Options
Holder's Premature Mirandization of Suspect
· Sunday, February 7, 2010
Republicans have been hitting the Obama administration for Attorney General Eric Holder's too-quick decision to Mirandize accused Christmas bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab after a mere 50 minutes of what has been described as valuable interrogation. After the Miranda moment, the would-be bomber clammed up.
Critics argue that the FBI did not need to tell the Nigerian citizen that he had a right to remain silent and to an attorney. For one thing, he is not a U.S. citizen, but arguably an "enemy combatant" caught entering the country intent on committing an act of war. And even if he were a U.S. citizen, a "public-safety exception" for putting off a Miranda reading is recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court. So how do the Obamans defend this clear mistake?
The answer: By reminding people that President George W. Bush allowed accused terrorists to be Mirandized first. As if that makes Holder's decision smart and solid.
On Wednesday, Holder sent a letter to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell that noted that the decision to try Abdulmutallab in criminal court and interrogate him a la Miranda was consistent with "policies and practices" adopted by previous administrations and "were not criticized when employed by previous administrations."
Be it noted, Obama and other Dems were in no position to criticize the Bushies for being too easy on terrorists because they were so busy kicking them for being too tough on the likes of accused 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. And Republicans had their hands full defending Bush against efforts to weaken intelligence-gathering.
Holder also noted that under Bush, law enforcement officials advised now-convicted shoe-bomber Richard Reid, a British citizen, "of his right to remain silent and to consult with an attorney within five minutes of being removed from the aircraft" Reid tried to blow up.
Bush supporters have responded by noting that military tribunals were not operational when Reid was arrested in December 2001, hence, his treatment was mirrored that of any other accused criminal. That still doesn't mean it was a swell idea to Mirandize Reid before actionable intelligence might have been gleaned.
At Senate Intelligence Committee hearings last week, Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, grilled Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller on the premature Mirandizing of Abdulmutallab. Mueller nonsensically responded that "fast-moving" events prompted the decision.
"So what were the fast-moving events of that day that necessitated issuing his Miranda rights?" Snowe asked. "I'm not clear on that. What was the rush?"
Mueller answered that the FBI wanted to know if there were other planes with bombs, who the bomb maker was and who directed the attack. So why Mirandize Abdulmutallab? After the Miranda moment, Abdulmutallab stopped talking.
Mueller added, "We also want to utilize his statements to effectively prosecute him." To which GOP Sen. James Risch of Idaho, a former prosecutor, marveled, "You had 200 witnesses who saw what he did." The FBI, Risch argued, should have tried to "wring everything you can out of this guy" and pass it on to intelligence officials. If they had gotten Abdulmutallab to spill the beans, the national security machine might have acted -- by sending drones, repositioning satellites for surveillance -- to prevent the next copycat passenger. There would be no need to introduce what interrogators learned into a courtroom to win a conviction, given the number of witnesses and physical evidence against the defendant.
For his part, Blair had told the committee that officials who questioned Abdulmutallab got "good intelligence. We're getting more." The administration has let it be known that after weeks of silence, Abdulmutallab has begun to talk again.
Unfortunately, the would-be bomber has gotten chatty with weeks-old information. He's talking, but the horse has left the barn.
Blair testified that it is "certain" al-Qaida will attempt another attack on the United States in coming months. In that light, Holder's decision seems both reckless and clueless.
Blair also gave his latest iteration on what was thought to be a newly formed High Value Detainee Interrogation Group, or HIG. At congressional hearings last month, Blair testified that the FBI should not have questioned Abdulmutallab, as "we did not invoke the HIG in this case. We should have. Frankly, we were thinking more of overseas people and, duh, you know, we didn't put it (in action) here."
Later that day, Blair's office disclosed that the HIG was not yet operational. From duh to oops. At the Senate hearing, Blair announced that the HIG is "moving along," and "we are using the components that we expect will coalesce into HIG."
By all means, coalesce quickly. Because it is "certain" another attack will be attempted, it would be nice if the interrogators are less preoccupied in nailing an already easy prosecution and more interested in thwarting terrorist attacks.
In trying to mollify Snowe, Mueller suggested that she think of this interrogation as "a continuum. Don't consider it a snapshot."
Thank you, Yoda.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.
Options
Subscribe
Accuracy in Media Editor Cliff Kincaid: "Mark Alexander is the recipient of the 2007 AIM Award for Grassroots Journalism. It is an honor to be associated with Mark and PatriotPost.US." It's Right. It's Free. Subscribe now!
The Right Opinion
- Peggy Noonan: Mitt Romney's Moment
- Argus Hamilton: From The Comedy Store
- Burt Prelutsky: Time to Start Playing Offense
- Rich Galen: Obama & Romney Tout Good News
- Edwin J. Feulner: 'Law of the Sea' Treaty: Sink It
- Arnold Ahlert: With Democrats, You're Either All In - or All Out
- Oliver North: Memorial Day 2012
- Ken Blackwell: Remarks on Religious Liberty
- L. Brent Bozell: Canada's 'Scientific' Museum of Smut
- Michelle Malkin: Obama's Land of the LOST
- Rebecca Hagelin: The 'Gay Marriage' Spin
- David Limbaugh: Obama and Leahy vs. Sir William Blackstone
Grassroots Commentary
Policy and Analysis
- Heritage Foundation Insider
- Heritage Foundation Research
- American Enterprise Institute
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- The Cato Institute
- Hoover Institution
- National Rifle Association
- Ludwig von Mises Institute
- Citizens Against Government Waste
- National Center for Policy Analysis
- The Heartland Institute
Our Mission
"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher
The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!
























Jeff Reynolds
I disagree with those that believe that the suspect could be questioned by government agents, legally, without giving the appropriate Miranda warnings to him. In fact, I find fault with the government for not having read the suspect his rights at the very beginning. It is of the utmost importance to do everything perfectly in these high profile cases. A stupid mistake could undermine an entire prosecution.
Posted February 7, 2010 at 4:38:32 AM
Bud
So you think that a non citizen deserves the same rights that we have, which our fore fathers fought and died for?
If you were arrested in any other country, do you think they would read you your rights? What rights do you think you would have? hah! Maybe they would give you milk and cookies for being an "enemy combatant".
Posted February 7, 2010 at 10:01:13 AM
Frank E. Waterstraat
02/07/10
When I read Mr.Jeff Reynolds comment,I was stunned.
I could not believe my eyes.You are probably a
nice person,But you have been living in LA-LA
land all your life.You have much to LEARN about
those that want to KILL you and your FAMILY.
Posted February 7, 2010 at 2:18:54 PM
Timm
Sorry Jeff, you're wrong. The law does not require that everyone arrested is read Miranda. Most people are clueless when it comes to what Miranda really is. TV dramas that incorrectly portray Miranda is where people get their misunderstanding. The worst thing that would happen if a criminal was not read his Miranda warning before he was questioned would be that anything he said, would not be admissible in court. In this case, it would not matter as there is enough evidence to convict him without his confession. And... if what the arrestee was being questioned about had nothing to do with his specific crime, Miranda wouldn't need to be read to him, because it wouldn't be admitted into court - its intelligence, not evidence. It could get someone else convicted, but Miranda only applies to the individual arrested, not his co-conspirators.
Also, most individuals at the time of arrest are not ever read Miranda. Why? because they are never asked any questions by the arresting officer. If the arrested individual offers an unsolicited "excited utterance," without being read Miranda, it can be used against him in court.
Contrary to Jeff's beliefs, the Miranda warning is not a right an individual has when he gets arrested. It is simply a requirement if the authorities want to ask an arrestee any questions.
An entire case will not be jeopardized by an arrestee not being read his Miranda rights. The only time a case can be jeopardized is if all the evidence in the case is a confession obtained without Miranda being read prior. So if a criminal confessed to a crime after being arrested but not read Miranda, he could still be convicted on the remaining physical evidence after the confession was thrown out.
Let me pose this question. With all the law enforcement, criminal and court TV shows, the internet, and the thousands of news outlets, don't most people already know their rights to keep quiet and have an attorney present when they're being questioned after being arrested? That was the intention of Miranda - to advise uneducated people of the rights they should already know they have as a citizen of the U.S. I bet even Jeff knows this.
Posted February 7, 2010 at 4:21:18 PM
Brian
Here's my question: why are we concerned about wether or not this piece of garbage gets a fair trial? Why is getting a trial at all? He is nothing more than a franc-tireur, and as such should be shot on the spot. He is an enemy combatant, hiding amongst the civilian population, and performing acts of sabotage. The leathernecks and grunts in Iraq and Afghanistan are sure as H@ll not reading anybody their Miranda rights. Abdulmutallab is NO different than any of his cohorts in direct contact with our military. Sure, we can iterrogate him for intel, but why give hin the privilege of a fair trial? He perpertrated an attack against our country and her citizens. Call it suicide by the 2nd amendment. Then bury him wiht a pork chop in his mouth.
Posted February 7, 2010 at 9:10:24 PM