some thoughts:
1. Miranda rights are the purest expression of "judge made" laws that conservatives are always railing about. Yes, the Constitution contains both a right to counsel and a right against self incrimination, but it was the Supreme Court that decided that this meant both a positive duty on the police to advise suspects of their rights and total exclusion of evidence in case of violation of said rights.
That is not to say that the decision is bad, merely that the Warren court chose the interpretation that was the most protective of suspect's rights and most restrictive on police.
Since Miranda, some legal scholars have argued that Miranda went too far and there should be a "good faith" exception where evidence could still be admissible if the violation of the Miranda rights is inadvertent or based on a technicality.
The Quarles decision was seen as an expression of such a "good faith" exception. i.e. a judge made exception to a judge made right. Since then, as can be seen from the FBI article, Courts have been expanding the scope of the "public safety" exception.
2. In the bombing, there are various reasons why law enforcement would want to delay giving the suspect his "Miranda" rights:
a) get more evidence against him. If it falls under the exception, great, if it does not, they only lose that evidence, so no great risk.
b) more likely, get evidence against other suspects. If suspect A reveals that he is in a plot with B and C, the evidence may not be admissible against A, but it would be against B and C.
__________________
|