not just miranda.randa, it's the engagement of lawyers and it's an entirely different scenario. do you think we will have trouble prosecuting this guy? >> of course not. we don't need his confession. >> why didn't we wait? >> wait, wait. >> that would have been completely lawless. don't blame the justice department -- >> wait, you just said it was an act of terror. >> of course. >> and a crime. >> and you can still prosecute later, but in the meantime before you offer miranda rights, get some of america's best interrogators in there and you find out what this guy knows. is he connected to a larger cell? are there pending attacks? are there foreign links? where did the training come from? how did you learn to make the bombs? basic simple questions this we need to know because the safety and security of the american people in this case i think are paramount. >> sean, do you know who gave him his miranda rights? >> i don't know exactly who but we were told he was. >> a federal judge, a magistrate judge at

there's too much misinformation about miranda. we're looking at it based on television programs tv series. if there's a miranda violation, that means that that statement that individual made can't be used in a court of law against him. however, this individual -- julian is right, the fbi is gathering that -- they already said they took full responsibility to it to the person whose car they carjacked. all they mean is statements you get are admissible. it's an affirmative defense on an evidentiary point. >> so your point is, just so i can clarify, your point is, we can still very likely put this guy in jail, or get the death penalty, whatever we decide. we may not need any of these statements against him in court. why not interrogate him for public safety reasons longs as long as we want? >> jay is right. the guy confessed in the carjacking. the terror suspect confessed to being the boston bomber. tim think mcveigh was mirandized. there isn't a problem here, which is why i'm surprised that senator graham, senator mccain and others

but to advise him of his miranda rights, we hear that he was advised today of his miranda rights. how did he respond? did he say he wanted to remain silent or did he waive that and he wants to talk without his attorney present? the interesting part about

the fact that we're rolling back miranda rights is unconstitutional. is it when it comes to our civil liberties we're willing to basically brush it all under the rug because we're trying to fight terrorism. he's still an u.s. citizen. >> let me put one thing out there. ana, i agree with you. i think he should have been mirandaizeed right away. it could evidence used against him, now we can't because he didn't get his miranda warnings. number two he could have implicated others, and that's fruit of a pointous poisonous tree. we might not have been able to get those guys at all if he talked before the miranda warning. that said i don't i don't believe in the miranda warning. we have those rights. if there is an argument is to be made. why are we telling them they can be quiet. >> you use the exception in this case. when the judge comes in and he stops talking i'm willing to take the risk that there are other bombs out there if my civil liberties are going to be taken. >> that's not how it works. bombs just blew up last week. that's public safety. that's

, remember miranda only excludes the actual statement itself. but if the statements were obtained involuntarily as a result of the sedation, not only can't they use the statements in court, but they can't use any of the fruits of those poison trees. so if they get any leads, they can't use those against this defendant. now, they can use it against others. they can use it for general intelligence gathering. so i agree with jeffrey that they may be making a calculated decision to risk any statements of confessions or intention in order to preserve the greater good of getting realtime intelligence information. >> and public safety which cannot be discounted at this time, that fruit of the poisonous tree so critical in this investigation. alan and jeffrey, standby if you will. we're going to delve a lot deeper into the details in the hour ahead. and also within the past hour a funeral mass concluded for one of the three people who was killed in last week's explosions. there were a lot of mourners packing into st. joseph's church in the boston suburb

in the miranda law.that. why are we still under the same miranda laws. if they want to do this to criminal justice system, i think we should declare them enemy combatants. if you are going to use the criminal justice system, why don't they fix that four years have after they read a terrorist his miranda rights. >> megyn: we're going to talk to andrew mccarthy. the guy who put the blind sheik in jail. he will talk to him about whether this hole public safety exception argument we got from the administration, don't worry, we will go public safety exception to miranda. it was a big fraud. whether it was big fraud that was perpetrated on the american people because that exception under their own interpretation and behavior gave them not enough time, gave them not enough time. f.b.i. interrogators had said so. after this break, we'll pick up the debate. how are you on the terror watch list and getting public benefits at the same time? ...or letting them know they can reach geico 24/7 using the latest technolo

read him his miranda rights and let the criminal justice work. that's what we do in america. >> you think this needs to happen by the end of today at this point? >> once the fbi is able to ascertain whether or not there are continued threats to public safety, they should not expand further public safety exemptions. to do so is going to get their nick nice knickers in a twist. look at the 9/11 defendants. we tortured them, held them in secret prisons. we still have not prosecuted the alleged master minds of the 9/11 attacks. if boston wants and all of america wants justy, the best way is to let the criminal justice system kick up and work. to make it up as we go along is foolhardy, unconstitutional, and frankly really un-american. >> anthony romero, executive director for the aclu. thank you for coming on the show this morning, sharing your views. appreciate it. >> thank you. >>> we're expecting to get an update, by the way, any minute now on the conditions of some of the boston bombing victims who are still in the hospital. >>> plus, how should t

government has not yet red dzhokhar tsarnaev his miranda rights. we'll discuss when the aclu's mike german joins us just ahead. i've always had to keep my eye on her... but, i didn't always watch out for myself. with so much noise about health care... i tuned it all out. with unitedhealthcare, i get information that matters... my individual health profile. not random statistics. they even reward me for addressing my health risks. so i'm doing fine... but she's still going to give me a heart attack. we're more than 78,000 people looking out for more than 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare. and "up to 75% lower copays." as a preferred pharmacy, walgreens can save you as much as 75% compared to other select pharmacies. walgreens, at the corner of happy and healthy. >>> when ruslan tsarni held court with the media on friday, he tried to give a snapshot of his nephews' lives, he also defended his heritage, as well as his newfound homeland. >> i respect this country, i love this country. this country, which gives chance to e

i don't think the miranda argument is particularly important in the end. they'll convict him if he lives. and if they don't give him miranda warnings, maybe they'll get more information about if there are other individual involved in this conspiracy. >> do you think that's part of it? other individuals involved? as someone who's been in the situations before, how big a concern is that, of the decisions tonight? >> sure. it's not about getting additional evidence against him. the public safety exception is to find out whether or not there is explosive devices out there that would cause some harm to the public -- >> which they're worried about. they don't know where all the pipe bomb went. >> sure. it's an absolute right to use the public safety exception in these circumstances. or is there an act of conspiracy beyond him and his brother. that's important for law enforcement to get to the heart of that as quickly as possible. >> that's an important point. we've been talking about, you know, they thought during the day that he could have some of those pipe bo

so it's more than miranda. it's miranda, you don't have to talk, if you can't afford a lawyer, i'll give you one. he can't afford a lawyer, here's a lawyer. he's not going to talk after he has a lawyer. the lawyer is going to advise him not to. that's a miranda issue. as far as what pete says, he's exactly right. it's a little vague. ray kelly can be right as well. two things can be right here. because, look, these guys had a pressure cooker bomb. let's just take that bomb that they threw at the watertown police. they didn't buy the components for that bomb, chris, between the time their pictures were released on thursday night at 5:00 and the time they killed brian collier of the m.i.t. police. they didn't buy those components, acquire it then, or build it then. it was already built. they already had this pressure cooker bomb, chris. probably remote control like the other two. they weren't going to sell it on ebay. they were going to detonate it somewhere. now, they might not have planned more. they might not

of all this nonsense but let's move on here earlier this week show cars are new if was given his miranda rights and this has upset some conservatives and i've heard some democrats question whether or not it was a good decision to give him his miranda rights he were there was a delay and he was arrested friday night over the weekend he was questioned for sixteen hours before he was given his miranda rights here's what mike rogers he's the chairman of the permit house permit intelligence committee said about it. when you're talking about weapons of mass destruction this is as serious as it gets and we better err on the side of public safety but to have the court affirmatively push their way in is a i think it's wrong and b we should have given the f.b.i. the time that they needed given the circumstances they infusing its formal god awful policy and dangerous to the greater community and we have got to get to the bottom of this and we've got to fix it right now so we're talking about an american citizen here who is it ever too soon to give someone their miranda rights and they're being char

about these miranda rights. the one thing i want to say about the stove piping issue, that's another thing that has become completely partisan. i talked to diane finestein. it's sad, it's probably not surprising, but it is unbelievable, how quickly it's happened. >> what's sad to me is the republican right are forever telling us that the constitution is their sacred text. it's not a debatable question whether this guy could be held incompetent. it is against the constitution of the yiet to do that. if they want to rip the constitution up, at the slightest hint of terrorism -- >> but something that concerns me is the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. >> they were completely surprised. >> why aren't you defending the constitution? >> i am defending the constitution. jeffrey, i have a question for you, as a lawyer, my understanding is that detained suspects don't have a right to have the miranda rights read to them. they have those rights and they can choose to exercise them. i know it's a little

he's already been read his miranda rights by the fbi. but if he does have some sort of a political issue, some sort of a grudge that he wants people to know about, he may feel it's in his best interest to talk and that is certainly what law enforcement is hoping. they still want to find out are there other suspects, are there people who were accomplices in one way or another, either at helping to plan the bombing, helping plan the subsequent activities, helping plan the manufacture of this device. they want to know why these people did this and more importantly, how they went about doing it, any other people of foreign or domestic, they were in contact with and if he starts to talk, that will obviously help the investigation tremendously. >> anderson, you've done a great job today. thank you very much for now. i want to turn to cnn's brian todd in watertown, who shot exclusive video of the boat while the bombing suspect was still inside it. brian, a quite dramatic end game here to what has been an appalling few days for the people of wat

rights or wasn't read his miranda rights until after he'd pretty much said everything he had to say and republicans are jumping on these revelations to justify either even further fudging of the constitution when law enforcement officials first captured the nineteen year olds are to have last friday president obama announced the federal investigators would not immediately read him his miranda rights and only when someone is arrested arresting officers are required to remind them of their right to not incriminate themselves and to be. represented by an attorney the fifth amendment right against self incrimination is among our most important constitutional protections because it protects us from abuse of and by the one single institution that we have empowered to imprison and even legally kill us our government but in certain situations for example when an individual in custody knows the whereabouts of a ticking bomb the supreme court has ruled the police can interrogate that individual before reminding him or her of their miranda rights this is the so-called public safety exception i

dzhokhar tsarnaev will not be read his miranda rights before he's questioned. once he's physically able to answer questions. as far as we know, he's still in too bad of shape to answer law enforcement questions at all. in terms of what he is waiting for, for his miranda, you know it from law and order, right? you have the right to remain silent, anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law, you have the right to consult an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning. if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. if you decide to answer any questions without an attorney present, you have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney knowing and understanding your rights as i explain them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present. it is not always exactly like that. in the movies, the person saying it usually has a much cooler accent. but that's pretty much the idea. the idea is that your statements are only admissible

all miranda gets you is a confession you can use in court. you can use that information for everything else. remember, he confessed already to the guy they kidnapped. the guy he kidnapped says, these two guys told us, we did the bombing. they got great witness and they got a great confession. maybe even better than a law enforcement confession where you can claim it was forced out of you. they gave a upon takenious confession -- spontaneous confession. >> bob wants to get in here. so then why did they need to make that statement? i'm trying to figure out why they made that statement? >> i don't know exactly why they made it. maybe because they got so much criticism -- remember the christmas morning bomber that they mirandaized right away, lost the opportunity to get information from him? so i think maybe they were playing defense. >> let me ask you a question, mayor. they closed down the city of boston, all of it, they closed down businesses, universities. granted, this was a horrendous attack, but even after 9-11, you didn't close this city

despite this new information republicans are saying that so far starting have had it was read his miranda rights too early in the interrogation process republicans right or should have have been read his miranda rights even earlier also the tragic explosion in west texas should be a wake up call for all of us join us the importance of effective regulation some people it's not that way i'll talk with one of those people coming up and later in the show your take my take live segment your chance to call in and ask a question or make a comment while on the air. you need to know this new reports reveal the dzhokhar star and have the surviving boston marathon bombing suspect either stopped talking to investigators after he was read his miranda rights or wasn't read his miranda rights until after he'd much said everything he had to say and republicans are jumping on these revelations to justify either even further fudging of the constitution when law enforcement officials first captured the nineteen year olds are to have last friday president obama announced the federal investigators would not i

it was unclear if he was read his miranda rights. in washington, white house spokesman jay carney said he's a naturalized u.s. citizen, so he will not face a military tribunal. >> he will not be treated as an enemy combatant. we will prosecute this terrorist through our civilian system of justice, under us law. u.s. citizen can not be trialed, tried rather in military commissions. and it's important to remember that since 9-11 we have used the federal court system to convict and incarcerate hundreds of terrorists. >> brown: tsarnaev was also likely to face state charges in the shooting death of a police officer at m.i.t. it all followed his dramic capture friday evening, when he was found hiding and wounded in a boat behind a home in the boston suburb of watertown. his older brother tamarlen died hours earlier in a shoot-out with police that triggered the all-day manhunt and shut down the city. yesterday, on cbs, massachusetts governor deval patrick stood by the unprecedented measures. >> i think people understood that we were making

you've been hearing a lot about miranda rights.here's issue at play here that need to be clarified. we're going to read a couple of the things said from the hearing. we have the transcript. the judge said, quoting here, you have been charged with one use of a weapon often mass destruction and malicious destruction of property resulting in death. the case is being prosecuted in part by william weinreb. the maximum penalty on each count is death or imprisonment for any terms of years, or life. and there was this finding from the judge, and this one is important. quote, i find that the defendant is alert, mentally competent, and lucid. he is aware of the nature of the proceedings. okay? so that is the basis for the discussion. joined by retired superior court judge isaac borenstein in boston. he's done hospital visits over his 22 years as a judge. let us begin with the idea, confusion and frustration about miranda rights. give them right away, if you don't give them, then this prosecution is astray. what is the basic understanding of

people thought he should have been not given a miranda warning. it turned out he was questioned for a time and then given his miranda warning and the police said he kept talking. they used it as a textbook example. this will remain a controversial decision. it is the stated policy of the obama administration to take anyone like this who creates a crime in the united states and treat them in the regular civilian justice system. they will take him away. when the appropriate time comes, begin to question him. >> pete, i got an e-mail using a term of art in law enforcement. somebody said, remember, this is a federal show. >> meaning the fbi is in charge. we have already heard some members of the senate say this person should be declared an enemy combatant, not given miranda warning and should be subject to a military-style interrogation. the obama administration will never go for that. they believe suspects who commit crimes here should be treated in the criminal justice system. that's what they will intend to do. >> michael leiter who was, among othe

and miranda doesn't always shut people up. they can still waive the right and he can still talk too, because his lawyer can allow him to talk for some deal. so it can still happen. >> boy, this is getting murky, simple way i can put it, we had an interrogation, out of nowhere comes a judge, stops the interview and the information-gathering. we'll see who had the right to do this. if they still have the right as looked at by the other courts. anyway, thank you, jim cavanaugh. >>> and coming up, what an amazing day as five presidents come together to dedicate the presidential library. and lead it to former first lady barbara bush, saying her son should not run for president. saying we have had enough bushes. whoa, mom, you're taking over this thing. >>> and later, syria, the u.s. intelligence says that the syrian regime used chemical weapons. something that president obama said would be a game-changer. the white house wants more time to get the facts straight before it takes action. finally, where partisanship took a back seat f

there are exceptions to the miranda warning? >> there are exceptions to the miranda warnings.6, the supreme court carved out a number of different exceptions where the police don't need to read the miranda warnings to a suspect and can still introduce in the statements that the suspects make into evidence. >>brian: do you believe this information warrants that exception? >> i do not. i think the government is taking a chance by deciding to go ahead and interview the suspect, future defendant without reading his miranda rights. the exception that they are citing is the public safety exception from a 1984 case, where a suspect was arrested after putting a loaded gun somewhere that supermarket. as the police were driving away, they asked him what he did with the gun, and he told them where it was. the police were able to recover a loaded gun. but in that case the danger to the public was immediate. here, i think we're talking about potentially interviewing this guy, the younger brother, when he wakes up in the hospital after the police have been satisfied that the immediate dange

so the miranda issue may be not all that important as a legal matter. and the fact that they get information from him that can be used to make sure there are no other conspiracies out there, that may be very useful information. and they can still prosecute him very successfully without those statements because it sure seems like there is going to be a lot of evidence against this guy, independent of any statements he might have made. >> i want to bring in our national security analyst, peter bergen, joining us. peter has written extensively on al qaeda and osama bin laden. peter, i appreciate you joining us. what are the questions that you are most interested in learning about these two, in particular about motivation and their operational capability? >> well, first of all, anderson, i think it's very interesting that they were able to detonate two bombs almost simultaneously. i think that's pretty hard. it suggests either practice in the united states or training elsewhere or perhaps both. we've had terrorists who have gone overseas who have tried to d

do we think, your personal opinion, do we think that he should have been read his miranda rights?> i think that he has got that brief window of time. i heard the segment you did with mike ignacious on that and that period of time where if public safety issues arise, allows them to ask questions. i think it appears from what i know, i don't know anything, none of us do right now, that we are in that window, there is a concern for public safety and probably able to question him and i just hope they don't go over that line. they have to make sure that they stay in that line you you want any prosecution to hold up. you want this person to be held accountable. >> what about treating him as an enemy combatant? what is your take on that? >> i don't know all the facts here to establish that yet. i'm not sure that most of us that aren't intimately involved with the investigation know all the niceties involved in making that determination. i would hesitate to make a leap to that point without having quite a bit more information. >> massachusetts congressman john tierney. congressman, thank

miranda rights read.may well cooperate and this may well all have a happy ending and i hope it does and i hope everything works out just fine. there is at least a chance that some information will be lost because of this and it seems to me that when you have an attack of this kind related to muslim extremism as this plainly is especially in the case of the older brother perhaps in the case of this young man as well that intelligence is critical and ought to be a priority. >> bret: yuan, we don't know what if anything he has told investigators up until he was read his miranda rights. that's what we don't know. he is clearly not speaking because of the injury. but, your thoughts? >> i was going to make the point that you made, which is that we don't know what he said before he was read his miranda rights. and it would indicate from the fact that he is nodding that maybe he wasn't able to speak. maybe, i don't know but that's my assumption based on the transcript. i will say i don't think the president had a

so -- this whole debate over the miranda rights, reading the suspect his miranda rights has become a political debate. is it distracttive from thwarting another attack? we will debate that coming up. if you think running a restaurant is hard try running four. fortunately we've got ink. it gives us 5x the rewards on our internet, phone charges and cable, plus at office supply stores. rewards we put right back into our business. this is the only thing we've ever wanted to do and ink helps us do it. make your mark with ink from chase. >>> from washington and beyond everyone is talking about how the u.s. is handle thing investigation. how the suspect is being interrogated. could this have all been prevented? i want to bring in now ll.g. granderson and anna. she is a cnn contributor. l.z. is a contributor and senior writer for espn. i want you to listen to the attorney general eric holder. he was at the white house correspondents dinner last might suspect his miranda rights and peter king this morning blasting him. take a listen. >> can you comment on the suspect being miran appropriate?

do they believe there was a mistake there in reading miranda rights so early?alked to him and democratic senator joe manchin and they expressed considerable distress. it's not the judge, once he had been formally charged on a criminal charge in federal court the judge that went over the next day on monday to the hospital had to notify him of his miranda rights. the question is why was the department of justice in such a hurry to charge him in a criminal case not to continue to question him either not reading his miranda rights or call him an enemy combatant. why were they soe in such a hurry to charge him to be lawyered up and stop talking? >> heather: we can get all more on your interviews. >> no miranda rights for me, thank you, heather. >> heather: you'll have more on texas congressman michael mccall and john manchin and chris is signature down to israeli ambassador to the u.s. it airs at 2:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. only on fox. >> eric: they are remembering and offering sunday morning prayers in boston. coming up, more survivors are speaking out. they are descr

miranda is a nonissue.that miranda warning protect against is that any, that any statement that you get after the miranda warnings can be used in criminal trial. here they didn't need further statements from him. they had photographs for goodness sake of him committing the crime and the own confession to people he carjacked. there is ample evidence without his statement. the purpose to interview him is get intelligence information. >> eric: are you concerned they may not have gotten enough? >> yes. >> eric: what do they do from here? >> well, what do they do? they will probably go ahead with the ordinary criminal process. and allow him to remain where he is and allow the lawyer to determine whether he gets questioned any further. what do i think they could do? i think they could question him for intelligence purposes so long as they kept that separate from the criminal investigation. he wouldn't have any right to have a lawyer present in that interview. anytime he would have a right to have his court-appoin

in terms of what he is waiting for from his miranda. you know it from "law and order." have the right to remain silent. you have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police. if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for you before any questions if you wish. if you decide to answer any questions without an attorney you will still have the right to stop answering. are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present? it's not always exactly like that and in the movies the person saying it usually has a much cooler accent but that's pretty much the idea. your statements are only admissible in court if they come after you've been told that list of things about your rights. there is a public safety exception for questions that just had to be asked of you urgently for legitimate public safety need even if those questions came before you got read the miranda. the obama administration has extended the reach of that public safety exemption so it can last longer to attend to the public safety threats that could accrue in terrorism cas

but he's clammed up since he was read his miranda rights.e white house this morning. good morning, athena. >> good morning. this has been controversial. in fact, house intelligence committee chairman mike rogers wants to know more about why the suspect was read his miranda rights when he was read them. he sent a letter to the attorney general demanding a full accounting of how the decision was reached. it contained multiple questions including who decided that the initial appearance on monday should be held at that specific time and in the hospital while the questioning was ongoing. he also wants to know if the fbi raised concerns about the timing of the reading to the suspect of his right to remain silennd right to a lawyer. those are some questions that he's asking. the department of justice hasn't responded directly to the long list of questions in the l congressman's leer, but prosecutors and fbi agents knew this initial appearance had been scheduled ahead of time. i can also tell you that susan candiotti talked to a law enforcement offi

the aclu released a statement saying that denying miranda rights is un-american. but there is an exception to the miranda rule if there's a continued threat to public safety. the question everyone wants an answer to now lies with 19-year-old dzhokhar tsarnaev, a naturalized u.s. citizen who's recovering in the hospital. namely, what was behind the attack at the boston marathon. terrorism expert neil smeltser at uc berkeley says the first questions investigators will likely ask tsarnaev will have to do with the motive. >> first psychological is is this some kind of a wayward nut like columbine or some of the school shooters apparently have been? what are the linkages? where's this guy -- who's this guy been linked up to? >> reporter: investigators will also want to know if the 19-year-old suspect planted any other explosives anywhere or if others were involved in the plot. the director of the american civil liberties union reacted to the administration's decision not to immediately mirandize tsarnaev by saying, "every criminal defendant is entitled to be read miran

lot of people think if the cops don't read you your miranda rights, the case gets dismissed.ly thing that happens is if you confess, the confession can't be used in the trial against you. if there's other evidence to convict you, you can still be convicted. so a lot of people think oh, gee, i didn't get my rights, case dismissed. so we start with that presumption, but now we're getting into this more interesting issue because the justice department is saying well when there's a public safety emergency we don't have to give miranda warnings. this is going to be very, very controversial, and then senator mccain under the ante by saying this is an enemy combatant and you should treat the case in accordance with the rules of war. what that means is mccain is saying the guy doesn't deserve a jury trial. he's going to be, i don't know whether mccain is suggesting he'd be shipped off to guantanamo, which that would be a radical departure from the way justice is handled in the united states, particularly where a naturalized american citizen is involved and at rest has taken place on

miranda isn't in the constitution.it the confession voluntary not whether a specific set of words were read. rehnquist ended up upholding it because of star idecised us. kind of a stretch that the precise words are necessary. >> geraldo: military tribunal. >> i already answered that. give me a break. you don't have to read miranda to a rapist. the rape is over. we are not worried about another bomb. >> geraldo: say it in english. court or tribunal? >> oh, court or tribunal. i suspect we need to know a little more information but certainly looking like a military tribunal. >> geraldo: do you want it to be a military tribunal? >> depends on the facts but looks like yes, this was. >> geraldo: quadruple murder and four death sentences on this guy. >> i don't care what the guys were saying during the commercial break. a military tribunal done properly are does not give the defendant as many protections as a mere criminal in the united states. >> geraldo: robert first and then bo. >> i feel like a 9th grader trying to get in

it's different from the miranda warning. the other thing.'t forget, if he is not given the miranda warning what the worst thing that can happen? you don't think they have a case without the statement. >> megyn: they have videotape of him placing the bomb. >> they make a calculated decision, getting lawyered up or going forward and getting the bad guys that are still out there. >> megyn: it will be tough to find a jury not willing to convict. death penalty versus not. we're getting overhead shot of the boat where the suspect was last night. this one is less clear. we're going put these on the screen. why is the boston public defender's office so anxious to get involved. >> probably running to the ideological on to the cynical. >> megyn: you think they are unhappy he hasn't been given miranda yet? >> good point. even if he had been given it and made statements and it's a slam-dunk case on video. they knead don't need any of it. >> megyn: so a confession in terms of figuring out the larger war on terror. >> it's a legitimate exception but a thr

there is no need for miranda warning in this case. >> if they were to read the miranda rights and say the right to remain silent, right to attorney, let's say he gets a public defender or another attorney volunteers to help him, you're a graduate of harvard law school. you know the first thing any lawyer will say to his or her client shut up. don't say anything else. >> we'll see. this is going to unfold slowly now. it's important for people to remember the big statement last night was commitment by the administration they'll go through normal criminal justice process. we have criminal statutes. >> instead of declaring him enemy combatant. >> i personally think it's absurd to be honest. he's here. he is u.s. citizenship and all of the evidence is necessary and it's an important statement especially after what the city went through to say, yep, now you're just a normal criminal and we're going to put you through the process. this national security exception i agree with tom, we do not know a lot of facts about the motivation and whether they had more plans for people. a lot of things c

now, what is the miranda rights and what is reading the miranda rights really mean? it means that if you don't do it, then what is said may or may not be admissible. well, they don't need that. they don't need to convict him. and i will tell you something else, the lawyer who represents him, and mind you, it's going to be a public defender -- the public defender is going to try and save his life. this is going to be a mitigation-style case. this isn't going to be somebody -- unless this is richard jewell redux, who is saying i'm the wrong guy. and the way they're going to do that is they're going to try and trade information so that they take death penalty off of the table. that's what's going to happen. this kid is 19. there are some mitigating factors. was he under the influence of his brother? by the way, as an armenian, i do want to comment that all this speculation about when recent convert named misha, which by the way is not an armenian name, is insulting to armenians everywhere, who, by the way, is the first christian nation. so, rather than have some uncle o

that's why you are not seeing him read his miranda warnings.e doesn't have to have a lawyer right away. no decision on whether he would be held as an enemy combatant but they want to get as much information as possible, and they are using the government's detainee interrogation group, we are told. so where are we right now? well, the fbi, as we now know, had a request from a foreign government to look into the older brother last year before he travelled -- when he was traveling to russia to look into his activities. there was a belief by that government he might have been involved in some kind of activities. the fbi did look into it. they issued a statement i want to read to you in part saying in response to the 2011 request, the fbi checked data basis looking for things such as derogatory telephone communications, and possible use of online sites associated with the promotion of radical activity, and associations with other persons of interest, and travel history and plans. the fbi did not find anything of concern. and the older brother travel

no miranda rights were read to the suspect here last night. a justice department official says the bombing suspect won't be read the miranda rights because of a public saflt exception. so what is the next judicial step? let's ask the executive director of the american center for law and justice. good morning. i think a lot of folks are not familiar with this public safety exemption. why invoke that at this time? >> usually it's rare, it would be an instance where there is a gun or some kind of in this situation, unexploded bombs. it's important for people to understand, this is not the most extreme move. what you get from this is very limited interrogation and on top of that, it has to be directed questions. what does that mean? the questions can only go to minimizing and eliminating the immediate emergency. because that's why you've invoked this exception to the miranda warning which is required by supreme court precedent. but they did carve this out. >> the u.s. government is concerned about any potential new attacks so they want to limit th

talk to me about what more we know about that decision to read those miranda rights to dzhokhar tsarnaev when that happened. >> reporter: good morning, poppy. well we know that congressman rogers certainly wants to know more about the decision leading up to those rights being read because we know the suspect has become a lot less talkative after hearing those miranda rights. certainly he led investigators to look for the laptop, we learned from the suspect about the plans to go to new york but since he was read his rights he's gotten a lot less talkative and congressman rogers has written a letter to eric holder demanding a full accounting of the decision leading up to the initial appearance with the judge including who decided that appearance should take place at that specific place and time during this questioning and whether the department of justice or the fbi expressed any concerns about the timing of this and concerns about the fact that the suspect would now be read his miranda rights. i should tell you the department of justice hasn't yet responded directly to that letter to atto

authorities decided to withhold reading his miranda rights.as time passes, does the justification for this wear off and in your opinion does the u.s. and investigators stand to regret that? >> they will regret it i think. a, there was never a basis for the public safety exception because when they announced it, the police announced there was no public safety danger. they arrested everybody. didn't think there was a risk to the public. why will they come to regret it? they think the case will be made based on videotapes and civil evidence. there are two elements to every crime. that is the crime itself which they have no problem proving and the intention. now, in order to get the death penalty, they have to prove a terrorist intention. in order to do that, they may get the information from him without having mirandized him and that information may get kept out of a trial. they may have blown the death penalty by not giving him his miranda warnings. >> we talk about public exception, the questioning is limited in scope. do you think there's pote

you know, i think there are two things involved with miranda here. one is when there's law enforcement, how long is that public safety exception before law enforcement has to advise the suspect of their rights. and the second is how soon do they have to present the person before the magistrate, and here it looks like that second issue, the presentment issue was pressing. when the magistrate said we're arraigning him on monday, basically that was going to be the end of it. my sense is that law enforcement probably got about what they were going to get in terms of public safety and that exception which the length and dimension of is protecting the public, and after that, it was going to be pretty close in terms of when the arraignment and the ultimate mirandizing would take place. >> congressman schiff, thank you very much again for joining me. i appreciate it. >> you bet, piers. >>> let's bring in juliette kayyem, former homeland security assistant secretary. juliette, so much to catch up on again today. just developments over the weekend and today. l

miranda isn't in the constitution.court should look at is it the confession voluntary not whether a specific set of words were read. rehnquist ended up upholding it because of star idecised us. kind of a stretch that the precise words are necessary. >> geraldo: military tribunal. >> i already answered that. give me a break. you don't have to read miranda to a rapist. the rape is over. we are not worried about another bomb. >> geraldo: say it in english. court or tribunal? >> oh, court or tribunal. i suspect we need to know a little more information but certainly looking like a military tribunal. >> geraldo: do you want it to be a military tribunal? >> depends on the facts but looks like yes, this was. >> geraldo: quadruple murder and four death sentences on this guy. >> i don't care what the guys were saying during the commercial break. a military tribunal done properly are does not give the defendant as many protections as a mere criminal in the united states. >> geraldo: robert first and then bo. >> i feel like a 9th