Obama’s Interrogation Policy: You Had the Right to Remain Silent
posted at 11:00 am on February 2, 2010 by Patterico
Even as Obama insists that terrorists be read their Miranda rights, his Department of Justice lawyers are in court arguing the opposite. David B. Rivkin and Marc Thiessen write in the Wall Street Journal that DoJ lawyers are fighting attempts by terrorists in criminal court to have their confessions suppressed. The DoJ’s argument? We are at war with Al Qaeda:
On Dec. 18, 2009, days before the Christmas attack, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Preet Bharara, made a secret filing in federal district court that was aimed at saving the prosecution of Ahmed Ghailani, another al Qaeda terrorist. Ghailani is facing charges for helping al Qaeda bomb U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Ghailani argues that those charges should be dropped because lengthy CIA interrogations have denied him his constitutional right to a speedy trial.
Mr. Bharara, on behalf of the Justice Department, filed a memorandum with the court stating that Ghailani’s claims are dangerous and off the mark. Interrogating terrorists must come before criminal prosecution, he wrote in language so strong that even a redacted version of his filing (which we have obtained) serves as a searing indictment of the administration’s mishandling of Abdulmutallab.
“The United States was, and still is, at war with al Qaeda,” Mr. Bharara argued. “And because the group does not control territory as a sovereign nation does, the war effort relies less on deterrence than on disruption—on preventing attacks before they can occur. At the core of such disruption efforts is obtaining accurate intelligence about al Qaeda’s plans, leaders and capabilities.”
Yes, we are at war with Al Qaeda. But then, why are we prosecuting the warriors in criminal court? Why do we feel we need to read the terrorist warriors their Miranda rights? Why are we having to beg federal judges not to throw out the warriors’ confessions?
By twisting the criminal justice system to accommodate cases that don’t belong there, Obama’s approach also threatens to weaken the protections of the system for all Americans. We have already seen how Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s trial has been turned into a show trial whose outcome is meaningless, making a mockery of the seriousness of criminal trials.
Now Obama is making a mockery of Miranda rights as well.
If unnamed sources in the Los Angeles Times are to be believed, Administration officials read the underwear bomber his Miranda rights — but only after they had decided that he was not going to talk any more:
The decision to advise the accused Christmas Day attacker of his right to remain silent was made after teleconferences involving at least four government agencies — and only after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had stopped talking to authorities, according to knowledgeable law enforcement officials.
. . . .
The source said that Abdulmutallab was not read his rights until he made it clear that he was not going to say anything else.
Let me get this straight. First they interrogate the suspect. Then, after he talks, they tell him he has the right to remain silent. (More like: he had the right to remain silent.)
If this account is correct, it’s clear that the Miranda rights are being read purely for show. Like KSM’s trial, Obama wants to give terrorists who wage war against this country the appearance of due process, by conferring on them procedural protections to which they are not entitled.
This makes a mockery of the process.
Telling terrorists we are going to try them in criminal court, but that the outcome doesn’t matter because they won’t be released if they win, makes the criminal trials a joke.
Telling terrorists we are going to read them their Miranda rights — but only after we have interrogated them to the point where they are done talking, makes Miranda rights meaningless.
The solution is simple. Listen to your lawyers, Barry. Treat criminal suspects as criminals — and foreign Al Qaeda fighters as warriors.
Your lawyers understand we are at war. Why don’t you?










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Trying them in criminal courts helps whom? Who is the demographic that wants trials in criminal courts instead of military courts? Was it just a blame Bush campaign slogan that no one understood or is there more behind it. On top of mirandizing terrorists he and Gibbsy have poisoned the jury pool by announcing that the civilian court decisions will have no bearing on how the terrorists are treated. Holder needs to go (Obama needs to go too but too hard).
Haunches on February 2, 2010 at 11:05 AM
Yep, Mr. Terrorist. We’re going to give you a fair trial followed by a first-class hanging. Just so AG Holder and Barack The Magnificent can show off our civilian trial process. What kind of jack-leg logic is this?
kingsjester on February 2, 2010 at 11:06 AM
A successful terrorist attack would be a marvelous and delightful excuse to spend ginormous amounts of money.
There is nothing else with these ones.
happyfeet on February 2, 2010 at 11:06 AM
You’re putting too much thought into this. This is the LA Times providing cover for the White House. Play it this way in the media and the president can appease both sides. The Left gets the bomber treated like a US citizen and the Right gets the interrogation. It’s the least the LA Times can do for The One, especially since they may be looking for some fed money to stay afloat in the near future.
ROCnPhilly on February 2, 2010 at 11:09 AM
I still want to know who they are appeasing.
Haunches on February 2, 2010 at 11:10 AM
Show trials fit Zero’s personality perfectly.
By the way, I’ve yet to see observed what I see as one of Zero’s biggest oversight in claiming to administer a “fair” American trial for these monsters: How the hell do we judge a foreign terrorist by a jury of his peers?!!
Shall we go to Dearbornistan for jury selection? Perhaps New York taxi drivers? By promising to show “our fairness” to the world, Zero has made a mockery of every aspect of our justice system. I think I hate him now.
Maquis on February 2, 2010 at 11:12 AM
There should be outrage from all sides of the political spectrum, if you value the Constitution for everyone equally. The if caveat is mandatory these Obama days.
Um, no. Eric Holder is the chief lawyer and he agrees with Obama. In fact, Holder’s firm defended the Yemen terrorists pro bono.
conservative pilgrim on February 2, 2010 at 11:13 AM
To avoid being banned I will not use the more expressive expletives that I believe are appropriate . . . I will only state that these are the dumbest, most incompetent, despicable fools that have ever cast their shadows within the District of Columbia.
rplat on February 2, 2010 at 11:13 AM
LA Times,
Which 4 agencies were consulted? Because from the Senate hearings I thought only DOJ was consulted.
journeyintothewhirlwind on February 2, 2010 at 11:13 AM
Is this guy an American Citizen? If not, why would he be read Miranda Rights AT ALL???
bridgetown on February 2, 2010 at 11:14 AM
Just another point (in a very long list of points) as to why Obama isn’t brillant.
moonsbreath on February 2, 2010 at 11:14 AM
I am completely at a loss as to why the administration plays at due process, on the one hand, while simultaneously not being truly serious about interrogation and incarceration of terrorists.
The only thing I can think of is that the administration is in a panic, and is patently unaware of how to handle the situation they find themselves in. (that is, national defense.)
KinleyArdal on February 2, 2010 at 11:15 AM
This goes beyond Clintonian triangulation, into something like quadrangulation–or more than likely, strangulation.
EMD on February 2, 2010 at 11:15 AM
Didn´t Barry skip that class at Harvard Law School: “Terrorist or Criminal – You Decide”
albill on February 2, 2010 at 11:15 AM
That’s common sense. Please send some to the Obama WH STAT.
conservative pilgrim on February 2, 2010 at 11:15 AM
Sigh–this is just making my head ache….
lovingmyUSA on February 2, 2010 at 11:16 AM
I don’t believe that to be true.. I think Miranda was poorly decided in the first place.
I don’t see anything in the constitution, that says Law Enforcement has to be your educator.
franksalterego on February 2, 2010 at 11:16 AM
“Brilliant” that is.
Obama must be rubbing off on me.
moonsbreath on February 2, 2010 at 11:17 AM
Dear Liar understands that He is at war — the problem is He views the enemy to be the United States of America, the American people, our history and traditions. He believes in “positive rights” rather than Natural Rights.
rbj on February 2, 2010 at 11:18 AM
Read that again and I think you will begin to understand. This is not incidental to the situation; it is a primary objective.
MikeA on February 2, 2010 at 11:18 AM
The slow drip tactic of invalidating the rule of law as we know it seems to be his life goal.
katy on February 2, 2010 at 11:18 AM
And Obama lectured as a Constitutional Law Professor? Seriously, I would give my next paycheck to see his real college and Law school transcripts.
Johnnyreb on February 2, 2010 at 11:19 AM
I’m going to call BS on at least one part of the story. Most Americans don’t approve of Mirandizing foreign terror suspects, so “leaking” that the administration did so only after the PantyBomber stopped talking is preferable to the original story, which is that the suspect was talking until he was allowed to “lawyer up”.
I’m guessing that this particular leak is more like deliberate damage control.
OneEyedJack on February 2, 2010 at 11:21 AM
Baloney. Nice try at whitewashing the mess, but it won’t fly. Two separate leaked reports came out detailing the fact that the undiebomber kept talking UNTIL he was read his rights.
THEY SHOULD NEVER HAVE MIRANDIZED A FOREIGN NATIONAL. Constitutional rights are only for citizens.
dogsoldier on February 2, 2010 at 11:21 AM
If I was born in another country and I was contemplating filing a lawsuit against someone, I would demand my case be heard in the USA because Obama and Holder say I have constitutional rights to the civilian court system.
moonsbreath on February 2, 2010 at 11:23 AM
Impeachment.
csdeven on February 2, 2010 at 11:24 AM
Can’t anyone see the humor?
I keep sending a movie script out for a remake of Idiocracy based on events in the last couple of years. They come back with insults in the reply.
One skit had a sportscaster who was selling that obnoxious drink and then mixing a nutty commentary show and covering news events as an anchor for a channel that wanted to be taken seriously. Really funny but couldn’t be true, of course.
IlikedAUH2O on February 2, 2010 at 11:24 AM
Brennan said on a sunday talk show that underwear was still talking after Miranda rights. Sounds like this was just a LIE!!
rjoco1 on February 2, 2010 at 11:24 AM
“He’ll get a fait trial and a fair hangin’,” -Judge Roy Bean, the Law West of the Pecos.
Akzed on February 2, 2010 at 11:24 AM
Wrong Reactions Bad Decisions.
Tuesday Morning Threat Level Fanta ;)
Dr Evil on February 2, 2010 at 11:26 AM
And the country would have a legal system and defense department run by idiots who didn’t understand law or defense cause they had these programs to give jobs away to unqualified people. Can you imagine that?
IlikedAUH2O on February 2, 2010 at 11:27 AM
It’s a war on crime, not a war on terror, silly.
drjohn on February 2, 2010 at 11:28 AM
He WILL stand with his muslim brothers.
capejasmine on February 2, 2010 at 11:30 AM
I think the word for this phase is “splunge”.
BL@KBIRD on February 2, 2010 at 11:30 AM
ROCnPhilly, dogsoldier.
It’s good to know our Made in America BS meters are working well.
Thanks, Obama!
OneEyedJack on February 2, 2010 at 11:31 AM
Making a mockery of the Constitution? It’s what liberals do every day. Declare that a suspect will be put to death, but that his trial will show how fair our system is. Declare that the first amendment applies to strippers but not presidential campaigns. Hold that eminent domain applies to property used for an office park. Rule that a farmer growing grain for his own cows is engaging in commerce.
hawksruleva on February 2, 2010 at 11:34 AM
The maestro can always change the tune. Just pity the orchestra trying to follow him. (Remember “A Night at the Opera?”)
Kind of like Stalinism without bullets.
Seth Halpern on February 2, 2010 at 11:40 AM
Barry’s goals have nothing to do with the war on terror or criminal rights.
He wants to placate those on the far left who either don’t believe we are at war, or who want the US to lose.
He also wants to placate the right who want to win the war on terror and don’t believe that the US is the source of all evil in the world.
So he tells the left that we have criminal trials and mirandize all captured terrorists.
Then he tells the right that it doesn’t matter if the terrorists win their trials, they will just be passed over to the military system. (Kind of sounds like what happened to the Rodney King cops.) And we won’t mirandize the terrorists until after they have told us everything we want to know.
The end result of lying to both the left and the right, is this useless muddle that solves neither problem and makes everything worse.
MarkTheGreat on February 2, 2010 at 11:42 AM
Both President Obama and his Press Secretary Gibbs have publicly stated that Khaled Sheik Mohammed will be “executed” for his crimes. This is clearly contrary to the “innocent until proven guilty” principle in American criminal law.
We can legally “execute” KSM only if we know he is guilty. We do know he is guilty by his own admission to CIA interrogators, but then why bring him to trial? What is “fair” about a trial whose verdict is known in advance? Wouldn’t that send the message that America has kangaroo courts?
The American criminal justice system is for American citizens, and legal immigrants who have agreed to abide by American laws in exchange for the right to live in our country. Foreigners such as Abdulmatullab who tried to kill Americans (and himself in the process) are NOT entitled to the rights of Americans.
If that means that America has one system of justice for its own citizens, and another for its enemies, so be it. Other countries do the same thing.
Steve Z on February 2, 2010 at 11:47 AM
Why? Because Barry is obsessed with gaining the love of the so-called “international community”. That’s why!
RMR on February 2, 2010 at 11:48 AM
What worries me is, what kind of precedent this will set, for the future. Imagine any, and all terrorists demanding their miranda, and constitutional rights. Imagine them gumming up the legal system, because their civil rights are being violated by the notion that even if they were exonerated, they’d be put to death, or sent back to military prison?
All of this is truly a mockery to our legal system. I say impeach Obama, and fire Holder, and people…please stop funding the ACLU. They’ve gone nuts now, and donations just enable the behavior.
capejasmine on February 2, 2010 at 11:48 AM
Obama and his pimps are simply trying to install “social justice” instead of real justice in every part of the American system they can get their mitts on.
It’s a fantasy of the Progressive Leftoids.
AmeriKKKa must be humbled.
Even if it kills us.
profitsbeard on February 2, 2010 at 11:49 AM
That about sums up this “constitutional lawyer”.
Jerome Horwitz on February 2, 2010 at 11:50 AM
LAT doing damage control because Obama and Holder can’t FAKE the perception of giving a damn about our constitution or protecting Americans.
meMC on February 2, 2010 at 11:52 AM
Kabuki. None of it matters. Judge, juries, Mirandas, nothing. The decisions are already made.
rogerb on February 2, 2010 at 11:52 AM
The waters of our judicial system are being muddied up and made murky by liberals so they can claim it is anything they want it to be. This will be useful when bringing to trial those they want to be rid of. Remember when they wanted to frog march people out of the white house over perceived misapplication of the law? Liberals will never give up.
Kissmygrits on February 2, 2010 at 11:54 AM
Much as the War on (Some) Drugs has led to an erosion of our rights to privacy and property and protections from illegal search and siezure, the War on Terror will lead to an erosion of other rights.
We did not mind when the police were knocking in the doors of “Drug Kingpins” and forming paramilitary squads to deal with heavily armed drug gangs. But now that they have turned those same techniques and officers loose on the general population, people are starting to object.
I predict that, ten years from now, we will be saying the same thing about coercive interrogation and the denial of the right to silence or counsel. It was all fine and dandy when we waterboarded the terrorists, but when regular folk are tossed into a cell and abused for whatever reason, people might not like that so much.
That is why we must keep wars and courts apart as much as possible.
gridlock2 on February 2, 2010 at 11:56 AM
Obama to his cabinet…
I just did what I do best, I took your little plan and I turned it on itself. I mean look wha I did to this city with a few drums of gas and a couple of bullets, hmm. And you know what I noticed, is that when things go according to plan, nobody panics. If tomarrow I told the press that like a gang banger will get shot, or a truck load of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it’s all parta the plan. But when I say that one little ol’ mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds. Introduce a little anarchy, upset the established order and everything becomes chaos. I’m an agent of chaos, oh and you know the thing about chaos, it’s fair.
PierreLegrand on February 2, 2010 at 11:58 AM
This is the master plan of Obama the Ignoramus; Make a mockery of all that is established as inherently an American foundation.
Cybergeezer on February 2, 2010 at 12:01 PM
Making this statement in public, for public consumption, demonstrates how insane these idiots are.
Cybergeezer on February 2, 2010 at 12:05 PM
They are trying to bring the system down by whatever means necessary. Why is that so hard to understand?
UnderstandingisPower on February 2, 2010 at 12:05 PM
Stop arresting them. Its so simple.
Just interrogate them on the battlefield or wherever we find them by sending a bullet through their brain and analyzing what comes out.
Soldier: “So, you want to be a martyr, eh?”
Bad Guy: “Allah-hu akbar!”
Soldier: BANG “Wish granted”
BobMbx on February 2, 2010 at 12:29 PM
There’s a rule that allows continued questioning in an immediate threat environment, and UndieDog said there was another bomb aboard.
But there’s an even better rule that allows continued questioning: designating him as an enemy combatant.
This hypocrisy is the homage the administration’s hug-a-thug vice pays to virtue. Truth is, they’re just skitzo. They want it both ways. If it weren’t for double standards, they wouldn’t any standards at all.
Noel on February 2, 2010 at 12:42 PM
That is, If it weren’t for double standards, they wouldn’t have any standards at all.
For example, they decry kangaroo courts while guaranteeing conviction and the death penalty? Gitmo, with its tennis courts and full medical & dental is a “recruiting tool”–but a guaranteed death penalty isn’t?
Noel on February 2, 2010 at 12:47 PM
Obama has empathy toward Muslims. Period
elclynn on February 2, 2010 at 12:48 PM
And the designation of Illegal Combatant allows genuinely effective questioning.
Maquis on February 2, 2010 at 12:49 PM
Its the “Progressive” blurring of the lines.
Progresives work in the “grey” areas of the law… by blurring the lines as to who gets what Rights, they are no longer Rights at all.
Its like the “Right” to Privacy, which was used to give Constitutional cover to abortions, yet that same Right does not apply when someone wants me to take a Urinalysis Test? (let alone the Right to not self incriminate).
We need a Law from Congress, denoting that Rights are for American Citizens, and those here LEGALLY… but that will not happen as that does not fit BOTH parties Progresive Agendas.
Romeo13 on February 2, 2010 at 1:03 PM
Over 100 years of Supreme Court precedence disagrees with you, including as recently as 2008.
ReaganRoxx on February 2, 2010 at 1:06 PM
should be THE talking point for all (R) candidates…
cmsinaz on February 2, 2010 at 1:26 PM
If the Christmas Day bomber had already stopped talking then why are lawyers attempting to make a deal to get more information out of him?
Sounds like someone is trying to cover their posterior.
Obama’s entire administration- not just him- is completely unprepared to be in a position of responsibility. From the day they crashed the White House email system- and had no idea how to fix it- it became apparent that we were dealing with a bunch of amateurs with no common sense.
That- a year into his Presidency- such startlingly inept decisions are still being made is astounding. What’s worse is that there are potentially thousands of lives on the line. AQ just need to get it right once to kill multitudes of innocent people.
This bomber was supposed to die on that plane- which means he has access to important information about networks, individuals, email accounts, bank accounts, other plans, other active terrorists or cells, etc. The moment AQ found out he was still alive they would have started to erase this trail of intelligence. And with each day that he continues to refuse to talk the trail is wiped away further and becomes harder- perhaps impossible- to find again.
Reading him his rights instead of intensively interrogating him was a disastrous mistake- and I hope and pray that another attack on America is not able to succeed because of it.
Jay Mac on February 2, 2010 at 1:40 PM
I’m picking fly poop out of pepper here, but these guys are not warriors.
They are cowardly, terrorist scumbags. A real warrior has no problem with a standup fight and even abides by a certain amount of honor on the battlefield.
These morons idea of honor is stuffing their underpants full of explosives, shoving dynamite up their butts or blowing up people buying groceries, etc.
Like I said, fly poop out of pepper…
catmman on February 2, 2010 at 1:55 PM
Very well put.
Selective enforcement of laws is a hallmark of tyranny.
29Victor on February 2, 2010 at 2:07 PM
But you’re right. And their illicit dirtbag nature makes them illegal combatants deserving neither the Geneva protections for warriors, nor American Constitutional rights.
Zero is the least American president ever.
Maquis on February 2, 2010 at 2:18 PM
I still would like to see the over under on how long KSM will surviv if he happens to be found innocent because his confession was dismissed due to miranda rights and is then released in Afghanistan.
He rolled over on his buddies and they don’t seem like the forgiving type when a guy forgot about dying as a martyr and instead gave the US everything they wanted.
If it were up to me, we would have given him some poison and told him we needed to remove his appendix. Little would he know that we were actually implanting a tracking device in his belly. Then we would release him and let his buddies grab him. As they begin to interrogate him a bunker buster would land on top of them.
jeffn21 on February 2, 2010 at 3:50 PM
They are making these stories up as they go. You know, you see the videos, maybe did it yourself when you were young. Mom asking pointed questions, story keeps changing, the young critter hopes that they eventually say the magic words that gets them off the hook. Welcome to the “When I was a Child”
WoosterOh on February 2, 2010 at 3:52 PM
Ah, those halcyon days of ignorant liberalism, how I don’t miss it.
Maquis on February 2, 2010 at 4:11 PM
What makes all of this troubling is the fact that Obama
does not recognize the difference.
And this guy taught con law?
thgrant on February 2, 2010 at 7:40 PM
Fox news reported the “administration” says he is talking now and providing valuable information. How could anyone believe this corrupt, feckless administration. They are simply trying to cover their butt with all the flack that is now coming their way. They are enemies of the state and your families are not safe as long as they are in office.
wepeople on February 2, 2010 at 7:57 PM
Well, with all due respect,
Duh!
The idea that we are trying to show the world that we are different; that we have a civilized approach; that we have due process; that we should display our justice system to the world….
…all this fell flat on its face when they said, a few months ago, that even if they are found not guilty, we would not release them from custody.
Yeah, its a mockery alright.
And they think GITMO is an Al Queda recruitment tool? The only tools are the idiots who refuse to understand that a war has been declared and executed against the US.
The irrational logic that these freaks exhibit is epitomized by the idea that you need the deployment of 50,000 or so troops to “arrest” the “criminals”.
Its a travesty of intelligence.
Saltysam on February 3, 2010 at 1:22 AM
Isn’t it curious that, as criticism of Obama’s mirandizing of Abdulmutallab reaches a crescendo, we’re suddenly inundated with leaks about how Abdulmutallab is spilling his guts. I wonder how much of the TARP money we gave Abdulmutallab’s parents (and his lawyers) to cajole him out of his silence?
olesparkie on February 3, 2010 at 8:39 AM