Full opinion text
OPINION AND ORDER MARK S. DAVIS, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the following motions filed by defendants Mohammed Modin Hasan (“Hasan”), Gabul Abdullahi Ali (“Ali”), Abdi Wali Dire (“Dire”), Abdi Mohammed Gurewardher (“Gurewardher”), and Abdi Mohammed Umar (“Umar”) (collectively, the “Defendants”): (1) Defendants’ separately filed motions to suppress statements. Docket Nos. 73 (Ali), 79 (Hasan), 85 (Gurewardher), 87 (Dire), and 104 (Umar). (2) Hasan’s motions to dismiss the Indictment for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act. Docket Nos. 77 & 93. (3) Defendants’ joint motion to compel discovery. Docket No. 127. (4) Ali’s motions (Docket Nos. 72 & 111), and Hasan and Dire’s joint motions (Docket Nos. 81 & 94), to dismiss Counts Nine, Ten, and Eleven of the Superseding Indictment for lack of jurisdiction. (5) Ali and Hasan’s separately filed motions to dismiss Counts Seven and Eight of the Superseding Indictment. Docket Nos. 114(Ali) & 98 (Hasan). (6) Ali and Hasan’s separately filed motions to dismiss Counts Thirteen and Fourteen of the Superseding Indictment. Docket Nos. 115(Ali) & 96 (Hasan). (7) Ali and Hasan’s separately filed motions to dismiss the Superseding Indictment pursuant to Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161-74. Docket Nos. 117(Ali) & 107 (Hasan). (8) Ali and Hasan’s separately filed motions for change of venue. Docket Nos. 113(Ali) & 119 (Hasan). (9) Ali and Hasan’s motion in limine to preclude any use of any statements of co-defendants. Docket No. 135. (10) Ali’s motions to dismiss all Counts of the Superseding Indictment for destruction/spoliation of evidence. Docket Nos. 70 & 112. (11) Ali’s motion for additional peremptory challenges. Docket No. 74. (12) Ali’s Motion to Dismiss or Consolidate Counts in the Superseding Indictment As Being Multiplicitous in Violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Docket No. 141. The motions have been fully briefed, and the Court held an evidentiary hearing with respect to certain of the motions on September 10-11, 2010. The motions are now ripe for decision. I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Sometime in March 2010, Defendants set off from Somalia in a seagoing vessel in search of a merchant ship to attack and plunder. Shortly after midnight on the morning of April 1, 2010, somewhere on the high seas between Somalia and the Seychelles, Defendants sighted what they believed to be a merchant ship. Defendants Hasan, Ali, and Dire thereafter boarded one of two small assault boats attached to the seagoing vessel and set out to attack the perceived merchant ship. To facilitate their attack, Hasan carried a rocket-propelled grenade (“RPG”), and Ali and Dire each carried an assault rifle. Defendants Gurewardher and Umar meanwhile remained on board the seagoing vessel to maintain the ship. As the crew of the assault boat approached their target, Ali and Dire raised their assault rifles and opened fire on the vessel. To the surprise of Hasan, Dire, and Ali, what they had until then believed to be a merchant vessel quickly revealed itself to be the USS Nicholas, a United States Navy frigate. After the USS Nicholas returned fire, Hasan, Dire, and Ali attempted to flee in their small assault boat. The USS Nicholas gave chase, eventually capturing the boat, Hasan, Dire, and Ali. The USS Nicholas thereafter searched for, found, and captured the seagoing vessel, along with Gurewardher and Umar. II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On April 20, 2010, a federal grand jury returned a six-count Indictment against Defendants. Docket No. 1. The Indictment charged all five Defendants with: (1) Piracy under the Law of Nations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1651 and 2; (2) Attack to Plunder Vessel, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1659, 3238, and 2; (3) Assault with a Dangerous Weapon in the Special Maritime Jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(3), 3238, and 2; (4) Conspiracy to Use Firearms During a Crime of Violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(o) and 3238; and (5) two counts of Use of a Firearm During a Crime of Violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(l)(A)(iii), 3238, and 2. Defendants were arraigned on April 30, 2010, at which time they pled not guilty, and trial was set for July 6, 2010. On May 20, 2010, the Court held a hearing pursuant to motions filed by the government to certify the case as complex under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii), and for a pretrial conference pursuant to § 2 of the Classified Information Procedures Act (“CIPA”), 18 U.S.C. app. 3 §§ 1-16, to address potentially discoverable classified information involved in the case. See Docket Nos. 23 & 44. After hearing argument from the parties, the Court granted the government’s motions, certifying the case as complex on the basis of logistical difficulties in obtaining evidence from the crew of the USS Nicholas, the possibility of classified information being involved in the case, and the novel and complex issues involved in the case. Accordingly, the Court continued the trial date to September 8, 2010. Written orders memorializing these rulings were entered by the Court later that same day and filed by the Clerk of this Court on the following day. Docket Nos. 58 & 59. Thereafter, on July 7, 2010, a federal grand jury returned a Superseding Indictment charging Defendants with a total of fourteen counts. Docket No. 63. The Superseding Indictment comprised the six counts of the original Indictment plus eight additional counts: (1) Acts of Violence Against Persons on a Vessel, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2291(a)(6), 2290(a)(2), 3238, and 2; (2) Conspiracy to Perform an Act of Violence Against Persons on a Vessel, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2291(a)(9), 2290(a)(2), and 3238; (3) Assault with a Dangerous Weapon in a Special Maritime Jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(3), 3238, and 2; (4) two counts of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon on Federal Officers and Employees, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 111(a)(1), 111(b), 3238, and 2; (5) Using, Carrying, and Possessing a Destructive Device in Relation to a Crime of Violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A), 924(c)(l)(B)(ii), 3238, and 2; (6) Carrying an Explosive Device During the Commission of a Felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 844(g)(2), 3238, and 2; and (7) Conspiracy to Carry an Explosive During the Commission of a Felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 844(m) and 3238. On July 16, 2010, Dire moved to continue the trial date on the Superseding Indictment to November 9, 2010, representing that no other defense counsel opposed the continuance. Docket No. 69. Hasan filed a response to Dire’s motion, explaining that although Hasan did not object to the continuance, he explicitly reserved his objections to the timeliness of the Superseding Indictment itself under the Speedy Trial Act and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Without other objection, this Court granted Dire’s motion to continue by order dated July 27, 2010, continuing the trial date to November 9, 2010. III. DISCUSSION A. the motions to suppress Defendants move to suppress and exclude from evidence several statements made to authorities following Defendants’ capture, arguing that the statements at issue were taken in violation of Defendants’ rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Defendants contend that they were never adequately advised of their trial rights, and that, even if they had been, they did not understand or comprehend the nature of those rights such that they could knowingly and intelligently waive those rights. Defendants further contend that such statements were involuntary, and are inadmissible because they result from coercion and undue influence. In response, the Government argues that Defendants were sufficiently advised of their Fifth Amendment rights and knowingly waived those rights prior to making the statements at issue, thus rendering the statements admissible at trial. The Government also represents that at no time were Defendants physically threatened or otherwise coerced, such that them statements could be deemed involuntary. For the reasons outlined below, and on the basis of the totality of the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing, this Court GRANTS Gurewardher’s motion to suppress the statements he made on April 2, 2010 and DENIES Defendants’ motions to suppress the statements they made on April 4, 2010. 1. Applicable Law The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself....” U.S. Const, amend. V. In Miranda v. Arizona, the United States Supreme Court declared that a suspect in custody must be advised of such constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment prior to any interrogation. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); accord Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 444, 120 S.Ct. 2326, 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000) (reaffirming Miranda as a “constitutional rule that Congress may not supersede legislatively”). The Fifth Amendment rights implicated by Miranda have been held to apply to citizens and non-citizens alike. See, e.g., United States v. Balsys, 524 U.S. 666, 671, 118 S.Ct. 2218, 141 L.Ed.2d 575 (1998) (“Resident aliens ... are considered ‘persons’ for purposes of the Fifth Amendment and are entitled to the same protections under the Clause as citizens.”) (citing Kwong Hai Chew v. Golding, 344 U.S. 590, 596, 73 S.Ct. 472, 97 L.Ed. 576 (1953)); cf. Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 77, 96 S.Ct. 1883, 48 L.Ed.2d 478 (1976) (explaining that even a non-citizen “whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to [the] constitutional protection” of the Due Process Clauses of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments); see also In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in E. Africa, 552 F.3d 177, 199-200 & n. 16 (2d Cir.2008), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 129 S.Ct. 2765, 2778, 174 L.Ed.2d 273 (2009) (citing Balsys, 524 U.S. at 671, 118 S.Ct. 2218). Moreover, although the Supreme Court has not yet ruled definitively on this specific issue, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has noted that, in past cases, the Government has not contested that Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections apply even “to the custodial interrogation of a foreign national outside the United States by [U.S.] agents ... engaged in a criminal investigation.” United States v. Rommy, 506 F.3d 108, 131 (2d Cir.2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1260, 128 S.Ct. 1681, 170 L.Ed.2d 358 (2008) (citing United States v. Bin Laden, 132 F.Supp.2d 168, 185-89 (S.D.N.Y.2001)); accord In re Terrorist Bombings, 552 F.3d at 199 n. 15 (quoting Rommy, 506 F.3d at 131); but see United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 269, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 108 L.Ed.2d 222 (1990) (“we have rejected the claim that aliens are entitled to Fifth Amendment rights outside the sovereign territory of the United States”); Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 783-85, 70 S.Ct. 936, 94 L.Ed. 1255 (1950); United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 318, 57 S.Ct. 216, 81 L.Ed. 255 (1936). The Miranda warnings consist of advising a suspect: prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 479, 86 S.Ct. 1602. However, Miranda does not require that any particular recitation of these warnings be given to a criminal defendant. See California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355, 359, 101 S.Ct. 2806, 69 L.Ed.2d 696 (1981) (per curiam) (“This Court has never indicated that the ‘rigidity’ of Miranda extends to the precise formulation of the warnings given a criminal defendant.”). Instead, in determining whether a suspect has been adequately advised of his rights, “ ‘[t]he inquiry is simply whether the warnings reasonably conve[yed] to a suspect his rights as required by Miranda.’ ” Florida v. Powell, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 1195, 1204, 175 L.Ed.2d 1009 (2010) (alterations omitted and added and internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 203, 109 S.Ct. 2875, 106 L.Ed.2d 166 (1989)). Of course, a suspect may waive his Fifth Amendment rights and voluntarily participate in a custodial interrogation. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602. However, such waiver must be made “voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.” Id. To be voluntary, the waiver must be “the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception.” Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 421, 106 S.Ct. 1135, 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986). To be knowing and intelligent, “the waiver must have been made with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it.” Id. However, “[t]he Constitution does not require that a criminal suspect know and understand every possible consequence of a waiver of the Fifth Amendment privilege.” Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 574, 107 S.Ct. 851, 93 L.Ed.2d 954 (1987). “The Miranda warnings protect this privilege by ensuring that a suspect knows that he may choose not to talk to law enforcement officers, to talk only with counsel present, or to discontinue talking at any time.” Id. Thus, Miranda rights are only waived “if the ‘totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation’ reveal both an uncoerced choice and the requisite level of comprehension.” Burbine, 475 U.S. at 421, 106 S.Ct. 1135 (quoting Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 725, 99 S.Ct. 2560, 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979)). The prosecution need not show that a waiver of Miranda was express, but may instead show an implicit waiver through, for example, “ ‘the defendant’s silence, coupled with an understanding of his rights and a course of conduct indicating waiver.’ ” Berghuis v. Thompkins, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 2250, 2261, 176 L.Ed.2d 1098 (2010) (quoting North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373, 99 S.Ct. 1755, 60 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979)). However, “courts must presume that a defendant did not waive his rights” — Butler, 441 U.S. at 373, 99 S.Ct. 1755 — and “a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his” Fifth Amendment rights. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 475, 86 S.Ct. 1602. Accordingly, a mere showing “that a Miranda warning was given and the accused made an uncoerced statement ... standing alone, is insufficient to demonstrate ‘a valid waiver’ of Miranda rights.” Berghuis, 130 S.Ct. at 2261 (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 475, 86 S.Ct. 1602). Finally, “[t]he requirement that Miranda warnings be given does not, of course, dispense with the voluntariness inquiry.” Dickerson, 530 U.S. at 444, 120 S.Ct. 2326. “A statement is involuntary under the Fifth Amendment only if it is involuntary within the meaning of the Due Process Clause.” United States v. Braxton, 112 F.3d 777, 780 (4th Cir.1997). The test for identifying whether a statement is involuntary is to determine whether the statement was “ ‘extracted by any sort of threats or violence, (or) obtained by any direct or implied promises, however slight, (or) by the exertion of any improper influence.’ ” Hutto v. Ross, 429 U.S. 28, 30, 97 S.Ct. 202, 50 L.Ed.2d 194 (1976) (quoting Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 753, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970)). Before a statement can be deemed involuntary, there must be some showing of “coercive police activity.” Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 167, 107 S.Ct. 515, 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986). “The mere existence of threats, violence, implied promises, improper influence, or other coercive police activity, however, does not automatically render a confession involuntary.” Braxton, 112 F.3d at 780. Instead, the crux of the voluntariness inquiry “is whether the defendant’s will has been ‘overborne’ or his ‘capacity for self-determination critically impaired.’ ” United States v. Pelton, 835 F.2d 1067, 1071-72 (4th Cir.1987) (quoting Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 225, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973)). In conducting this inquiry, a court should look to “the ‘totality of the circumstances,’ including the characteristics of the defendant, the setting of the interview, and the details of the interrogation.” Id. (quoting United States v. Wertz, 625 F.2d 1128, 1134 (4th Cir.1980)). 2. Analysis Although Defendants seek to suppress all statements they made to authorities, the Government has clarified that it will seek to admit only three sets of statements: (1) statements made by Gurewardher on April 2, 2010; (2) statements made by Defendants on April 4, 2010; and (3) statements by Defendants relating to “booking information,” such as identity, age, birthplace, and place of residence, which generally are not subject to Miranda. Defendants appear only to contest the admissibility of statements made on April 2 and 4, 2010, and not the statements made relating to “booking information.” a. The April 2, 2010 Interview of Gurewardher On April 2, 2010, while Defendants were in custody on board the USS Nicholas, Lieutenant Junior Grade Chad Hutchins, an officer on the USS Nicholas, and Special Agent Michael Knox of the Naval Criminal Investigate Service (“NCIS”), who was also on board the USS Nicholas, arranged to have Aziz Ismail, a translator on board another United States Navy vessel (the USS Farragut), translate interviews with certain of the Defendants by means of satellite telephone. Docket Nos. 165-66 (Hr’g Tr.) at 56:3-57:2 (Hutchins Test.), 247:4-248:8 (Knox Test.); accord 421:2-13 (Ismail Test.). Mr. Ismail is a Somali-born man who grew up and attended school in the Mogadishu area of Somalia, left his native country when he was about seventeen-and-a-half years old, and is now a naturalized U.S. citizen. Id. at 411:3-18; 413:21-24; 415:8-11. Mr. Ismail speaks the same dialect of Somali that Defendants speak. Id. at 413:5-20. After passing a set of language examinations, Mr. Ismail began working as a translator as part of the United States Navy’s counter-piracy operations. Id. at 415:17-421:1. The satellite phone calls took place on the evening of April 2, 2010, outside on the forecastle of the USS Nicholas. Id. at 57:4-6 (Hutchins Test.), 59:2-8, 249:18-19 (Knox Test.). In addition to Special Agent Knox and Lt. Hutchins, Intelligence Specialist Joseph Yellucci, Master at Arms First Class Jacob Smith, and Electronics Technician First Class Rolando Roblesnavarro were present on deck during the satellite phone calls. Id. at 57:7-58:3 (Hutchins Test.), 179:1-11 (Smith Test.), 213:6-17 (Vellucci Test.). During the calls, each Defendant was seated in the open, on an empty missile launcher base, without handcuffs, and without armed guards in the immediate vicinity. Id. at 59:8-15 (Hutchins Test.), 59:23-60:5, 62:25-63:24, 180:5-18 (Smith Test.), 248:16-249:2 (Knox Test.). Lt. Hutchins indicated that the Defendants, including Gurewardher, had not been prepared, questioned, threatened, or coerced in any way in advance of the satellite phone calls. Id. at 60:6-11 (Hutchins Test.), 65:9-15. Special Agent Knox advised Mr. Ismail of the circumstances, and instructed Mr. Ismail to ask each detainee interviewed what they had been doing prior to then-capture. Id. at 248:3-8 (Knox Test.), 421:24-25 (Ismail Test.), 422:19-25. Special Agent Knox advised Ismail first to tell each Defendant to return the satellite phone to Knox if that Defendant did not wish to speak about the incident. Id. at 248:9-15 (Knox Test.), 422:1-18 (Ismail Test.) (Mr. Ismail explaining that the first thing Knox told him to tell Defendants was that if they did not want to talk with him, they could go back to their holding area), 428:4-10. Only Hasan, Dire, and Gurewardher were interviewed by satellite phone on April 2, 2010. See id. at 61:12-62:2 (Hutchins Test.) (Lt. Hutchins acknowledging that although he only remembers satellite phone interviews with Hasan and Dire, it is possible that he had forgotten an additional interview between those two), id. at 213:18-214:3 (Vellucci Test.), 218:6-8, 219:7-9, id. at 250:16-251:3 (Knox Test.) (Special Agent Knox acknowledging that he has no independent recollection of a satellite phone interview of Hasan, despite the fact that others’ notes reflect it), id. at 423:7-424:3 (Ismail Test.) (Mr. Ismail indicating his belief that he spoke with Ali and Umar), 427:8-428:1 (Mr. Ismail identifying Gurewardher as the third Defendant he spoke with). There is no evidence that any of those Defendants exhibited any reluctance to speak with Mr. Ismail via the satellite phone. Id. at 249:6-7 (Knox Test.), 424:18-23 (Ismail Test.), 428:21-23. Hasan and Dire both represented that they were fishermen who had been kidnapped by the other Defendants and forced to engage in piracy, and Ismail indicated to Special Agent Knox that he did not believe them, because Ismail “hears that same story every day.” Id. at 58:12-19 (Hutchins Test.), 61:5-11, 215:6-16 (Vellucci Test.), 217:1-218:20, 231:4-25, 422:22-423:6 (Ismail Test.), 424:18-426:10. However, Gurewardher immediately confessed to being a pirate and engaging in piratical operations. Id. at 62:1-13 (Hutchins Test.), 219:13-22 (Vellucci Test.), 251:20-24 (Knox Test.), 428:15-430:5 (Ismail Test.). This account of the conduct of the satellite phone calls was generally corroborated by the other witnesses. See Hr’g Tr. at 58:12-19 (Hutchins Test.), 179:16-182:2 (Smith Test.), 214:5-215:5 (Vellucci Test.). Gurewardher argues that, prior to his satellite phone conversation with Mr. Ismail on April 2, 2010, Special Agent Knox failed to advise him adequately of his Fifth Amendment rights, as required by Miranda. The record currently before the Court shows this argument to be correct. Although Special Agent Knox told Mr. Ismail to advise Gurewardher that he should return the satellite phone to Knox if he did not wish to speak about the events leading up to the capture, such an admonition is clearly inadequate to satisfy the requirements of Miranda. It in no way conveyed to Gurewardher his right to remain silent, that anything he said could be used against him in a court of law, that he had the right to an attorney, and that an attorney would be provided if he could not afford one. Accordingly, in the absence of any applicable exception to the Miranda requirement, Gurewardher’s statements to Mr. Ismail through the satellite phone on April 2, 2010 should be suppressed. The Government argues that Miranda does not apply to the April 2, 2010 telephonic interview of Gurewardher because the interview was (1) non-custodial, (2) conducted as part of military intelligence gathering, as opposed to a criminal investigation, and (3) subject to the “public safety” exception to the Miranda requirement. Although this Court certainly does not take these arguments, and in particular the “public safety” argument, lightly, the Court nevertheless has concluded that none has sufficient merit to except the April 2, 2010 statements from Miranda. First, a suspect is in custody for Miranda purposes when there is a “ ‘formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement.’ ” United States v. Conley, 779 F.2d 970, 973 (4th Cir.1985) (quoting California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125, 103 S.Ct. 3517, 77 L.Ed.2d 1275 (1983) (per curiam)). The Government does not “dispute that in any colloquial, factual sense, of course they’re in custody from the moment that they’re captured, handcuffed, brought on board, kept handcuffed most of the time.” Hr’g Tr. at 99:24-100:2 (colloquy between counsel for the Government and the Court); accord id. 94:19-95:3, 98:13— 102:17. Nevertheless, the Government continues to maintain that, despite the facts of Defendants’ captivity on board the USS Nicholas, Gurewardher’s satellite phone call on April 2, 2010 was not custodial for Miranda purposes because Gurewardher “was less restrained and more free to go because he wasn’t handcuffed and he’s given a phone and talks for a few minutes on a sat phone and goes back.” Id. at 102:4-6. The Government’s argument is not without some merit, but the Court simply cannot agree with it. Although the evidence before the Court at this time suggests that Defendants were, in fact, safely and humanely treated during their time on board the USS Nicholas, and were not subjected to any abuse, threats, or mistreatment, the fact remains that Gurewardher was detained in handcuffs and under constant guard by armed sailors on the USS Nicholas in the middle of the high seas. The assault boat on which the other Defendants had been found had been sunk — see id. at 71:4-6 (Hutchins Test.) — and the so-called mother ship on which Gurewardher had been found was, at that time, being towed by the USS Nicholas. See id. at 71:7-72:22. Gurewardher was clearly restrained from moving freely and was therefore “in custody” for Miranda purposes. Although Gurewardher was admittedly not handcuffed during the satellite phone call, and Special Agent Knox gave Gurewardher the option not to speak with the interpreter, the alternative was simply to be handcuffed again and escorted by armed guards back to his detention area on the ship. That can hardly be characterized as “ ‘freedom to depart.’ ” Conley, 779 F.2d at 973 (quoting Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495, 97 S.Ct. 711, 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977) (per curiam)); see also Hr’g Tr. at 112:16-24 (Hutchins Test.) (Lt. Hutchins testifying on cross-examination that Gurewardher was not free to leave, because “[h]e would have [fallen] in the ocean”). Even if Gurewardher had been permitted to disembark from the USS Nicholas — he could not actually have done so in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Although the circumstances presented here bear some factual resemblance to the prison context addressed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Conley, the Court finds that case distinguishable. First, Conley involved a prison inmate being questioned as a witness to suspected criminal activity unrelated to the criminal activity for which he was incarcerated at that time. 779 F.2d at 972. In this regard, it must be observed that the potential for intimidation attendant to a custodial environment is significantly diminished in “the paradigmatic custodial prison setting where, by definition, the entire population is under restraint of free movement.” Id. at 973. In other words, the prison is the prisoners’ “community” for the duration of their sentence. Absent some significant additional imposition on a prisoner’s movements, the mere fact that the questioning takes place in this setting does not carry with it the risk of additional intimidation that it might for, say, a person who is not already serving a sentence in prison. In other words, for prisoners, the prison setting becomes the baseline against which the potential for intimidation is measured. In a closely related vein, it must be noted that in the context of Conley, the defendant’s imprisonment was not in any way dependent upon, or even related to, the subject matter or the outcome of the questioning at issue. The defendant there was in prison due to a prior adjudication and sentencing to a term of imprisonment. Although there are certainly circumstances in which questioning about unrelated matters can have an impact on the length of the term a defendant is serving — see Fed. R.Crim.P. 35(b) — such an impact still does not alter the separate underlying basis for the defendant’s imprisonment. Neither of the circumstances discussed above is implicated here. Gurewardher was not a previously adjudicated criminal serving a term of imprisonment on board the USS Nicholas. Instead, Gurewardher was captured on April 1, 2010, shortly after the alleged attack on the USS Nicholas, and detained on board as a suspect in that attack. The April 2, 2010 satellite phone call related to that attack — i.e., to the sole basis for Gurewardher’s detention on board. Unlike the prison in Conley, the USS Nicholas clearly was not Gurewardher’s “community,” the baseline against which the potential for intimidation is measured. The Fourth Circuit also noted in Conley that the defendant there was well acquainted with his guard-questioners, and had even worked for one of them for several months, no doubt significantly diminishing the risk of intimidation and coercion. Id. at 974. In fact, it was Conley who initiated the discussion with the guard for whom he had previously worked. However friendly Defendants might have become with the crew of the USS Nicholas during the course of their detention — see, e.g., Hr’g Tr. at 76:9-17 (Hutchins Test.), 288:10-14 (Knox Test.) — this encounter took place the day after capture, and there obviously was no relationship antecedent to their capture and detention that would have lessened the potential for intimidation. Therefore, the Court finds that the circumstances of the April 2, 2010 satellite phone calls rendered them custodial interviews for purposes of Miranda. Accordingly, Gurewardher should have been advised of his Fifth Amendment rights prior to questioning. The Court next turns to the Government’s second argument, that the requirements of Miranda do not apply to interrogations conducted by NCIS agents on board a United States Navy vessel for the purpose of obtaining military intelligence. In support of its argument that Miranda does not apply to questions in furtherance of military counter-piracy operations, the Government relies on the Fourth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Martindale, 790 F.2d 1129 (4th Cir.1986). In Martin-dale, the Fourth Circuit held that Miranda did not apply to exclude use, in a United States prosecution, of statements made during the course of an interrogation conducted by British officers pursuant to an investigation into the defendant’s suspected violation of British law. Martin-dale, 790 F.2d at 1131. The court reasoned that Miranda was intended as a deterrent to unlawful police interrogations, and that when an interrogation is conducted by authorities in a foreign jurisdiction as part of a separate investigation under foreign law, “the exclusionary rule has little or no effect upon the conduct of foreign police.” Martindale, 790 F.2d at 1132 (quoting United States v. Chavarria, 443 F.2d 904, 905 (9th Cir.1971)). Although this Court obviously takes no issue with the reasoning of Martindale, that reasoning simply does not apply to the April 2, 2010 satellite phone interview of Gurewardher or, indeed, to this ease, in general. In contrast to the British officers at issue in Martindale, the exclusionary rule certainly can have a deterrent effect on the conduct of NCIS agents, who are United States law enforcement personnel acting on a United States Navy vessel, which is an extension of the territory of the United States even when on the high seas. Indeed, the very facts of this case demonstrate the Government’s sensitivity to Miranda even in these circumstances. As discussed below in greater detail in the context of the April 4, 2010 interviews, once Special Agent Knox had been advised that Defendants were likely going to be prosecuted domestically, rather than in Kenya, as he originally believed, he prepared to (and did) recite to Defendants, through an interpreter, a modified version of the Miranda warning as well as a “cleansing statement” provided to him by Government prosecutors. These facts demonstrate that Special Agent Knox believed — or was instructed by his superiors — that Miranda required him to provide such warnings, and he was obviously concerned that if such warnings were not provided, that any statements made by Defendants would be excluded from use at trial pursuant to the exclusionary rule. The Government’s assertion that Miranda did not apply to Gurewardher’s satellite phone interview because it was conducted as part of a military counter-piracy operation, in which the exclusionary rule could have no effect, is thus unavailing. The Court acknowledges, of course, that the circumstances of this case could have led to dual-purpose interviews; i.e., questioning that simultaneously constituted both military intelligence gathering and criminal investigation. The officers and crew of the USS Nicholas clearly had legitimate and weighty concerns other than the eventual criminal prosecution of Defendants in the immediate hours (and perhaps even days) after the capture of Defendants. See Hr’g Tr. at 55:12-56:2 (Hutch-ins Test.), 242:22-243:6 (Knox Test.), 245:9-22. In such a case, the Court would presumably have had to look to the objective nature of the questioning to determine whether or not the context necessitated Miranda warnings. However, the evidence currently before the Court portrays a course of events in which the criminal nature of the investigation manifested early on, and predominated over any intelligence gathering aspects of the satellite phone interviews. Lt. Hutchins explained that “[tjhere were talks pretty much the morning or evening of the 1st is when we first realized that the Department of Justice wanted to take custody of the individuals.” Hr’g Tr. 54:16-18. In other words, Lt. Hutchins’s testimony confirmed that “even on the night of the 1st [of April, 2010 — i.e., the night after Defendants were captured], at least the idea of a United States federal prosecution came up,” and that “a for-sure answer” was that by the “very next day on the 2nd [of April, 2010]” the USS Nicholas had gotten “word that the United States had decided to attempt to charge the five defendants with federal crimes.” Id at 54:20-23, 55:6-9; but see id at 253:5-254:1 (Knox Test.) (Special Agent Knox indicating that he first was advised of the possibility of domestic prosecution after the April 2, 2010 satellite phone calls), 306:6-308:13. Regardless of the precise time at which the personnel on board the USS Nicholas became aware of the decision to pursue domestic prosecution of these Defendants, the facts currently before the Court appear to demonstrate that there was, in fact, little actual intelligence gathering conducted with respect to these Defendants at any time in the days following the alleged attack. Although Intelligence Specialist Vellucci’s participation in the April 2, 2010 satellite phone calls might arguably support the Government’s claim of intelligence gathering, Vellucci himself agreed on cross-examination that during the April 2, 2010 satellite phone calls, he was “not functioning as an intelligence specialist in [that] capacity,” but instead “predominantly” was “simply assisting Special Agent Knox as a notetaker.” Hr’g Tr. at 232:7-10 (Vellucci Test.). Needless to say, the Government has no basis for asserting this ground with respect to the April 4, 2010 interviews discussed below: Vellucci did not participate in them, at all, because, in his own words, those interviews “were part of the criminal investigation,” and Vellucci “was there strictly in an intelligence capacity, and ... [his] presence was not required.” Compare id at 220:7-16 (Vellucci Test.), with id at 220:21-223:2 (Vellucci explaining how he prepared a very brief intelligence report from the notes he took during the April 2, 2010 satellite phone calls, containing little more than the biographical information of Defendants). Accordingly, the Court is simply not faced here with a situation in which the military intelligence-gathering nature of the interviews at issue rendered Miranda inapplicable. Third, the Government argues that even if United States Navy counter-piracy operations abroad are subject to Miranda’s requirements, Gurewardher’s statements in response to the April 2, 2010 telephone interview would be admissible pursuant to the “public safety” exception. The “public safety” exception permits authorities to question a suspect prior to issuing the Miranda warnings in circumstances where there is an “objectively reasonable need to protect the police or the public from [an] immediate danger.” New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 659 n. 8,104 S.Ct. 2626, 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984). The Government argues that the USS Nicholas was uncertain of the Defendants’ motives in perpetrating the surprise attack, noting the possibility of terrorist involvement, and had reason to believe that, whatever the motives, a third vessel tracked on radar during the attack might have remained in the vicinity, preparing to launch another attack. See Hr’g Tr. at 55:12-56:2 (Hutch-ins Test.), 242:22-243:6 (Knox Test.), 245:9-22, 311:5-13. As noted above, the Court is certainly not dismissive of the Government’s arguments in this connection. However, the Court believes certain facts before it tend to show that this is simply not the paradigmatic case in which the narrow “public safety” exception would apply. Of particular note in this connection is the fact that the satellite phone conversations did not occur until a day and a half after being captured. In order for the limited “public safety” exception to apply, there must be an immediate threat to either law enforcement or the public. See Quarles, 467 U.S. at 659 n. 8,104 S.Ct. 2626 (stating that an “immediate danger” must be present for the “public safety” exception to apply). Although it could be argued that, in the absence of an interpreter on board the USS Nicholas, arrangements with Mr. Ismail were made as expeditiously as possible, the Court notes that the nature of the questioning does not suggest a “ticking time bomb” scenario in which specific information is urgently sought. Although there might well have been justified concerns about the whereabouts and intentions of the third boat detected on radar during the attack, there does not appear to be any concerns here about “hidden traps and discarded weapons” that may injure law enforcement officers or the public. United States v. Mobley, 40 F.3d 688, 692 (4th Cir.1994). Instead, the satellite phone calls consisted of eliciting basic biographical information from Defendants and asking them what they were doing out on the high seas, without extensive follow-up or more specific inquiries directed toward concerns of “immediate danger.” See, e.g., Hr’g Tr. at 228:13-17 (Vellucci Test.), 230:25-15, 233:5-21. Moreover, it must be remembered that the USS Nicholas was, after all, engaged in a counter-piracy operation at the time of the alleged attack. Although unprovoked gunfire from an unknown vessel is likely always surprising, though perhaps less so in times and theaters of war, that the USS Nicholas’s alleged altercation with Defendants was, in a sense, precisely the type of encounter that the USS Nicholas was patrolling for, not a surprise terrorist attack. Indeed, as the Government has stipulated, on the date(s) of the alleged attack, “the USS NICHOLAS ... used lighting on the ship to give the appearance that the USS NICHOLAS ... was a merchant vessel.” Docket No. 148 at 2. Among the principal tasks and goals of a counter-piracy operation is, of course, to engage and capture pirates. While the facts of this case may seem novel to the public and media in the United States, to a warship actively engaged in a counter-piracy operation, the facts of this ease are closer to an “ordinary and routine arrest scenario.” Mobley, 40 F.3d at 693. It bears noting that the Court can certainly conceive of circumstances in which an attack on a ship would render the “public safety” exception applicable. For example, had the USS Nicholas been attacked in the manner alleged in this case while in port, with land and/or other vessels in the vicinity, its ability to flee and/or engage its attackers might have been compromised (at least, without risking damage to its surroundings or third-party casualties). In such circumstances, the ship’s vulnerability to further attacks might well justify questioning without Miranda warnings to ascertain the nature of the initial attack and the potential for such further attacks. Here, however, the USS Nicholas was far out to sea, having successfully used radar to detect Defendants’ vessels and likely able to use radar and night-vision capabilities to detect other potentially hostile vessels from which to flee (or to pursue, as it actually did in this case with respect to the mother ship), and able to use- appropriate weaponry to engage (and, indeed, subdue and capture) its attackers without endangering the safety of third parties. While the Court is in no way suggesting a bright-line distinction between the port and high seas contexts for purposes of applying the “public safety” exception, the circumstances of this ease simply do not appear to warrant application of such exception. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that Gurewardher’s April 2, 2010 satellite phone call was a custodial interview to which Miranda applied, and no exception to the Miranda requirement has been demonstrated. Consequently, the Court will GRANT Gurewardher’s motion to suppress his statements made during the April 2, 2010 satellite phone interview, and exclude such statements from trial. b. The April 4, 2010 Interviews of Defendants On April 4, 2010, the interpreter, Mr. Ismail, and NCIS Special Agent Theodore F. Mordecai were helicoptered from the USS Farragut to the USS Nicholas to assist in the questioning of the Defendants. Hr’g Tr. at 66:14-24 (Hutchins Test.), 384:18-385:8 (Mordecai Test.), 431:2-9 (Ismail Test.). Prior to the interviews, Special Agent Knox had been advised of the possible domestic prosecution of Defendants, and had been provided earlier that day via email with a “cleansing statement” to read to Defendants to ensure they knew they had a right to remain silent even though some of them had already spoken with Knox and others on the USS Nicholas. See id. at 253:5-254:1 (Knox Test.). Special Agent Knox acknowledged by reply email his receipt of the “cleansing statement” and his understanding that he was to provide it to each Defendant. See Hr’g Ex. D3B; see also Hr’g Ex. D3C (subsequent email from Knox). Defendants were brought to the centerline passageway to be interviewed, individually, by Special Agents Knox and Mordecai, with the translation assistance of Mr. Ismail. See, e.g., Hr’g Tr. at 67:19-68:4 (Hutchins Test.), 113:25-117:5, 387:2-16 (Mordecai Test.). Lt. Hutchins, Master at Arms Smith, and Electronics Technician Roblesnavarro were also present in the centerline passageway, but were not directly involved in the conduct of the interviews. Id. at 116:10-20 (Hutchins Test.), 182:10-22 (Smith Test.), 203:11-21 (Roblesnavarro Test.), 206:6-14, 210:15-24, 267:10-13 (Knox Test.). Neither the agents nor the interpreter were visibly armed, and the only armed personnel were several feet away, and only in the vicinity when detainees came and went. See id. at 191:14-20 (Smith Test.), 206:15-207:19 (Roblesnavarro Test.), 267:10-18 (Knox Test.). Defendants were individually brought in to be interviewed, and then a group interview was conducted at the end. See, e.g., id. at 121:5-9 (Hutchins Test.). During the interviews, Defendants were handcuffed but not blindfolded. See, e.g., id. at 115:14-116:1 (Hutchins Test.), 122:24-4. Special Agent Knox, speaking through Ismail, recited from memory a number of warnings at the outset of each Defendant’s interview. See id. at 274:20-275:1 (Knox Test.), 278:1-4, 281:8-10, 283:11-13. First, he advised each Defendant “that they have the right to remain silent; that at any time they could be, request to be taken back to their holding area, and that I told them that if they wanted a lawyer, we would give them one.” Id. at 264:6-9 (Knox Test.). Special Agent Knox explained that he intentionally modified his articulation of their right to attorneys because he “knew getting a lawyer on the ship was impossible.” Id. at 264:10-22; see also id. at 352:15-22. He then read each Defendant the “cleansing statement” with which he had been provided, “slightly modified to fit the situation,” as follows: I know you have or may have previously spoken with me or someone else since you were taken into custody. It is possible that the statements you previously made may not be admissible against you in a court of law. A court would decide whether they are admissible. In other words, a court would decide that the statements cannot be used against you. I want you to understand that the interview with me today is a new interview. Just because you talked to me or someone else before does not mean you have to do so today. If you choose to talk to me today, anything you say can be used against you in court. Id. at 265:15-266:10; accord Government Hr’g Ex. 3. Special Agent Knox specifically recalled that he had to stop Gurewardher from beginning to talk at least twice so that he could finish giving him his rights. See Hr’g Tr. at 269:5-14. The other Government witnesses all corroborated the fact that Special Agent Knox administered warnings to Defendants, although their recollections of the warnings varied slightly. See 389:5-15 (Mordecai Test.) (Special Agent Mordecai indicating that “Special Agent Knox gave each suspected pirate their Miranda rights”), 119:2-22 (Hutchins Test.) (Lt. Hutchins indicating that he was familiar with the Miranda warnings and heard Special Agent Knox “doing the Miranda ... a few times,” but admitting that he could not recall whether it was done with every Defendant, including Gurewardher), 151:15-18, 182:19-183:11 (Smith Test.) (Master at Arms Smith indicating that he remembers “Special Agent Knox talking through the interpreter, talking some form of like Miranda rights, talking about, A, if, you know, anything you say, you know, can be used against you, something of that nature”), 188:8-189:1; cf. id. at 135:11-136:6 (Hutchins Test.), 151:9-14, 190:5-13 (Smith Test.), 205:2-206:14 (Roblesnavarro Test.) (Roblesnavarro indicating that he did not remember hearing Miranda warnings being issued, but acknowledging that Special Agent Knox had a piece of paper “that had a Miranda right statement on it”); compare id. at 434:14-437:23 (Ismail Test.) (Mr. Ismail indicating that he recalls translating both an explanation by Special Agent Knox that Defendants had the right not to say anything and the written “cleansing statement” as read by Knox, but also indicating that the warnings were not delivered as they are on television) with id. at 472:15^473:12 (Mr. Ismail acknowledging that he may have translated warnings relating to the use of statements in court and the availability of an attorney for Defendants, but simply does not recall). Mr. Ismail testified that he asked each Defendant at the conclusion of those warnings if that Defendant understood, and each Defendant nodded and/or said “yes” in Somali. Id. at 438:4439:2 (Ismail Test.); cf. id. at 270:448 (Knox Test.) (Special Agent Knox indicating that he did not recall Gurewardher verbally responding as to whether he understood), 271:6-13, 275:8-10, 281:14-19, 283:17-18, 340:18-24, 390:8-391:2 (Mordecai Test.) (Special Agent Mordecai indicating that he had not noticed any question about whether Defendants understood their rights and “never heard any of the suspected pirates say yes, but [he] did see head nodding as acknowledging, yes”). Furthermore, none of the Government personnel perceived anything indicating that any of the Defendants had not understood the warnings. Id. at 269:22-270:3 (Knox Test.), 271:1-5, 275:5-7, 277:3-8, 278:5-15, 281:11-19, 283:14-24, 340:18-24, 403:2404:3 (Mordecai Test.), 439:16-21 (Ismail Test.); cf. id. at 408:21-409:2 (Mordecai Test.). Moreover, at no point did any of the Defendants show any sign of reluctance or confusion. Id. at 68:23-69:16 (Hutchins Test.), 174:24-175:13 (Smith Test.), 390:11-13 (Mordecai Test.), 439:22440:5 (Ismail Test.). Mr. Ismail also noted the unusually friendly tone of the interviews. Id. at 440:22441:6 (Ismail Test.). Only Ali and Dire initially claimed to having been forced to participate in the attack, but eventually, upon a few minutes of questioning, each Defendant admitted to being a “pirate,” and Hasan, Ali, and Dire each admitted to specific roles in the attack on the USS Nicholas and re-confirmed their respective roles in a group interview setting at the end. See id. at 273:10-12 (Knox Test.), 277:9-14, 278:16-280:23, 282:7-17, 284:7-21, 285:13-286:12 i. The Adequacy of Special Agent Knox’s Warnings Defendants argue that the warnings given by Special Agent Knox on April 4, 2010 did not satisfy the requirements of Miranda. Defendants also argue that, because Special Agent Knox did not read the initial warning from a prepared statement, as is typically done, it is unclear exactly what warning was provided to Defendants. Defendants further argue that, in any event, Special Agent Knox’s warning with respect to Defendant’s right to counsel was inadequate because it failed to advise Defendants that they could have counsel present prior to and during interrogation. Defendants’ arguments are unavailing. Although counsel for Defendants made much at the evidentiary hearing of the fact that the April 4, 2010 interviews were not video-recorded, despite the availability of video recording equipment on the USS Nicholas, and that Special Agent Knox’s notes refer only to the “cleansing statement,” and not to the oral Miranda warnings he gave from memory, they provide no basis for any claim of a constitutional requirement that the Miranda warnings be recorded by audio, video, or memorialized in a written record. Indeed, Special Agent Mordecai testified that video-recording interviews is not typical of the NCIS, and that he had never himself had an interview of a suspected pirate video-recorded. See Hr’g Tr. at 386:4-16 (Mordecai Test.). While it is certainly true that a video and/or audio recording would likely have shed significant light on this issue, the Court may ascertain the adequacy of Special Agent Knox’s warnings based on the testimony provided at the evidentiary hearing. Special Agent Knox is an experienced NCIS agent who convincingly testified that he has given Miranda warnings approximately 500 times and can recite them from memory. Id. at 237:23-238:12 (Knox Test.), 262:14-264:2, 360:7-17. Despite the slight variations in the recollections of the various witnesses, the Court finds the testimony offered by the Government to be substantially consistent and credible, and to establish as a factual matter that Special Agent Knox did, in fact, administer the warnings he recalled to each of the Defendants at the beginning of each of their interviews on April 4, 2010. Moreover, no deficiency appears to exist in Special Agent Knox’s modified warning with respect to Defendants’ right to an attorney. Although Special Agent Knox only advised Defendants that counsel would be provided to them if they wanted one, and therefore did not specify that Defendants had the right to the presence of an attorney prior to questioning, the Fourth Circuit has held that such a general warning with respect to the right to counsel is adequate to satisfy the requirements of Miranda. See United States v. Frankson, 83 F.3d 79 (4th Cir.1996) (finding that the formulations “you have the right to an attorney” and “[I]f you cannot afford an attorney, the Government will get one for you” satisfy Miranda, despite their failure to mention that the right to an attorney applies prior to interrogation.). Accordingly, Special Agent Knox’s Miranda warnings and “cleansing statement” prior to the April 4, 2010 in-person interviews comport with the requirements set forth in Miranda. ii. The Defendants’ Knowing and Intelligent Waiver Defendants next argue that, even if they were adequately warned in accordance with Miranda at the outset of the April 4, 2010 interviews, there is no evidence to suggest that they knowingly and intelligently waived their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Defendants argue that, as non-English speaking and illiterate Somali nationals, without any connection to the United States, they would have lacked any understanding of the existence and nature of the rights available to them under the Fifth Amendment even after having the rights recited to them in their own language. Defendants argue that Somalia’s government is barely functional, attorneys are uncommon there, and individual freedoms protecting persons who wish to refuse to answer questions from authorities are foreign and incomprehensible concepts. Although the Court is, of course, sympathetic to the claimed conditions in Somalia, and finds there to be some merit to Defendants’ arguments in this connection, for the reasons stated below, the Court finds that the totality of the circumstances in this case demonstrates that Defendants did, in fact, knowingly and intelligently waive their rights. Consequently, their statements during the April 4, 2010 interviews were made in conformity with Miranda, and may not be excluded from trial on that basis. In addressing the question of whether Defendants knowingly and intelligently waived their Fifth Amendment rights, this Court looks first to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Berghuis v. Thompkins. In Berghuis, the Court held that a defendant implicitly waived his right to remain silent by responding to questions during an interrogation under circumstances that did not indicate coercion on the part of authorities. 130 S.Ct. at 2263-64. In analyzing whether the defendant had waived his Fifth Amendment rights, the Court first found there to be sufficient evidence demonstrating that the defendant understood his Miranda rights because: (1) the defendant received a written copy of the Miranda warning, (2) authorities determined that the defendant could read and understand English, (3) the defendant was provided with an opportunity to read the warnings, and (4) authorities specifically read aloud the portion of the Miranda warning advising the defendant of his right to remain silent and his right to an attorney. Id. at 2262. Significantly, the defendant also never actually contended that he did not understand the Miranda warning. Id. The Court next noted that the defendant had decided to answer questions asked by authorities. Id. at 2263. The Court reasoned that if the defendant had wished to invoke his right to remain silent, the defendant should have said nothing. Id. Lastly, the Court pointed to the fact that there was no evidence that the defendant had been coerced into making his statements. Id. The Court concluded that the totality of the circumstances demonstrated that the defendant had adequately waived his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Id. As in Berghuis, the totality of the circumstances in the instant ease appears to demonstrate that Defendants waived their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, though it is admittedly a somewhat closer case with respect to certain of the above criteria. In the instant case, Defendants affirmatively contest that they understood the Miranda warning. However, the evidence before the Court indicates that Special Agent Knox did, in fact, ask each Defendant if he understood the rights that had just been given to him. Although the testimony diverges as to the precise nature of Defendants’ response— Special Agents Knox and Mordecai recalled only nodding and/or the lack of any indication of not understanding, whereas Mr. Ismail recalls each Defendant verbally saying “Yes” in Somali — the testimony is uniform in suggesting understanding, as opposed to lack thereof, on the part of Defendants. Ultimately, Defendants were adequately warned of their rights against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment in accordance with the requirements of Miranda. The Miranda rights were recited to Defendants, through Ismail, the interpreter, in their native language. At no point did Defendants claim that they did not understand the words being recited by Ismail, or that Ismail was not speaking their native language or dialect. Moreover, during the entire interview process, Defendants were awake, alert, drug-free, and engaged. Of course, whether Defendants actually understood their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination remains a somewhat close question. Defendants argue that their upbringing in a country that has become increasingly lawless in recent decades rendered them incapable of understanding the Miranda rights recited, and, moreover, that the Government has failed to provide evidence of such understanding. It does not appear that applicable Supreme Court precedent, such as the Court’s decisions in Berghuis and Spring, directly addresses situations in which defendants claim not to comprehend the rights recited to them. Moreover, in Berghuis, the Court reiterated that a showing that the Miranda warning was adequately recited and that a defendant thereafter made uncoerced statements, standing alone, is insufficient to demonstrate a valid waiver; instead, the Government must show that the suspect actually understood the rights. Berghuis, 130 S.Ct. at 2261. Nevertheless, it appears from the case law of several Courts of Appeals that the inquiry as to whether a defendant understood the recitation of the Fifth Amendment rights focuses not on the defendant’s understanding of the U.S. criminal justice system, the democratic form of government, and/or the concept of individual rights, but rather on whether the defendant could, merely as a linguistic matter, comprehend the words spoken to him. See, e.g., United States v. Labradar-Bustamante, 428 F.3d 1252, 1259 (9th Cir.2005) (explaining that a Government agent “was not required to explain to [the defendant] what the Miranda rights meant” and that “[t]he fact that [the defendant] might not be familiar with the United States’ form of justice is merely one factor to be considered”) (citing United States v. Frank, 956 F.2d 872, 877 (9th Cir.1991)); United States v. Robinson, 404 F.3d 850, 861 (4th Cir.2005) (finding that the defendant’s “below average I.Q. does not make him per se incapable of intelligently waiving his rights”); United States v. Amano, 229 F.3d 801, 805 (9th Cir.2000) (finding a defendant’s waiver of his Miranda rights to have been voluntary in the circumstances of that case, despite his “previous lack of contact with the criminal justice system in the United States, and his lack of contact with the Japanese consulate”); United States v. Rosario-Diaz, 202 F.3d 54, 69 (1st Cir.2000) (denying a suppression motion made on the grounds that the defendant had a below-average I.Q. and no prior experience with the criminal justice system); United States v. Beale, 921 F.2d 1412, 1435 (11th Cir.1991) (acknowledging that “[t]here is caselaw that supports the district court’s finding that despite [the defendant’s] lack of education and inability to speak English, he was capable of knowingly and intelligently waiving his Miranda rights,” and collecting decisions of the Fifth, Eleventh, and District of Columbia Circuits, but ultimately distinguishing the case before it from those precedents); United States v. Yunis, 859 F.2d 953, 964-66 (D.C.Cir.1988) (noting that, due to the lack of applicable precedent, “[i]t is unclear what weight should be given to an alien’s unfamiliarity with our legal culture in evaluating the validity of that alien’s waiver” but ultimately concluding that, under the circumstances of that case, the defendant’s “unfamiliarity with American law did not prevent him from understanding the Miranda rights as they were presented to him”) (collecting decisions of the Fifth, Seventh, and D.C. Circuits and the United States District Court for the Southern