, "How is it that saying a citizen should have their rights read to them … is controversial?"

This is always the correct position—and it's especially so in the Shahzad case. Miranda worked! Law enforcement officials can invoke a public safety exception and delay reading a suspect his rights to get information that would save lives. In Shahzad's case, the FBI invoked the public safety exception. The agency called in its crack interrogation team, asked Shahzad questions with no Miranda warning, and reaped what the FBI says was "valuable intelligence and evidence." Then Shahzad was read his rights. And lo and behold, he waived them and kept talking.

Huh? Isn't she saying that not reading him his rights until it was convenient for the authorities worked? The whim of the police isn't much of a standard, but since Miranda is aConstitutional it's good enough.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 7, 2010 6:58 PM