February 9th, 2010 • 12:29 amThe Obama Administration’s Misuse of Miranda

Last week, the Obama administration went to great lengths that they were still getting information from Nigerian terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab despite the FBI’s Mirandizing him. Frankly, that’s missing the point. Here’s what Wikipedia says about Miranda rights:

The Miranda warnings were mandated by the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda v. Arizona as a means of protecting a criminal suspect’s Fifth Amendment right to avoid coercive self-incrimination (see right to silence).

First, it’s worth noting that, prior to this administration, Miranda only applied to criminals. Second, it’s worth noting that, since terrorists never have to be released, there isn’t a need to Mirandize a terrorist. That’s only important if the federal government thought it was important to prosecute terrorists in federal criminal court. Third, it’s important to note that the Obama administration is using a double standard.

When Abdulmutallab attempted to detonate his bomb over Detroit on Christmas Day, Abdulmutallab thought that that airplane was his battlefield just like the mountains of Tora Bora were was for bin Laden. The American people wouldn’t accept this, or any other, administration Mirandizing bin Laden. Clearly, the American people have rejected as failed policy the Mirandizing of Abdulmutallab.

Marc Thiessen is right in pointing out that, even after a terrorist has been captured and he’s been stripped of his weapons, he’s still a threat to our national security because he still has knowledge of (a) future terrorist plots, (b) existing terrorist networks and (c) where terrorist training camps are hidden.

Until they’ve drained every bit of information about these things from a terrorist, neither the CIA nor the FBI should think about anything other than interrogating the terrorist. Even after that, in the interest of national security, no administration should consider Mirandizing a terrorist because we always want to keep open the option of interrogating him.

Let’s further stipulate that the Obama administration’s use of drones to kill terrorists is bad policy. Furthermore, President Obama says that it’s important that terrorists captured on battlefields above the United States should receive due process rights with a full set of constitutional rights. Why should terrorists captured on the battlefields of Yemen, Afghanistan or Pakistan be summarily executed? Why should someone monitoring UAV flights be given the authority to play judge, jury and executioner?

I’d further suggest that killing high value terrorists without interrogating them is stupid. By killing high value terrorists like a KSM or abu Zubaydah, you lose an opportunity to gain insights into terrorist networks, their financing and training, and potentially into upcoming terrorist attacks.

Isn’t that information significantly more important than bragging that we’re killing terrorists with high tech toys? In fact, shouldn’t this administration be asked why they aren’t putting a high priority on gathering intel? I wrote about President Obama’s alleged commitment to gathering as much intel as possible in this post:

In our ever-changing world, America’s first line of defense is timely, accurate intelligence that is shared, integrated, analyzed, and acted upon quickly and effectively.

I questioned then President Obama’s commitment to that principle because this statement was made after Mirandizing Abdulmutallab and after the American people criticized his administration for its mishandling of that intel opportunity.

This administration’s tactics and strategies in gathering intel on the jihadists has been lackluster at best and foolish to downright dangerous at worst. This administration should put a higher priority on gathering intel than it’s putting on giving terrorists constitutional protections. Until that changes, we won’t be as safe as is possible.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Post Comments RSS Feed Post Comments RSSTrackBack URI 4 Responses

  1. A presumption you make is that intelligence once attained is presented cleanly and in an unbiased way to decision makers.

    Like the yellow-cake and weapons of mass destruction still in Iraq stories fed the nation by war mongers.

    Flow of information free of agendas within the gathering and distribution machinery is a premise that some might challenge as more dream and fiction than reality among the people and institutions involved.

    Comment by eric z. • 09Feb2010 @ 6:06 am

  2. Eric, Eric, Eric. Still dwelling on the ‘Sixteen Words’ SOTU, are you? The ‘Sixteen Words’ SOTU that’s been vindicated, I might add:

    The “16 words” in Bush’s State of the Union Address on Jan. 28, 2003 have been offered as evidence that the President led the US into war using false information intentionally. The new reports show Bush accurately stated what British intelligence was saying, and that CIA analysts believed the same thing.

    The Butler report said British intelligence had “credible” information — from several sources — that a 1999 visit by Iraqi officials to Niger was for the purpose of buying uranium:

    Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Nigeria’s exports, the intelligence was credible.

    The Butler Report affirmed what the British government had said about the Niger uranium story back in 2003, and specifically endorsed what Bush said as well.

    Butler Report: By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa was well-founded.

    Question the intelligence that was gained after KSM was waterboarded if you’d like but that’s the sworn testimony given under oath by half a dozen people of varying political leanings, from Robert Mueller to James Woolsey to Condi Rice.

    Comment by Gary Gross • 09Feb2010 @ 6:23 am

  3. Follow the yellow cake road?

    Comment by eric z. • 09Feb2010 @ 5:55 pm

  4. This isn’t that difficult, Eric. The trick is to see what was said in the SOTU, not what was said in Joe Wilson’s NYT op-ed. What President Bush said in his SOTU is accurate. Joe Wilson’s accusation was that President Bush had said that Iraq had bought yellowcake from Nigeria. President Bush didn’t say that. Here’s what President Bush actually said:

    “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .”

    That’s entirely different than what Liar Joe Wilson accused President Bush of saying.

    Comment by Gary Gross • 09Feb2010 @ 6:50 pm





Categories