According to a top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, President Obama and his administration have ordered FBI agents to read terror suspects their Miranda rights; even though they have been captured on foreign soil and are not U.S. citizens officially protected by the Miranda vs. Arizona decision over 40 years ago.
Obama allows Terrorists Miranda rights
Michigan congressman Mike Rogers, met recently with military, intelligence, and law-enforcement officials on a fact finding trip to Afghanistan. What he found was deeply troubling. The Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered the FBI to issue Miranda rights to foreign fighters captured on the field of battle.
Congressman Rogers, who himself is a former FBI agent and member of the military, says:
“I was a little surprised to find it taking place when I showed up because we hadn’t been briefed on it, I didn’t know about it. We’re still trying to get to the bottom of it, but it is clearly a part of this new global justice initiative.”
A Los Angeles Times story in May says that the FBI is going to have a larger role in what Obama calls the “global justice” initiative; taking more of a prominent part in apprehending and questioning suspected terrorists. One can only speculate why the Obama administration has chosen to proceed with the “former war on terror” in this manner. My guess is that they want cover when they bring detainees to the U.S. for trial; there is no other reason to Mirandize a terror suspect.
Republicans and anybody with half a brain knows that this is a bad idea. The first thing a suspect is told when they are given their Miranda rights, is that they have the right to “remain silent”. What would be the point of keeping a bunch of suspected terrorists, if we were not going to glean information from them?
Ranking Republican Pete Hoekstra says:
“It would seem the last thing we want is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other al-Qaeda terrorist to remain silent. Our focus should be on preventing the next attack, not giving radical jihadists a new tactic to resist interrogation–lawyering up.”
Rogers also warns of the fact that organizations like the International Red Cross are already telling detainees to “lawyer up”. And he adds that issuing Miranda rights along with International organizations already advising them in this way will only lead to confusion between the FBI, CIA, and the military.
Didn’t we already have an issue with confusion between the FBI, CIA, military, and other intelligence agencies in the past? Oh, I forgot; that’s what Barack Obama seems to want. The only thing allowing terrorists to have Miranda rights read to them will do is cause confusion.
Obama on Miranda Rights Video
Photos: Photos: www.wenn.com
June 10th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
TDC Comment:
If you are an American soldier in the field of combat and you know that you must read the miranda rights to the enemy (if captured), do you think that soldier will shoot to kill, or attempt to capture the enemy and possibly risk leaving his / her fate in the hands of the Obama administration?
June 10th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
The man (Obama) is a lunatic, an absolute lunatic.
May God help us all.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Silliness like this is good evidence why we need to get rid of ALL the Republicans in Congress (or at least the ones from Alabama and Michigan–I’m still not sure which is which). Maybe we can read ‘em THEIR rights while we vote ‘em out next year….
June 10th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Could this be grounds for impeachment? Our president, the commander in chief, does not know the difference between a US citizen and a foreign terrorist. This man is putting troops and country in terrible danger.
June 10th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Do they get a phone call too ?
June 10th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
This is Obama’s way of appeasing the terrorist. I find it typical of him to do this under the radar. Does anyone think the terrorist will see this as a victory for them?
June 10th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
[...] Right Pundits: Republicans and anybody with half a brain knows that this is a bad idea. The first thing a suspect is told when they are given their Miranda rights, is that they have the right to “remain silent”. What would be the point of keeping a bunch of suspected terrorists, if we were not going to glean information from them? [...]
June 10th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Well, if someone forgets to read them their rights, do they get off? OF COURSE!!!! And, they get to have a jury of their peers, right? So we’ll import some from Afghanastan, or Iran, or Iraq, or where ever the guy comes from. Lord help us!!!
June 10th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Well, I guess that’s what happens when you listen to all his pretty words, and long speeches and completely ignore his values/beliefs and elect him into government. Yay for the uneducated American voting public!
June 10th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
BUT IT IS NOT TRUE! (That don’t matter.)
June 11th, 2009 at 4:42 am
Can anyone say “symbolic PR move”?
This sort of bugs me; not so much because we are treating foreign suspects like actual people — which I believe is a good thing — but because our government is eroding the rights of its own citizens at the same time it is announcing stuff like this.
Under the PATRIOT Act, there are essentially no restrictions on the government’s ability to surveil, search, interrogate, detain and restrict Americans. And we’re worried about giving non-citizen terrorism suspects their rights? How about giving our own people their Constitutionally guaranteed rights first?
June 11th, 2009 at 6:27 am
Man, this moderation thing is really annoying. I understand wanting to keep out the f-bombs and c-words, but this is ridiculous. Are words like terror*sm and rac*sm really all that objectionable? Moderation is one thing, but hindering a legitimate discussion is another.
——————————————
Can anyone say “symbolic PR move”?
This sort of bugs me; not so much because we are treating foreign suspects like actual people — which I believe is a good thing — but because our government is eroding the rights of its own citizens at the same time it is announcing stuff like this.
Under the PATRIOT Act, there are essentially no restrictions on the government’s ability to surveil, search, interrogate, detain and restrict Americans. And we’re worried about giving non-citizen terror*sm suspects their rights? How about giving our own people their Constitutionally guaranteed rights first?
June 11th, 2009 at 6:27 am
OK I give up. Shannon, do you have any clue why I am being moderated?
June 11th, 2009 at 6:53 am
This would be a bodacious reason to take NO prisoners. I know, let’s send Klo to the battlefield to act as an Ombudsman unless he/she is already on the way to N. Korea to advocate for the rights of the two journalists now busting rocks with a tack hammer.
June 11th, 2009 at 8:13 am
“OK I give up. Shannon, do you have any clue why I am being moderated?”
The miss-spelled “Raider” on the DHS report.
I’ve been read my rights probabaly a hundred times. They can still make up the rules as they go along after that if they want. Its a formality that can either be ackonowledged or ignored by one or the other or none at all.
Saying it via the public circuits is just a way for Obama to show the radicals “hey, I’m trying”, “I’m on your side”.
Funny, I was watching this one detainee who’d been released a couple months ago. He said that inmates were being tortured right up until the day he left on Obamas watch. True or not it doesnt look like Obama appeasment has changed these guys minds.
June 11th, 2009 at 8:46 am
True or not it doesnt look like Obama appeasment has changed these guys minds.
Yeah I think that’s because his so-called “appeasement” has been largely symbolic; from the looks of it, Obama will utilize tactics and strategies virtually identical to those used by Bush & Co in the terror war. He’s just trying to be a little more slick and harder to pin down; all this stuff is nothing more than marketing.
What I said in my moderated comment was that stopping abuses of the rights of American citizens at the hands of their own government — chiefly through the PATRIOT Act — is a lot more urgent to me than Mirandizing foreign suspects.
June 11th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Do they get a phone call, opportunity to post a “reasonable bail”, the right of a speedy trial? I think Obama is scared that the terrorists will really strike at us and this is his way of kissing up. Note that Mrs. Obama did not travel to the Arab nations during his recent visit (typical Muslim behavior). This is the beginning of the “give away” of America. Remember also, that Obama has yet to provide lawful evidence of his citizenship. The only thing that gives me hope is the fact that all this is God’s plan, and in heaven we will not have these problems. May God bless America.
June 11th, 2009 at 11:18 am
“Obama will utilize tactics and strategies virtually identical to those used by Bush & Co in the terror war. ”
Obama HAS utilize tactics and strategies virtually identical to those used by Bush & Co in the terror war.
The patriot act ? meh.
I dont see a whole bunch of people crying about any particular invasions of privacy rights or liberties lost. Couple stumbles here and there at the hands of it ? Yeah, but even Obama has pretty much left intact. (theres those Bush policies he pitched against that really worked)
JC.
Can we please get pst the citizenship thing ? I doubt with all our intelligence gathering capabilities we actually allowed a non citizen to end up in the white house. Stop it, please.
June 11th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Obama HAS utilize tactics and strategies virtually identical to those used by Bush & Co in the terror war.
Yeah that’s what I was getting at; he hasn’t deviated far frmo the Bush strategy yet, and I see no reason to expect him to do so moving forward. That’s what makes me say stuff like this Miranda deal is all window dressing with zero substance.
I dont see a whole bunch of people crying about any particular invasions of privacy rights or liberties lost.
Well first of all that’s an anecdotal statement — if necessary I could find anecdotal links to counter that. More importantly though, even if we could show that the abuse hasn’t been widespread as of yet, the law itself is an issue. It allows for the bypassing of Constitutional protections of American citizens; that in itself is a problem, no matter how often those protections are actually violated.
Can we please get pst the citizenship thing ?
Hah, I’m with you there Micky, I haven’t liked Kool-Aid since I was a little kid.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
“It allows for the bypassing of Constitutional protections of American citizens; ”
Yes, but not just willy nilly at the drop of a hat. Theres protocol and requirements in place that dont allow for just anyone to be surveilled. It has to be deemed a mater of national security and the intrusion is only allowe on certain types of comunications.
The only real good example so far which I called “stumbles” was Padilla. We havent seen anything like that since and I think it helped to define limits
June 11th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Rhay,
Please provide just one specific instance where an American citizen has had him or hers rights abused because of the Patriot Act?
June 11th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
the only terrorist i see is obama himself he is ilegal unconstitutional and is part of the problem that faces the us today.
some one needs to deport this socialist.
and no i am not a redneck. or rac*st.
you tread on my constitutional rights.
regardless of race religion or creed.
you “leave” plain and simple.
neocons or socioleftists same thing.
you dont like the constitution leave our country now.
June 11th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
I’m with new day. Impeach.
Hey, your popups crash my browser.
June 12th, 2009 at 3:48 am
@George: Again, the point is the law itself more so than any specific case. But, if you need a name, do a search on Brandon Mayfield.
He’s an American citizen (an attorney, no less) who was held for over two weeks without being charged because of a botched fingerprint analysis that erroneously tied him to a 2004 bombing in Madrid. Again, don’t take my word for it, do a search. He has a Wikipedia page.
So yeah, there’s your “one specific instance”.
June 12th, 2009 at 3:50 am
Man this moderation stuff is ridiculous. RP Editors, can you maybe give us a post telling us which words are allowed and which aren’t? I’ll try this one again guys:
—————————————-
@George: Again, the point is the law itself more so than any specific case. But, if you need a name, do a search on Brandon Mayfield.
He’s an American citizen (an attorney, no less) who was held for over two weeks without being charged because of a botched fingerprint analysis that erroneously tied him to a 2004 b*mbing in Madrid. Again, don’t take my word for it, do a search. He has a Wikipedia page.
So yeah, there’s your “one specific instance”.