By Mark Esposito, Weekend Guy
Ahmed Abu Khatallah’s boat docked yesterday and the reputed Benghazi attacks mastermind was met with a contingent of U.S. Marshals, Navy security and a phalanx of Justice Department types all eager to hear his gilded version of events and to usher him to a US federal courtroom near the White House where the processes of the US justice system could start slowly grinding now in earnest. He pled not guilty for anyone interested. Before his arrival, however, a cacophony of Republican lawmakers decided to weigh in on his treatment aboard the trans-Atlantic cruise ship, the USS New York, provided by the Navy.
As many know, Abu Khatallah was captured in a clandestine operation conducted by US special ops aided by shadowy figures from both inside and out of the Libyan power structure who lured him to a villa where US forces made the arrest. Abu Khattallah, designated by the State Department as a global terrorist, was regarded as a prime suspect due to his affiliation with a group he helped to found and known as the Ansar al-Sharia. A fundamentalist militia group that rose to power after the fall of Gaddafi, it has claimed responsibility for the attack against the U.S. Embassy and American school in Tunis, leading the Tunisian government to declare it a terrorist organization. The group has been implicated in attacks against Tunisian security forces, assassinations of Tunisian political figures, and attempted suicide bombings of locations that tourists frequent. Not exactly the kind of guys you bring home to dinner.
Abu Khatallah’s capture was coup for an administration looking to change the dialog on the Benghazi attack which left four Americans dead including US ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. Criticized for everything from the response (or lack thereof) to the attack by US security forces as well as even the characterization of the attack itself, the administration has been attempting to change the narrative since 2012. In his new book, Blood Feud, excerpted by the New York Post, author Edward Klein claims President Obama pressured then Sect’y of State Hillary Clinton to issue a release stating the attack was a spontaneous uprising relating to an obscure internet video criticizing Islam. Knowing the attack coincided with the anniversary of the 2001 attacks on US soil, Clinton bristled. According to Klein, Clinton said, “Mr. President, that story isn’t credible. Among other things, it ignores the fact that the attack occurred on 9/11.” But the president was adamant. He said, ‘Hillary, I need you to put out a State Department release as soon as possible.”
Against this political backdrop, Abu Khatallah’s handling had high stakes politically as well as serious system of justice ramifications. His questioning began without benefit of his Miranda rights and like so many alleged terrorists, Abu Khatallah couldn’t stop talking. He kept talking, denying his role, but doing the “tell-all” about everyone else he knew even after his was read Miranda warnings. Miranda, as most folks know, harkens the landmark Supreme Court case declaring criminal suspects must be advised of their constitutional rights to counsel and against self-incrimination before questioning. The ruling led to the exclusionary rule which bars evidence obtained in violation of this notice. Though steadily chipped away at by conservative courts since the opinion was written it’s been more or less the law of the land since it bubbled up from Arizona in 1966.
Though a darling of civil libertarians since its uttering it’s been just as much a step-child to Republicans. Nixon and Reagan both ran against the idea of so-called Miranda rights and countless other Republicans saw it as a boon for the guilty based on a “technicality” summarized ever so succinctly by Boston Police Commissioner Edmund “Big Ed” McNamara who noted his frustration saying, “Criminal trials no longer will be a search for the truth, but a search for technical error.” The furor died down but the sentiment in Republican circles to eliminate Miranda continued. Republican dominated courts joined in confirming numerous exceptions including the public safety exception which allowed the dispensing of Miranda warnings by the police interrogators if ” necessary to secure their own safety or the safety of the public.” That case involved a gun hidden in a supermarket by a robbery suspect that could have been found by children. But like so many cases where the facts seem to justify the principle espoused, other facts don’t fit so easy with our sense of justice and fair play.
Fast forward now to modern-day and the so-called War on Terror. Republicans seized on Miranda again shortly after the 9/11 jet attacks to insist on a weakened protections for terror suspects. A national debate ensued over enemy combatants versus criminal suspects. What were terrorists? International criminals bent on havoc or a non-uniformed army who declared war on the US and its allies ? President George Bush chose the latter and the war on terrorists and Miranda was back front and center. Republicans have consistently decried Miranda protections even on those occasions when suspects were processed in American courts rather than the military tribunal system handled by the US armed forces for enemy combatants in the holding center at Guantanamo Bay. There in a not-so-distant US military base, Miranda rights are just a pipe dream.
Since 2001, Republicans have mounted a constant drumbeat against Miranda protections for terror suspects. In 2010, Republicans from every quarter decried the use of Miranda in the interrogation of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man behind the failed Christmas Day airline bombing plot. The Huffington Post reports that Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) said of the news that Shahzad was cooperating even after getting his Miranda rights read to him: “That is a stroke of good luck. What if he had not waived them and just quit talking, said ‘I want my lawyer’?”
“Maybe we got lucky and [Shahzad] said I will go ahead and talk to you anyway,” said another Senate Republican, Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), after learning the same. “But you didn’t know that when you read [him] the rights. So I stand by what I said — it is better in these kinds of cases to get the intelligence first and then, if you decide you want to proceed with an Article 3 prosecution, then read the Miranda rights.”
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) went further writing in a letter to Holder that, “We remain deeply troubled that this paramount requirement of national security was ignored — or worse yet, not recognized — due to the administration’s preoccupation with reading the Christmas Day bomber his Miranda rights.” Preoccupation with constitutional rights a bad thing? For Senate Republicans it surely was.
In March 2011, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, filed the Ensuring the Collection of Critical Intelligence Act of 2011, which required the Justice Department to consult with the director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense before giving terrorists Miranda rights. That bill died in committee, but nearly identical language was included in the 2012 defense authorization bill which said in part, that before seeking an indictment or otherwise charging an individual in a federal court, the Attorney General shall consult with the director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense about “whether the more appropriate forum for prosecution would be a federal court or a military commission; and whether the individual should be held in civilian custody or military custody pending prosecution.” This was an end run around Miranda by diverting a suspect to the nearly Miranda-free zone of the military commissions. It also made the charging decision a political one rather than one based on the nature of the acts of the suspect.
In 2013, in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) demanded answers from Attorney General Eric Holder on why the DOJ allowed a magistrate judge to inform terror suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev of his Miranda rights while the FBI was in the midst of interrogating him earlier this week. Sounding apoplectic, ex-FBI agent Rogers said, “We can’t have, in a case like this, the judiciary deciding, because it’s on TV and it might look bad for them … that they were going to somehow intercede in this. It’s confusing, it is horrible, [a] God-awful policy, and dangerous to the greater community,” he said. “And we have got to get to the bottom of this, and we’ve got to fix it right now.” Ok, then. How about an aspirin or a quaalude there Mister Agent Rogers? By the way, Tsarnaev talked, too.
Now in 2014, Republicans are still complaining about reading Miranda rights to suspects who still decide to talk. “I have serious concerns that conducting a rushed interrogation onboard a ship and then turning Abu Khatallah over to our civilian courts risks losing critical intelligence that could lead us to other terrorists or prevent future attacks,” Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-New Hampshire, said in a statement. Criminal defense lawyer … yep I said that right … South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham chimed in that, “If they bring him to the United States, they’re going to Mirandize this guy, and it would be a mistake for the ages to read this guy his Miranda rights.” Graham must be the most conflicted man in Washington DC and that takes some doing.
In its defense to following the constitution, the White House has pointed out that “they have successfully tried a number of terrorists domestically and that no new captives have gone to the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in years.” Not exactly a “Four score and twenty years ago” defense of the union or the constitution that makes it so, but it’s a start.
Abu Khatallah was appointed a public defender, Michele Peterson. He was ordered to remain in custody until hearings set for Wednesday and Friday. No comment yet from Republicans yet on that announcement or whether Gideon v. Wainwright is yet another liberal impediment to the War on Terror.
The American public’s reaction is mixed to Miranda protections for terror suspects with just about 51% in favor. What do you think?
Source: CNN
~Mark Esposito, Weekend Contributor
By the way and for better or worse, the views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not necessarily those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art is solely the author’s decision and responsibility. No infringement of intellectual property rights is intended and will be remedied upon notice from the owner. Fair use is however asserted for such inclusions of quotes, excerpts, photos, art, and the like.
bigfatmike wrote “the POW would not face trial and would be repatriated at the conclusion of hostilities”
This point is both accurate and most interesting because neither political party categorizes Islamists properly. They have declared war on infidels. So, according to the usual POW convention, we are legally allowed to hold them until one side wins or surrenders. Guantanamo forever.
That said, except for the Islamists caught on one of the many battlefields, they are almost always saboteurs because they attack civilians at home or work.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton/most-believe-hillary-clinton-can-relate-average-americans-poll-finds-n142911 After the dust up about her commenst 55% say she can relate and 37% say she can’t. If the election were held today she would probably get about 57% of the vote. That’s my guess.
“There is nothing that says that terrorists or POWs are due Miranda Rights.”…… For POWs nothing. ”
POWs are unusual in that they are legally deprived of liberty but their actions are not considered criminal.
Unless the POW is a war criminal or committed some other crime separate from the status as a POW, the POW would not face trial and would be repatriated at the conclusion of hostilities.
If it were determined the POW should be charged with a crime, then presumably some standard of treatment for defendants would then apply – depending on many factors such as the particular crime charged, the country making the charge, what judicial system, military or civilian, that hears the case.
Paul wrote “The first I heard the Hillary might be a lesbian was from Dick Morris”
I remember hearing it sometime from 1992 to 1994. A VERY conservative guy with whom I worked made a joke about a woman who had a “wide-on” for her.
“McVeigh was p**ssed about Waco”
And Ruby Ridge. Still, if he wanted to hit back at the government, he should have bombed a BATF or FBI Hostage Rescue Team office where no children were present.
saucy – remember all the little children that were killed at Waco. McVeigh was getting payback.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-survivor-108018.html?hp=pm_2#.U7Brl6h61z8 Why Eric Holder has survived and become closer to Obama.
Paul C, I don’t if it is the case but I do believe the IRS is incompetent enough to do all those things. Looks like Eric Holder is a survivor and will make it to his retirement.
SWM – Holder has the inside info on Obama. Obama cannot afford to let him go unless Holder wants to go.
If Obama can drone an American citizen without a trial, how come this guy gets all the rights of an United States citizen? Obama needs another Osama Bin Laden to bolster up his ratings. What a waste of tax payer money.
joaneisenstodt wrote “Do Republicans feel the same way about Miranda for domestic terrorists”
I have no idea what Republicans think regarding that matter, given that I am an independent, but I will share my two cents.
American citizens who are accused of treason and high crimes, including Tim McVeigh, should generally be tried in the courts. Non-U.S. citizens should be tried as saboteurs before military commissions. That said, I think Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should be stripped of his citizenship and tried before a military commission because he lied on his citizenship application seven months before his mass murder.
When local Islamists and McVeigh-types start to plan heinous acts, we should arrest them and give them a choice: renounce their citizenship, be deported to an appropriate country (maybe Somalia), and be declared persona non grata, or be tried before a military commission.
By the way, Islamists and McVeigh-types have different motivations. The former want to establish a world-wide caliphate, while the latter want to trigger a revolution in the US.
P.S. The Southern Poverty Law Center is about as neutral as Tokyo Rose.
saucy – McVeigh was p**ssed about Waco. Had Waco not happened, McVeigh probably would have just been a relatively normal survivalist.
HA! Never suggested that SPLC was neutral. They have id-ed ‘hate groups’ and I agree with their assessments.
joan – SPLC is a hate group and should be closed down.
Karen “I think the point of my piece is that I’m tired of the Repubs using every issue for political advantage.”
I think you should replace the word “Repubs” with “establishment politicians.” ”
I think I disagree with that statement as Rand Paul and Ted Cruz politicize more than most, and the tea party likes to shut the government down for their own political gain.
I personally do not think that a foreign person arrested on foreign soil or sea is entitled to Miranda Rights. I dont think that the Supreme Court would rule that this schmuck has such rights. This all started in a movie set in California when if you bought a round of drinks for the whole house at the local bar then you would get the right to kiss Carmen Miranda. Three rounds… well.
Mespo:
“I think the point of my piece is that I’m tired of the Repubs using every issue for political advantage.”
I think you should replace the word “Repubs” with “establishment politicians.”
We can all name thousands of instances over the past 6 years when Obama politicized issues. For example, the WH emails requiring that any references to terrorism or policy failure be removed from the Benghazi talking points. And don’t forget Hillary’s, “never let a crisis go to waste.”
I’m just wondering when someone will be reading rights to the members of the US Congress, members off the US Senate and the multiple alleged criminals in the Executive and Judicial Branch.
These liars in the House Home Land Security Committee are complicit in creating the terror threat. It appears their travel to Russia May 2013 and around the time of the Olympics was via green screen and photo-shop; the bogus terror threat was promoted while vague unsupported assertions regarding the Defendants dead brother were peddled to the public. No need to consider if this is Republican or Democratic BS because their bickering is for ‘show’ and they have actually merged into a one party system. The Psychopathic Party!
On 4/12/2013 a Bill was drafted that would serve as the premise regarding the failure to avert the “bombing” that occurred on 4/15 2013 in Boston. H.R. 1542: WMD Intelligence and Information Sharing Act of 2013
The criminal proceedings against the Defendant are IN WHOLE simulated! The official narrative regarding the 2013 #BostonMarathonBombing is a material departure from truth yet secretive court prevails with multiple instances of purposeful failure to follow rule driven process and phony court filings. The media, shills, and trolls continue to promote the bogus narrative in spite of the massive material evidence that says it is all flat out BS.
The people are getting robbed blind with appropriations based on a pack of lies and the freedoms once known to the people dwindle daily. Truth is now a dirty word because it would impact profit of corporations that make money off of terror and bring to light the the many puppet strings attached to the psychopaths in DC.
Do international terrorists have the constitutional rights referred to in Miranda?
Domestic terrorists are American citizens, and do have constitutional rights.
Are we required to release how we got evidence, including from covert ops, double agents, and informants? Because any help we get from foreign nationals will dry up real quick if they’ll have to fly over here so terrorists can face their accuser. What about when we have an informant sit next to a terrorist in detention, and pretend to be a fellow prisoner. He could collect intelligence, but that could not be used if he hadn’t been Mirandized.
It’s not necessarily Republicans that have concerns about Mirandizing foreign terrorists; it’s the intelligence community, which hates to see actionable intel slip away.
Oh, and about the drone crashes. The first and only contact I had with a drone was when one crashed close to where I live, and the developer drove up to my house looking for it. I wonder how often they crash. That could become an issue if they’re weaponized.
It is not the Republicans hate Miranda, it is that Republican hate terrorists and want information. BTW, Miranda was a waste of a human being and his passing was a relief to most.
nick:
I think the point of my piece is that I’m tired of the Repubs using every issue for political advantage. Oh, the dems do it too but they’re smarter about it and they don’t parade their ignorance with every leader in some crass attempt to gain votes. Currently the Repubs get the biggest part of my ire because they are fools for votes and they know it … and do nothing about it. They are for everything until they are against it and they divide us in order to prevail and for nothing else. You think abortion is the major issue facing Americans? Or prayer in school? Or taking guns into Denny’s? It’s all fodder for the masses while the pols accumulate wealth and power.
You should know I’m no democratic party member either. The liberals among them seem to live in a world I never knew and they every bit as much a litmus test for acceptance as the conservatives do. Like most folks, I don’t identify with either of their philosophies which are designed purely to get votes and get little done and stay in power.
If you want my philosophy of politics, it’s simple. Governments exist for the benefit of the governed. They have the obligation to treat everyone the same and get out of their way. They have the duty to protect and help their citizens — all of them. The designs of government are best left to regular folks who have a sense of history and are well educated. American governments need to express Americans — whether they be native born or naturalized. They need to express our values and do it without pumping our chests. They need to set rules and follow them. And they need to cherish and perform their highest duty — getting something done.
I don’t see much of that from either party these days. Here’s a clip you might enjoy:
mespo – interesting rant, but there is the ‘big tent’ theory of politics. Now lets see, the WH is involved in how many scandals of its own making? One pundit has started to call them ‘non-phony scandals’ for sake of identification. Do you really believe that 6 IRS employees had their computers crash just when they were going to get the emails off them? Or that the backup company did not keep the backup tapes? Or what about the emails from the EPA, they are 2 years late with those (even the judge is getting testy). How about Fast and Furious? How about Benghazi? How about the IRS to begin with? How about the contempt of Congress of Eric Holder? And who will be next?
Nick – drones are not that expensive. It is adding a cruise missile to them that ups the cost.
Edward Klein? Who’s Edward Klein?
Oh;
Even Fox Guests Say Ed Klein Isn’t Credible
“Their self-published book, The Obama Identity: A Novel (Or Is It?), depicts a CIA agent’s fictional (but based on “real stuff”) investigation into President Obama, which reveals him to be a Kenyan-born Muslim Manchurian candidate.
Before that, in his thinly sourced, factually deficient 2005 tome The Truth About Hillary Klein insinuated that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian who conceived her daughter Chelsea after being raped by Bill Clinton; the book was widely denounced even by conservatives. That one, Klein claimed, was not a novel.”
Why is this a part of this essay? It has nothing to do with the GOP’s intentions about Miranda. It’s just a throw away slander made by a nut who can get published by the NY Post, that’s not a high a bar.
Pale Scot – you infer that Fox News cannot stand Klein but actually the article is from Media Matters, a Soros publication. The first I heard the Hillary might be a lesbian was from Dick Morris who was the political consultant to the Clintons. He intimated she was while calling in to a talk radio show in DC.
Do Republicans feel the same way about Miranda for domestic terrorists, that is, those who commit hate crimes? Groups, identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center and/or FBI, that desire to overthrow the US government or who refuse to abide by its laws?
joan – the SPLC is a terrorist group all of its own. It stays relevant only by inventing new hate groups.
nick:
I think the case had to be built before he was taken.
Lilly, Mark is not usually the hit piece kinda guy. This surprised me. as I said, I surmise, being a longtime football coach, he’s employing “the best defense is a good offense” philosophy. The Dem defense has been giving up TD’s daily.