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.
Bettykath What happen to the rights of the American citizen Obama had droned ?
bettykath
“When will it include me?”
= = =
You are on line… NO?
Then welcome to the “club”.
Everyone has rights. Once we start making exceptions, the rights of all are in danger of being lost. Who’s a terrorist? The definition seems to keep expanding. So far, it’s Muslims, ecology activists, animal rights activists, Occupy activists and who knows? When will it include me? It’s seems that anyone who objects to the status quo can be labeled a terrorist. Since I want to protect my own rights, I see no alternative but to protect the rights of all.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/28/controversy-grows-over-prosecution-of-alleged-benghazi-attack-mastermind/comment-page-6/ “”Before he’s turned over to civilian authorities, the FBI and all of our intelligence agencies, CIA and others, should interrogate him as long as they have to,” said King, a member of the Homeland Security Committee and Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence. “I’m not that concerned about a criminal conviction. We’re going to get that ultimately. It’s important we get as much intelligence out of him as possible. Both what happened, who planned it, how it happened.”” Rather than giving Khatallah his Miranda rights, Republican Peter King sounds like he favors some form of torture.
Mark,
And here again is J. Turley’s reply to Senator Levin wherein he eloquently informs said senator that he, like you, is as full of crap as a Christmas goose:
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/16/indefinite-detention-of-citizens-a-response-to-senator-carl-levin/
But you still didn’t reconcile your stance in this article with your stance of two years ago.
Let’s see.
This week, you applaud Obama for affording Ahmed Abu Khatallah his Miranda rights, against the objections of those mean and vile republicans.
“Yeah Obama!”
Two years ago you applauded Obama for denying the likes of Ahmed Abu Khatallah so much as the right of habeas corpus; much less any Miranda warnings.
“Yeah Obama!”
Bob, Esq:
“I’m sure that both I and Mike Appleton would love to hear how you reconcile this article, applauding the Obama administration for “not hating Miranda,” with your view of Obama for signing the 2012 NDAA –”legalizing” the indefinite detention of American citizens; as well as terrorists like Ahmed Abu Khatallah.”
********************
OK , I’d reconcile it the same way it’s sponsor, Carl Levin, a democrat did:
“[Section] 1032 is the so-called mandatory provision, which, by the way, does not apply to American citizens. I better say that over again. Senator Graham said it, but let me say it over again. The most controversial provision, probably the only one in this bill, is Section 1032. Section 1032 says that the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States. I guess that’s the second thing that I would like for colleagues to take away from what I say, is that section — and Senator Graham said the same thing — Section 1032, the mandatory section that has the waiver in it, does not by its own words apply to citizens of the United States. It has a waiver provision in it to make this flexible, and the way in which 1032 operates is that it says that if it’s determined, if it’s determined that a person is a member of al Qaeda, then that person will be held in military detention, they are at war with us, folks. Al Qaeda is at war with us. They brought that war to our shores. This isn’t just a foreign war. They brought that war to our shores on 9/11. They are at war with us. The Supreme Court said — and I’m going to read these words again – “there is no bar to this nation’s holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant.” They brought this war to us, and if it’s determined that even an American citizen is a member of al Qaeda, then you can apply the law of war, according to the Supreme Court. That’s not according to the armed services committee, our bill or any one of us. That’s the Supreme Court speaking.”
Never been interpreted contrary to that by any court or this administration. That’s how I’d answer that issue. I told you a long time ago that I draw a distinction between actions involving foreign policy and those involving domestic law.
https://twitter.com/conradhackett/statuses/483003947800477697
Craig,
I’d argue with Hillary, the same way I’d argue with Obama and my own House Rep about TORTURE… you condone it the moment you refuse to punish the perpetrators of it and until you do prosecute them, you’re condoning their behavior as something necessary to preserve for some future use! NO, means NO!
DRONE MEMO:
http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/usca2-olc-memo-6232014.pdf
Hillary has an idea about this. But it’s still in the R & D lab. Tickling is being tested.
Craig – Hillary does not have an idea if it is not focus grouped first. However, I am not sure if her focus groups are badly chosen or just lying to her. She has been having a bad couple of weeks.
Good thing Ahmed Abu Khatallah isn’t an American…
… Then the argument, “He doesn’t deserve anything” would be batted around and summary executions would be ordered via democratic party drone strike.
I guess it’s one thing to blame Republicans for crying, “Deny him due process Rights!” When it’s a president from the Democratic Party that actually refuses due process for those he thinks should be killed.
Have I mentioned that I don’t trust either party?
I agree with Paul on the huge volume of laws: it makes the saying: ‘Ignorance of the law is no excuse’ ring very hollow. (and perhaps ring very ‘cash registery’ if you’re a lawyer)
Mark Esposito (a.k.a Mespo): I call the Republicans out for their continued attack on anything approach fair play in dealing with criminal defendants. The title is a little skewed but that’s the point of the article. A lot of the neocons never saw anything in the Bill of Rights they like except the 2nd Amendment.
Mark,
This little puff piece you’ve written on behalf of the Obama administration and its reverence for the constitution is quite amusing.
You claim to be independent minded, yet you sound like a shill for the Democratic party and Obama.
I’m sure that both I and Mike Appleton would love to hear how you reconcile this article, applauding the Obama administration for “not hating Miranda,” with your view of Obama for signing the 2012 NDAA –“legalizing” the indefinite detention of American citizens; as well as terrorists like Ahmed Abu Khatallah.
Explain the value of Miranda when the president claims to have the authority to deem anyone an enemy of the state and have them detained without habeas indefinitely.
Paul:
It is my understanding that the tax law is so complex that anyone in the US could conceivably be found guilty of something.
That’s one reason why I advocate for either a flat tax, or an extremely simplified tax. Anyone should be able to fill out a box marked “income” and hit enter in a computer form and pay his income taxes. It’s absurdly difficult to sort through here in the US.
Karen – the tax law is so complex that IRS help desk people give the wrong advice on a regular basis. Strangely enough, you cannot use that as an excuse when you use their advice on your taxes and screw them up.
LC – that’s what I was wondering, too. Why would foreign terrorists need to be advised of constitutional rights?
I certainly liked the “Geoff Bridges” Utube that Mespo put on our our decidedly ‘not the greatest country’ debate. That ACN anchor looks so like Bridges I did not believe it wasn’t until I got his name at the end. #1 defence spending by a gap of 26 countries. That’s huge & such a waste! #1 prison country: another dark one I certainly knew about, but wonder how many care; incarceration being the opposite of freedom, its no small thing.
The #1 for adult belief in angels is too dubious to take seriously; we have a few religious fanatics but nothing compared to the Arab countries and Israel. It depends on your definition of angels; if we believed in the spiritual nature of man more than other nations, I think we would be doing better in other areas. There is a tendency to assume that “God” has it all worked out, contrary to a sane observation, but the Middle East has us beat on that. So that last one is a good one or unimportant.
Lets let up on our paranoia to be #1 in defence spending by such a huge margin and perhaps we can be better at more things we currently suck at. The #1 prison nation is something we definitely have to change.
My belief is that Miranda protection is for and only used in America, am I mistaken? After the Attorney’s and bankers got rid of the “Original 13th Amendment” that left corruption wide open. Am I mistaken?
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE.
It is the duty of the citizen to know the law in its published language.
The Fifth Amendment is available for suspects.
There is NO basis for Miranda.
The law exists to penalize and deter.
Compassion exists in the family and church.
The law shall not be an accomplice of or aid and abet a criminal in the act of committing, suppressing evidence of or defending a crime.
The law provides for the arrest of a suspect, including his audio and cognitive faculties.
Miranda is a preposterous act to facilitate crime.
John – I used to agree that ignorance of the law was no excuse and then I started to see how many laws there were and then add the regulations. You have local laws, state laws (at least 8 feet of laws), federal laws (25 feet or better), then layer on the regulations. It is impossible to keep up. It used to be that people read the newspapers where the laws were published, but readership dropped off.
Judges do not do their own legal research, they expect the attorneys to do it for them. Attorneys run to Lexis/Nexis for their research.
Judges are constantly overturned.
“John – I used to agree that ignorance of the law was no excuse and then I started to see how many laws there were and then add the regulations. You have local laws, state laws (at least 8 feet of laws), federal laws (25 feet or better), then layer on the regulations. It is impossible to keep up.”
Not only that, if you agree that legal opinions issued by courts, then you can’t even know what some laws are.
FISA court rulings are binding on you but generally not published, at least not without significant redaction.
Weird kind of democracy. Ignorance of the law is no excuse but you can’t be trusted to know what the law is.
And then we have laws that are not being enforced so are we required to obey them?
Doglover has a point. Our attack on Libya was not just wrong; Africa seems to be a worse place for it.
Nick:
“It seems you guy Obama is conflicted. He has no problem killing US CITIZENS via drones, but gives Miranda rights to underwear bombers and Ambassadors abroad. Help me w/ that logic?”
You’re one of the few who see the discrepancy. Liberals claim GOPers resist Mirandizing terrorists, while many in the Intelligence Community, and people of all parties, have the same concerns. And as you’ve stated, Obama has no problem assassinating American citizens via drone strike without even a fair trial, let alone Mirandize them.
It boggles the mind, sometimes, the hypocrisy.