Never said he said it. I said “apparently”.
How do you figure this would set a precedent? It happens frequently.
And, BTW, when you refer to “constitutional rights”, please explain where in the actual Constitution it says we have the right to be told we have a right?
The constitution does not give us any rights. It restricts what the government can do. In this case, the only penalty the government faces for questioning him without first Mirandizing him is that it cannot use any evidence they gain when they take him to court.
And if he doesn’t already know the government is forbidden from compelling him to be a witness against himself, he’s an idiot.
The information the government will be seeking without Mirandazing him is info about the involvement of others. So, by answering those questions, he won’t be testifying against himself as much as testifying against others.
So, spare us your uninformed concern for his rights.
Let me ask you a question, with some background first.
They are using the public safety exemption to not read Tsarnaev his rights. They are required by law to do so, if they want to use his statements against him in a court of law. It doesn’t matter if he knows them or not. The Supreme Court handed down a decision that says it has to be done.
Having said that, what if law enforcement, the government, etc., decided that a right-wing conservative group (you pick the group) was a danger to public safety? What if they came to arrest the members of that group and because of the public safety exemption, law-abiding American citizens were denied their rights?
That’s the kind of precedent I believe not reading Tsarnaev his rights would set and I do not care to start traveling down that particular road.