SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
May, 17 2010, 03:58pm EDT
Contact:
Mandy Simon, (202) 675-2312; media@dcaclu.org
Broad Coalition Urges Attorney General to Leave Miranda Warnings Intact
WASHINGTON
A broad coalition of human rights, religious
and civil liberties groups sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder
today urging him to reconsider his call to Congress to "modernize" the
public safety exception to Miranda warnings for terrorism suspects.
Miranda warnings, ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court to be a constitutional
right, are used to inform suspects of their rights to both remain
silent and to legal counsel during interrogation. The attorney general
stated last week during appearances on Sunday morning network news shows
and testimony before the House Judiciary Committee that he would like
Congress to reexamine and "clarify" Miranda warnings for terrorism
suspects.
In its letter to Holder, the
coalition stated, "In the nearly nine years since the attacks of 9/11,
the Department of Justice has obtained convictions in more than 400
international terrorism or terrorism-related cases without weakening Miranda
or risking the safety of Americans. The 'public safety exception'
is exception enough."
The coalition's letter was sent to
both the House and Senate.
Below is the full text of the letter
and a full list of signatories:
May 17,
2010
Dear
Attorney General Holder,
We, the
undersigned organizations, write to express our concern about your
recent call to restrict the constitutional rights of individuals in the
United States suspected of terrorist activity by seeking to codify or
expand the "public safety exception" to Miranda v. Arizona.
Current law provides ample flexibility to protect the public against
imminent terrorist threats while still permitting the use of statements
made by the accused in a criminal prosecution. Weakening Miranda would
undercut our fundamental Fifth Amendment rights for no perceptible
gain.
As you
know, the Supreme Court crafted the "public safety exception" to Miranda
more than 25 years ago in New York v. Quarles. This
exception permits law enforcement to temporarily interrogate suspected
terrorists without advising them of their Miranda rights -
including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney - when
"reasonably prompted by a concern for public safety." It allows federal
agents to ask the questions necessary to protect themselves and the
public from imminent threats before issuing a Miranda warning.
Provided the interrogation is non-coercive, any statements obtained from
a suspect during this time may be admissible at trial.
Law
enforcement used the Quarles "public safety exception" to
question Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so-called "underwear bomber,"
and Faisal Shahzad, the alleged "Times Square bomber." Both suspects
reportedly provided interrogators with valuable intelligence during that
time and continued to do so even after being advised of their rights.
As you observed during your May 9, 2010, appearance on "Meet the Press,"
"the giving of Miranda warnings has not stopped these terror
suspects from talking to us. They have continued to talk even though we
have given them a Miranda warning."
In the
nearly nine years since the attacks of 9/11, the Department of Justice
has obtained convictions in more than 400 international terrorism or
terrorism-related cases without weakening Miranda or risking
the safety of Americans. The "public safety exception" is exception
enough. 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. Yet even this requirement has exceptions.
Un-Mirandized statements obtained outside the public safety exception
may still be used for impeachment, and physical evidence discovered as a
result of such statements may also be admissible.
We
understand that the Department of Justice must confront serious threats
to our national security and is responsible for taking the necessary
steps to protect the safety of the American people. For this reason, we
understand the Department's reliance on the public safety exception in
the Abdulmutallab and Shahzad investigations. We believe, however, that
current law provides all the flexibility that is necessary and
constitutionally permissible. Miranda embodies a centuries-old
tradition designed to prevent coerced confessions that lead to wrongful
incarceration and diminish our collective security. Codifying or
expanding the public safety exception would almost certainly lead to the
exception being invoked far more often than is strictly necessary and
would function as an end run around the constitutional requirements of Miranda.
We therefore urge you to reconsider your call for Congressional action
to expand the public safety exception.
We
would be very interested in meeting with you or your staff to discuss
this issue further.
Sincerely,
National
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
Alliance for Justice
American
Civil Liberties Union
Appeal
for Justice
Asian
Law Caucus
Bill of
Rights Defense Committee
Brennan Center
for Justice
Coalition
for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
Council
on American-Islamic Relations
Center
for International Policy
Center
for Media and Democracy
Defending
Dissent Foundation
Democrats.com
DownsizeDC.org,
Inc.
Freedom
and Justice Foundation
Friends
Committee on National Legislation
Government
Accountability Project
High
Road for Human Rights
Human
Rights First
Human
Rights Watch
Muslim
Legal Fund of America
New
Security Action
No More
Guantanamos
OneAmerica
Open Society Policy Center
Peace
Action Montgomery
People
For the American Way
Progressive
Democrats of America
The
Rights Working Group
U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation
Robert
Jackson Steering Committee
Roderick MacArthur Justice Center
WarIsACrime.org
Witness
Against Torture
World Organization for
Human Rights USA
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
After Visit, US Lawmakers Say ‘Cruel Collective Punishment’ of Cuba Must End Immediately
Reps. Pramila Jayapal and Jonathan Jackson described Trump's blockade of the island as "effectively an economic bombing of the infrastructure of the country that has produced permanent damage."
Apr 06, 2026
After returning from a delegation trip to Cuba, US Reps. Pramila Jayapal and Jonathan Jackson on Sunday renewed calls for President Donald Trump to end his illegal fuel blockade of the island, which they described as "cruel collective punishment."
The pair of progressive lawmakers were the first to visit the island since Trump imposed the blockade in January in a bid to cripple the island's economy as part of an effort to overthrow its government, or, in the president's words, "take" the island.
Almost no oil has been allowed to enter for more than three months, which Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Jackson (D-Ill.) described as "effectively an economic bombing of the infrastructure of the country—that has produced permanent damage."
"We witnessed firsthand premature babies in incubators, weighing just two pounds, who are at tremendous risk because their ventilators and incubators cannot function without electricity," they said. "Children cannot attend school because there is no fuel for them or their teachers to travel. Cancer patients cannot receive lifesaving treatments because of a lack of medications."
"There is a water shortage because there is little electricity to pump water," they continued. "Businesses have closed. Families cannot keep food refrigerated, and food production on the island has dropped to just 10% of the people’s needs."
The oil blockade is an escalation of more than 60 years of punitive economic warfare by the US against Cuba, imposed through an embargo that has limited Cuba's ability to trade with the rest of the world and hampered its economic development to the tune of trillions of dollars.
Jayapal had previously visited Cuba in February 2024 on a trip with other members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Since her last time in Havana, she said, "There's such a big difference."
"So many of the streets of this beautiful city were deserted. People were already lining up for food," she said in an interview with the Cuban outlet Belly of the Beast. "I don't think that any American wants to create this kind of devastation for the Cuban children, for the babies, for the moms, for the people."
She said the phrase "collective punishment," while accurate, almost felt "too technocratic" to describe what she witnessed.
"We are strangling the Cuban people," Jayapal said.
The United Nations General Assembly has voted 33 times to call for the end of the embargo since 1993.
In February, a group of UN experts condemned Trump's fuel blockade as "a serious violation of international law and a grave threat to a democratic and equitable international order" and an "extreme form of unilateral economic coercion."
Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel has acknowledged having talks with Trump in recent weeks in order to negotiate an end to the embargo and threats of further aggression.
The Cuban government has taken actions that the lawmakers described as "signs that Cuba is changing." It has released more than 2,000 prisoners, announced economic reforms to allow more involvement of American businesses, and allowed the FBI to investigate Cuban troops' lethal shooting of five armed Cuban exiles as they approached in a speedboat in February.
While hardly softening his threats to Cuba, which he continued to insist was “finished,” Trump last week allowed a Russian oil tanker to dock on the island without incident and deliver around 700,000 barrels of much-needed oil.
But the lawmakers said it's not enough. Jackson, noting the "generosity" of Cuba as a provider of medical treatment around the world, said the US must allow food and fuel to be allowed to return to the island "so that the Cuban people can continue to rise."
Jayapal said that when they spoke with Diaz-Canel, he expressed "a real desire for a real negotiation" with the US, but that he also expressed "sadness" and "frustration" at what was being done to his country.
"These kinds of sanctions, embargoes, they don't get to the government. They hurt the people," Jayapal said. "Perhaps the American people don't understand the violence of an economic sanction versus the violence of dropping a bomb."
Jackson—whose father, the late Rev. Jesse Jackson, took many trips to Cuba during his life—described America's treatment of the nation’s people as a “crucifixion.”
"Americans would not want to see what I saw in that hospital," Jackson said, describing a malnourished baby named Alejandro, whom he said was "fighting for life."
Due to the intermittent power surges caused by the lack of fuel, he said, "We didn't know when the incubator was going to start working."
"That's an act of war," he said. "We have to put an end to that."
He added that Secretary of State Marco Rubio, himself a Cuban-American who has long sought to bring about regime change, "should come before the Congress and explain his policy."
In late March, Jayapal introduced legislation that would block Trump from conducting military action against Cuba without congressional authorization. She said she'd continue to push for bills to block Trump from launching a war and to push for sanctions relief.
The Trump administration has portrayed its economic warfare as part of an effort to "liberate" the Cuban people from an oppressive government.
But the lawmakers, who met with wide swaths of Cuban society—including business and religious leaders, humanitarian groups, and civil society organizations—said that "Cubans across the political spectrum," including anti-government dissidents, expressed similar feelings.
"Across all sectors, there is agreement," they said. "This illegal blockade must end immediately."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Another Outrageous, Criminal Act’: US and Israel Bomb University Known as ‘MIT of Iran’
Iran's first vice president called the attack a new "symbol of Trump's madness and ignorance."
Apr 06, 2026
A wave of US-Israeli airstrikes on Monday hit and extensively damaged Sharif University of Technology, a leading Iranian educational institution that is widely known as "the MIT of Iran" and seen as one of the world's top engineering schools.
The attack on the Tehran university—one of dozens of education sites bombed by the US and Israel since they launched their war on Iran in late February—sparked outrage inside Iran and around the world. Mohammad Reza Aref, an engineer currently serving as Iran's first vice president, said the attack on Sharif University "is a symbol of [US President Donald] Trump's madness and ignorance."
"He fails to understand that Iran's knowledge is not embedded in concrete to be destroyed by bombs; the true fortress is the will of our professors and elites," Aref wrote. "No barbarity in history has ever been able to strip science from the Iranian people. Science is rooted in our souls, and this fortress will not crumble."
The National Iranian American Council called the bombing "another outrageous, criminal act in an illegal war."
"This was a center of learning, not a military target," the group wrote on social media, highlighting video footage showing a building in ruins. "The increasing use of the Gaza playbook in Iran is deeply disturbing and will only deepen insecurity for the US and Israel. End this war."
US Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), the lone Iranian American in Congress, noted that Sharif University has "produced a huge number of engineers who’ve gone on to Silicon Valley and founded some of the most successful American tech companies."
"Why are we bombing a university in a city of 10 million people?" Ansari asked.
Another outrageous, criminal act in an illegal war: U.S.-Israeli strikes have bombed one of the world’s most prestigious universities in Sharif University of Technology in Tehran. This was a center of learning, not a military target. The increasing use of the Gaza playbook in… pic.twitter.com/GE6J8WhgMC
— NIAC (@NIACouncil) April 6, 2026
Al Jazeera's Tohid Asadi reported from Tehran that the university was "severely hit, with extensive damage reported in the compound's mosque and laboratories."
Vira Ameli, an Iranian global health researcher and lecturer at the University of Oxford, decried the US-Israeli strike on Sharif University, where she spent time as a postdoctoral fellow.
"To wake to the news of this war crime, at a distance and unable to return, is difficult to articulate," Ameli wrote. "And yet history has made one thing clear: Iran is not a country undone by bombardment."
Iranian authorities say US-Israeli attacks have hit at least 30 of the nation's universities, including the Isfahan University of Technology and the Iran University of Science and Technology. The US and Israel have justified some of the attacks by claiming the universities were involved in military-related activities.
"Would American and Israeli leaders consider their own equivalent institutions fair game? Of course not," journalist Natasha Lennard wrote in a column for The Intercept last week. "By stated US and Israeli rationale, however, were Iran able to launch airstrikes on American soil, direct ties to the U.S. and Israeli military-industrial complex would make valid targets of at least the University of California, Berkeley; the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Johns Hopkins University, among dozens of other schools."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Agents Were Lying': ICE Exposed Yet Again by Video of Minneapolis Shooting
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said "bare due diligence" would have exposed ICE officers' falsehoods.
Apr 06, 2026
Video footage obtained by The New York Times has exposed lies told by two federal immigration enforcement agents about the circumstances leading up to a non-fatal shooting in Minneapolis that occurred on January 14.
According to a Monday report from the Times, the video directly contradicts claims made by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials that they were attacked by assailants armed with a shovel and a broom for around three minutes before the agents opened fire and wounded one of the attackers.
"Instead, the confrontation depicted in the video lasts about 12 seconds and shows two men struggling with the agent," reported the Times. "It shows no sustained attack with a shovel."
Federal prosecutors had initially pursued assault charges against Venezuelan national Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, who was shot in the leg by the ICE officers during the January confrontation, and fellow Venezuelan national Alfredo Aljorna.
However, the government abruptly dropped charges against the two men in February, and ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons acknowledged that two federal officers appear “to have made untruthful statements” about the incident.
The Times noted that the government had access to the video of the shooting hours after it took place.
However, one source told the paper that prosecutors didn't watch the video until three weeks after they filed charges against Sosa-Celis and Aljorna, and instead relied on "the ICE agent’s statement and an FBI agent’s affidavit describing the footage."
This revelation prompted a rebuke from Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, who told the Times that "bare due diligence would have shown that the agents were lying."
Trump administration officials have come under fire in recent weeks for lying about shootings involving federal immigration officials, such as when former US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem falsely claimed that slain Minneapolis intensive care nurse Alex Pretti was aiming “to inflict maximum damage on individuals and to kill law enforcement."
In reality, video footage showed Pretti never drew his handgun during his confrontation with federal immigration officers, while also clearly showing that officers disarmed him before they opened fire.
Noem also falsely claimed that slain ICE observer Renee Good had attempted "an act of domestic terrorism" by trying to run over a federal immigration officer with her car, even though footage clearly showed Good turning her vehicle away from the officer in an attempt to get away from the scene.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular