U.S. Supreme Court: Should terror suspects be Mirandized?  By
MICHAEL KIRKLAND   |   May 16, 2010 at 4:38 AM 1 of 3 | License
Photo  WASHINGTON, May 16 (UPI) -- Should terror suspects, some
caught in the act of trying to kill Americans, be told of their
right to remain silent and their right to a lawyer before U.S.
interrogators get a chance to question them about possible
fellow conspirators and further attacks?  And if a terror
suspect decides to remain silent after being warned, does that
increase the likelihood a confederate will launch another
attack, leaving rubble and body parts on the streets of a U.S.
city?  After taking considerable heat for Mirandizing two recent
terror suspects, the Obama administration says it is taking a
look at the "public safety exception" to Miranda vs. Arizona, an
exception articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1984.  Under
Miranda, interrogators are supposed to immediately stop
questioning a suspect who asks for a lawyer until a lawyer is
present. Any information gathere