And Alan Dershowitz is joined us at this point I don't know Whitman. -- are doing -- professor Oprah should come under reduce have been a couple of pull over ten minutes let's get right into it ringel writes what are the questions. Concerning this case. Well Richard it is very rewarding because they're stoke public safety exception to the applicable here the police are told people possibly help your business. We -- the suspects there are no more bombs are out. Public safety exception is designed not to get their information prevent future crimes but for immediate ticking -- situations. You might ask what's the big deal they already have all the videotape evidence proving that there are these guys. Who are who -- or delete statements that were made. Without Miranda warnings for the readers because I have to prove there's intentional. There's not enough to prove that he planted bombs in order to get convicted of federal terrorism which carried the death penalty. I have to be able proved. Thirty intended to commit an act of terrorism and they only get better information. -- -- in their -- and urged the courts which we keep finish out this late tonight and houses. -- Howard do do you think they know. That there are actually ones that could put the bombs down. If I think they have good videos that demonstrate that deals pushing to have a confession. From at least one of them to the person whose car they hijacked. So they do have the physical evidence to prove what Colby just raised at the crime. And boy -- they lack. You know is that not enough. Because in order to get the federal terrorism statute applicable. As distinguished military murder case you have to show that they intended. To extort the United States to ask something in the United States to carry Tutu who intimidate America and yet to -- intention. And that intentions. They come from the interrogation and it'd -- interrogations. Was not Miranda is that the answers might be excluded by a court so they're taking a big risk. There are and what happens if it was excluded by court. Then -- they would have to do. -- use other ways of proving intention and may fail. And their forty may not get the death penalty may get a step like -- person and he's gonna get we get like in -- and of course. Based on the evidence that we will now see it's it's true that videotape so there's no confession. -- -- can get the death penalty not federally state wise for having told him I -- policemen if you wanted to pull the trigger. What would be the consequences. If we allow this federal requirement to be circumvent. I think a -- to -- precedent. I think it expand the public safety exception beyond where it was intended by the courts. And it's basically showed a contempt for our constitutional rules and attempt to circumvent the constitution. You know the constitution isn't broke we we ought not to. Quick quick fixes into it that will be bad precedent to the future we can. Prosecute this man within the current structure within the current rules I think we can do it successfully. Institutions circumvented is that the American people unconsciously. Giving up more their privacy giving up more than a constitutional rights. Well we've given up quite a bit already we've accepted their video surveillance which is probably a good thing unbalanced. -- we've accepted. Other forms of surveillance -- wiretapping. We have the strike the appropriate balance between. Liberty and security. And that's what the constitution is supposed to do we know about. Law enforcement authorities don't wanna strike that balance their job to -- sub prime and prevent terrorism and they ought to be encouraged to do there. The American Civil Liberties Union is not striking that balance their job is just -- but -- -- -- chat strike the balance and -- come out with a an appropriate. Balance between security and liberty. -- -- -- cushion -- why is it when you Google for a federal grand jury. You're not. Read your rights or juvenile warrior to going there with you but to -- terrorist suspect we are. Well terrible rule the grand jury rules terrible. And they were never intended to be -- by the framers of the constitution. It's no rights incredible grand jury first -- liberate the past couple of grand -- you don't have a right to have a -- choose -- in front of grand -- it's awful. It's really includes an inquisition. And it's a throwback to start chamber. Other than the torture part of it. And it should not be the model for how we conduct our our criminal trials the grand jury is that there's an exception and should be kept -- -- response. Proposed -- normality in the world once stalked you have appreciated the -- during -- -- they are calling it. Professor Alan Dershowitz. Harvard Law School.