The "Right" To Remain Silent

     As people across America struggle to recover from and understand the actions of brothers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, suspected terrorists behind the Boston Marathon bombings, one thing seems consistently to be on American minds: that justice be served to Dzhokar for his alleged acts of terrorism.  Consequently, the fact that Dzhokar will not hear his Miranda Rights before being interrogated by the FBI has gone largely unnoticed by many Americans.  In her Slate article entitled “Why Should I Care That No One’s Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights?” Emily Bazelon, a Slate senior editor, hastens to inform the greater American public of the troublesome implications of this governmental trend of neglecting to initially announce the Miranda Rights in cases dealing with terrorism (which law enforcement agencies have the power to do because of the “public safety exception” to the Miranda Rights).

     In order to establish the scope of this governmental trend for the audience, Bazelon chronologically progresses through instances of American terrorism where the “public safety exception” was used, including that of Zacarias Moussaoui, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and Faisal Shahzad.  The examples chosen illustrate how the usage of the exception has increased in recent years, which in turn helps to further Bazelon’s main point: if law enforcement agencies are able to make their own rules now, what/who will/can stop them from doing so, in more dangerous ways, in the future?  In addition, the examples add credibility (ethos) to Bazelon and her claims.

     These claims are dramatically enhanced through Bazelon’s colloquial yet cautionary tone, which speaks directly to the audience in a friendly and direct way while at the same time clearly warning them of the implications of this abuse of governmental power (abuses the Miranda act initially aimed at reducing).  Casual, simple transitional phrases such as “Here’s the legal history,” and affable, informal authorial asides such as “Fine. Good, even—that gun could have put other people in danger” really allow Bazelon’s words to make tangible connections with the audience.  Furthermore, Bazelon’s habits of addressing the audience directly (“you”) and of simplifying explanations and diction so they are easily comprehendible helps the audience to feel as if they are on the same level as Bazelon.  This subsequently helps Bazelon’s points to resonate and really leave a strong impression on the audience.

     Americans will continue to wait in trepidation for more details about Dzhokhar, his brother, and the Boston Marathon bombing to surface.  After reading Bazelon’s article, one can only hope that this new information will not be gained at the expense of Dzhokhar’s basic American rights.