In an interview with “60 Minutes” last spring, President Obama discussed the handling of captured terrorists and challenged those who claimed the “American system of justice was not up to the task of dealing with these terrorists.”
Obama said: “I fundamentally disagree with that. Now — do these folks deserve Miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter — down the block? Of course not.”
Obama ought to call Attorney General Eric Holder. In a letter to Sen. Mitch McConnell, Holder lays out exactly why these folks deserve Miranda rights.
Holder’s letter responds to criticism of the Obama administration’s handling of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day bomber, from McConnell and other Republicans. Holder writes:
“I am confident that, as a result of the hard work of the FBI and our career federal prosecutors, we will be able to successfully prosecute Mr. Abdulmutallab under the federal criminal law. I am equally confident that the decision to address Mr. Abdulmutallab’s actions through our criminal justice system has not, and will not, compromise our ability to obtain information needed to detect and prevent future attacks.”
His prosecution was never seriously in question, which is precisely what makes the decision to Mirandize him quickly so outrageous.
Also, Abdulmutallab spoke openly to FBI agents in his initial 50-minute interrogation — questioning that took place before he was Mirandized. Five hours after his initial interrogation a second team of interrogators was brought in to question him.
These interrogators were part of a “clean team,” brought in to interrogate him after he was read his Miranda rights. The previous interrogation was “dirty” because he had not yet been Mirandized and thus unusable in his prosecution. The “clean team” began by reading Abdulmutallab his rights. And Abdulmutallab, advised of his right to remain silent, chose to exercise it.
Does Holder really mean to suggest that the U.S. government would not have obtained more — and better — intelligence if the FBI had continued to interrogate him on Christmas Day?
Holder argues that the FBI and Justice Department officials “did precisely what they are trained to do, what their policies require them to do, and what this nation expects them to do.”
Holder’s predecessor, Attorney General Mike Mukasey, disagrees. “Holding Abdulmutallab for a time in military custody, regardless of where he is ultimately to be charged, would have been entirely lawful — even in the view of the current administration, which has taken the position that it needs no further legislative authority to hold dangerous detainees even for a lengthy period in the United States,” Mukasey wrote in the Wall Street Journal.
The government’s legal authority to declare Abdulmutallab an enemy combatant is “far from clear,” according to Holder. He also writes that the law and FBI policy require providing “Miranda warnings prior to any custodial interrogation conducted inside the United States,” unless a “public safety” exception is permitted.
Holder further argues that “there is no court-approved system currently in place in which suspected terrorists captured inside the United States can be detained and held without access to an attorney.”
If Holder is correct, the FBI could pick up al Qaeda’s chief of operations in, say, Tampa, Fla., and unless he met the criteria for a public safety exception (i.e. had a gun), the FBI would be required to Mirandize him immediately and give him a lawyer.
So what about Obama’s words to “60 Minutes” last spring. “Do these folks deserve Miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter– down the block?”
The president said: “Of course not.” His attorney general says: “Yes.”
Stephen F. Hayes is senior writer for the Weekly Standard.
