what does the public safety exception mean when it comes to miranda? what's your understanding? >> so the public safety exception, which was -- comes from the floros case, it's right now, i think, a limited exception. it enables -- >> very limited. >> that's right. >> very undefined. >> it enables the police essentially to be able to question, to find the gun, you know, to find something that might pose an imminent risk of public safety. >> now, let's stop there. so the public safety exception is about proteing the law enforcement officers and maybe securing the crime scene. what i'm trying to illustre is that the public safety exception i'm looking for would allow the intelligence community to find out about where this guy came from. where did you train? is there another attack coming? and right now, the law is very -- do you think it would be in the united states' best interest to have clear guidance to our intelligence community, give them the tools and inflexibility when they capture one of these guys, whether it's in times square or detroit, to find out without having to do

for the legal scholars out the obviously miranda is a cotitutional rule. you know that from thdecision on the supreme court. it can't be changed or overrules by statute. th is how the federal egal hiarchy functions. but te supreme crt's recognized exction to the branof roel in 84and case but said questioning prmpteby concerns about public safety don't have to be precedeby miranda warnings and to use the person who answers to those questions touport his conviction and incarceration a capacity since even if you don't ndized. now the quarrels didn't fault a common criminal a guy who committed an amed robbery and ran from the police into a supermarket in cheese afr them and he had holster but no gun and where is te gun. it was in the art thng. the questin of the court said we know interrogation even thouh you didn't mirandize they can me in against because it was prompted by concern a public safety which is we don't want guns laying arou the supermarkets. however the public safety recognized by the supreme court put apply to aery different ntext and that is mo

>> the miranda issue is only applicable in article 3ourts as a matter of criminal law. >> okay. if you catch a person in afghanistan -- >> i should correct that. i should correct that. because i think that the question of whether miranda is applicable in military commissions has not been decided. >> right. well, you have article 31 rights, which are the same thing, but that is yet to be decided. but under general rule where you don't need the enemy the article 31 rights when you're in a fire fight. for these hearings to be meaningful and instructive, i think it's good to have an open discuion about when we are fighting a war and when we are fighting a crime. what is the consequences of criminalizing this war? my fear is that if we criminalize this war, we're going to get americans killed for no higher purpose. and that the idea that you would take someone off an airplane or in times square and start reading them their miranda rights within a few hours is criminalizing the war because the reason we're captur these people initially is to find out what they know about the enemy. do

think about miranda in a similarrway. if you mirandize somebody and get them to talk, you get both the intelligence and the capacity to detain him using those statements. if you do not on the make it the intelligence, but you might get the enhanced detention option. we should be clear, there will be cases in which a mirandize concession is all that stands between containing a guy at letting him go. those cases may not come up every day, but they will come up. i mean, i think that is the way i think about it in his pragmatic approach. that is what is public safety exception is an appealing one because it would allow us to do and warrants interrogation. so it there is a concern about the inhibitory a bag of miranda, it would not be present. and yes, the statements would be admissible. in terms of present an, the rule is you present them to a magistrate without unnecessary delay under rule 5 of criminal procedure. and that generally means within the number of hours or overnight sometimes on the weekends it would be the next

miranda priestley.the beleaguered it totalitarian at the head of "runway" magazine in "devil wears producada." to my mind, this represents such an off -- optimistic shift. they relate to miranda. they wanted to date linda. they felt sorry for linda, but they feel like miranda. they can relate to her issues, standards she sets for herself and others, the fecklessness of leadership position. the "nobody understands me" thing. the loneliness. they stand outside one character, and a pity her, and the kind of fall in love with her, but they look to the eyes of this other character. this is a huge deal, because as people in the movie business know, the absolute hardest thing in the whole world is to persuade a straight male audience to identify with a woman protagonist, to feel themselves embodied by her. this more than any other factor explains why we get the movies we get and the paucity of roles where women drive the film. it is much easier for the female audience, because we all brought up identifying wit

miranda priestley.leaguered it totalitarian at the hd of "runway" magazine in "devil wears producada." to my mind, this represents such an off -- optimistic shift. they relate to miranda. they wanted to date linda. they felt sorry for linda, but they feel like miranda. they can relate to her sues, standards she sets for herself and others, the fecklessness of leadership potion. the "nobody understands m" thing. the loneliness. they stand outside one character, and a pity her, and the kind of fall in love with her, but they look to the eyes of this other character. this is a huge deal, because as people in the movie business know, the absolute hardest thing in the whole world is to persuade a straight male audience to identify with a woman protagonist, to feel themselves embodied by her. this more than any other factor explainshy we get the movies we get and the paucity of roles where women drive the film. it is much easier for the female audience, because we all brought up identifying with male characte

supreme court placed new limits today on miranda rights. by 5-4, the justices said criminal suspects must tell police if they're invoking the right not to talk to authorities. the decision came in a case from michigan. a man convicted of murder claimed he had invoked his right to remain silent by remaining silent. wall street tumbled today after the failure to plug the oil well in the gulf of mexico. the continuing spill weighed down energy stocks and the broader market. the dow jones industrial average lost more than 112 points to close at 10,024. the nasdaq fell more than 34 points to close at 22222. former vice president al gore and his wife tipper put out the word today that they are separating. an email announcing the split was circulated among the couple ing friends. in it the gores said it was a mutual and mutually supportive decision. the gores have been married for 40 years. those are some of the day's major stories. now back to jim. >> lehrer: still to come on the newshour tonight, battling the bulge in china and celebrating 30 at

should enemy combatants be read miranda rights? >> you know, if they're going to be tried in criminal courts, they should be. if they're going to be tried as war criminals, there are a different set of protocols. and the idea -- we have a mistaken idea that you're either a war criminal r you're a criminal that violates the criminal code of the united states

for instance, in terms of the immediate threat exception to thgiving the miranda rule as appropriate.but i am hopeful that we will have a rational reason debate about how to do what we have done or how to respond to what we have done. that is it take people into custody who are not prisoners of war in the classic sense. but they are people that we hold that have not been in adjudicated other than by the military as having committed an offense. i think we need to figure that out. and i do not mean to imply that everybody that is detained in a foreign land, for an venue, is treated as a criminal defendant. i want to make that clear. i am not saying that. i do not want that misinterpreted by anybody, particularly the media and some of my conservative friends. but i am saying that this is a complicated, difficult issue and should be dealt with based upon that promise. >> thank you all very, very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> a live picture of the flag being flown at half mast over the capitol build

she's never ruled on the exclusionary rule, the miranda doctrine, an unlawful search and seizure allegation, a due process claim, an equal protection violation or any constitutional issue. she's never enpaneled a jury, she's never instructed a jury on reasonable doubt or sentenced a person to the pen trenchry. she's never had to decide whether a witness was telling the truth or not. as a judge, she's never heard a plaintiff, a defendant, a victim or a child testify as a witness. she's never made that all-important decision of deciding whether or not a person is guilty or not guilty of a crime. she's never held the gavel in a courtroom and she's never made any decision in the heat of a trial. she's never ruled on a life and death issue. elena kagen has never made a judgment call from the bench, not a single one. but as a supreme court justice, she'd be second-guessing trial judges and trial lawyers who had been through the mud and blood and tears of an actual trial in an actual court of law. how can she possibly be qualified to fill the post of a sueme court justice? . being a judge would be

should any people be read miranda rights? >> they should be if they are tried in the criminal courts. if they are tried as war criminals, there is a different protocols. you're either a war criminal or a criminal that violates the criminal code of the united states. many acts will violate both. the decision on how do move forward relates to what are your objectives? i think you should think about a couple of things in making the decision. it will be a decision that has to be tailored to the needs of the circumstance and what your objectives are. one thing we need to understand is that in everything ww do we teach. the enemy will learn something with what ever we do. certain kinds of exposures and information will teach the enemy very valuable things that would be iimproper for us to teach them. we should not have the kind of exposure that regular trials offer if it is possible to adjudicate the individual in another setting which would not provide that kind of exposure. we should not teach the enemy anymore than we have to. t

for instance, in terms of the immediate threat exception to thgiving the miranda rule as appropriate. but i am hopeful that we will have a rational reason debate about how to do what we have done or how to respond to what we have done. that is it take people into custody who are not prisoners of war in the classic sense. but they are people that we hold that have not been in adjudicated other than by the military as having committed an offense. i think we need to figure that out. and i do not mean to imply that everybody that is detained in a foreign land, for an venue, is treated as a criminal defendant. i want to make that clear. i am not saying that. i do not want that misinterpreted by anybody, particularly the media and some of my conservative friends. thank you all very much. >> but you senator. -- thank you center. >> west virginia senator robert byrd served more than -- watch a 1988 profile of the senator and his book notes interview on the history of the senate on line in the c-span video library. it is washington, your way. >> now, an event with a treasury department officia

should enemy combatants be read miranda rights? >> you know, if they're going to be tried in criminal courts, they should be. if they're going to be tried as war criminals, there are a different set of protocols. and the idea -- we have a mistaken idea that you're either a war criminal r you're a criminal that violates the criminal code of the united states. many acts will violate both. and the decisio about how you move forward in a case relates to what are your objectives. i think you should think about a couple of things in making the decision and it'll be a decision which has to be tailored to the needs of the circumstances and the -- and what your objectives are. one of the things we nee to understand is that in everything we do, we teach. so the enemy will learn something with whatever we do. certain kinds of exposures of certain kinds of information will teach the enemy very valuable things that would be improper for us to teach them. so i think we ought to be very careful about taking those kinds circumstances and having th