<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Origins of the Public Safety Exception in Terrorism Cases</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/05/11/the-origins-of-the-public-safety-exception-in-terrorism-cases/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/05/11/the-origins-of-the-public-safety-exception-in-terrorism-cases/</link>
	<description>Politics, policy and the law at the U.S. Department of Justice</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 May 2013 16:14:31 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: The People&#8217;s Blog for the Constitution &#187; Miranda today: Alice in Wonderland meets George Orwell in 1984</title>
		<link>http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/05/11/the-origins-of-the-public-safety-exception-in-terrorism-cases/comment-page-1/#comment-9847</link>
		<dc:creator>The People&#8217;s Blog for the Constitution &#187; Miranda today: Alice in Wonderland meets George Orwell in 1984</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 May 2010 16:52:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mainjustice.com/?p=30298#comment-9847</guid>
		<description>[...] The public safety exception to Miranda, granted in 1984, gives interrogators leeway when it comes to a &#8220;ticking time-bomb&#8221; scenario. Therefore, in situations like a terrorism attempt, the authority to question a suspect prior to the reading of Miranda rights already exists. Why attempt to additionally weaken the Constitution?  As the letter states, Should the need arise to conduct an un-Mirandized interrogation unrelated to any immediate threat to public safety, law enforcement is free to do so under the Constitution. Miranda imposes no restriction on the use of unadvised statements for the purpose of identifying or stopping terrorist activity. The Fifth Amendment only requires that such statements be inadmissible for the purposes of criminal prosecution. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The public safety exception to Miranda, granted in 1984, gives interrogators leeway when it comes to a &#8220;ticking time-bomb&#8221; scenario. Therefore, in situations like a terrorism attempt, the authority to question a suspect prior to the reading of Miranda rights already exists. Why attempt to additionally weaken the Constitution?  As the letter states, Should the need arise to conduct an un-Mirandized interrogation unrelated to any immediate threat to public safety, law enforcement is free to do so under the Constitution. Miranda imposes no restriction on the use of unadvised statements for the purpose of identifying or stopping terrorist activity. The Fifth Amendment only requires that such statements be inadmissible for the purposes of criminal prosecution. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: * Miranda rights threatened &#8211; Legislation that would allow questioning of suspected terrorists without warning them of their right to remain silent is not only a bad idea, it&#8217;s unnecessary. &#171; Count Us Out</title>
		<link>http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/05/11/the-origins-of-the-public-safety-exception-in-terrorism-cases/comment-page-1/#comment-8834</link>
		<dc:creator>* Miranda rights threatened &#8211; Legislation that would allow questioning of suspected terrorists without warning them of their right to remain silent is not only a bad idea, it&#8217;s unnecessary. &#171; Count Us Out</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 May 2010 16:44:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mainjustice.com/?p=30298#comment-8834</guid>
		<description>[...] is no guarantee that other suspects would be similarly cooperative, the existing public safety exception allows investigators sufficient flexibility to question suspects for a considerable period of time [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] is no guarantee that other suspects would be similarly cooperative, the existing public safety exception allows investigators sufficient flexibility to question suspects for a considerable period of time [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hard Candy Cases Bubble Sleeve for Apple iPad &#8211; Black &#124; Apple Ipad Review</title>
		<link>http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/05/11/the-origins-of-the-public-safety-exception-in-terrorism-cases/comment-page-1/#comment-8620</link>
		<dc:creator>Hard Candy Cases Bubble Sleeve for Apple iPad &#8211; Black &#124; Apple Ipad Review</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2010 17:56:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mainjustice.com/?p=30298#comment-8620</guid>
		<description>[...] The Origins of the Public Safety Exception in Terrorism Cases &#8230; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The Origins of the Public Safety Exception in Terrorism Cases &#8230; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
