Patrick Fitzgerald: Questioning terror suspects raises thorny questions
BY MITCH DUDEK Staff Reporter September 18, 2013 1:06AM
Former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald posed a stark hypothetical problem Tuesday night at a lecture at Northwestern University Law School: A plane lands at O’Hare. On it is a man who apparently tried to carry out a terrorist attack but the bomb didn’t go off. Police take him into custody. Does the FBI agent take the time to tell the suspect his rights to ensure whatever he says can be used later in court — or does he grill him quickly to possibly save lives right now? | Mitch Dudek~Sun-Times
Updated: September 18, 2013 2:23AM
Former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald posed a stark hypothetical problem Tuesday night at a law school lecture.
A plane lands at O’Hare Airport. On it is a man who apparently tried to carry out a terrorist attack. He has a bomb but it didn’t go off. Police take him into custody.
A young assistant United States Attorney gets a call from an FBI agent with the suspected terrorist.
The CIA has picked up vague chatter of possible terrorist attacks aimed at Chicago and other cities.
“I’ve got a simple question,” the agent tells the lawyer. “We’re about to interview this guy on the airplane, do we read him Miranda rights?”
Does the agent take the time to tell the suspect his rights to ensure whatever he says can be used later in court? Or does he grill him quickly to possibly save lives right now?
It’s a yes or no question, but one fraught with complexities, said Fitzgerald, who has prosecuted terrorists, crooked politicians and mobsters in his former post.
Answers to the question, Fitzgerald says, underscore the deep divisions among Americans who favor preserving civil liberties and the court process, versus those who believe law enforcement shouldn’t coddle people’s rights if lives are at stake.
“Always” or “Never” in this type of scenario is a false choice, said Fitzgerald, addressing students at Northwestern University Law School.
“First of all, do we already have enough evidence that we don’t need this person’s statement?,” Fitzgerald said.
“You would hope the [attorney] would be able to say, ‘How dangerous do you think this guy is? How important is it that we get the information from him? And, if you happen to catch him with a bomb in his underwear, I think we’ve got a pretty good case, so I will take the risk that in fact we can prosecute him without a statement, go ahead and read Miranda.’”
Fitzgerald also warned about the danger of becoming mired in conflicting laws while under the threat of “a ticking time bomb.”
“You would think that what you’re worried about is that making sure no lives are lost ... to have people try to figure out on the spot whether their licence is at risk when there is case law in both directions, to me, is a very scary proposition.”
Fitzgerald said he chose the topic to “get something off my chest in an area of the law where I don’t think we’ve been thinking as clearly as we should be.”
