Why Do The Republicans Love to Hate Miranda?

By Mark Esposito, Weekend Guy

abuAhmed 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.

 

 

153 thoughts on “Why Do The Republicans Love to Hate Miranda?”

  1. RTC,

    Clever. Are you doing a tour of the Catskills this summer?

  2. Bron: You ask, “At what point does failure occurr?”

    Usually, shortly after you begin typing.

  3. Bron,

    Why Do The Republicans Love to Hate Miranda?

    You’ve read Monsieur Villefort’s article above. And you’ve read his comments here.

    Do you see the design flaw yet?

    Do you see how he contradicts himself? Do you see how his lack of principle pushes him to toward the “prerogative of the monarch” design?

    He even cited the film “V for Vendetta” as support for his argument; quoting the words of the tyrant who rules by the “prerogative of the monarch” design.

    It’s folks like Monsieur Villefort who say that people like Jonathan Turley are just starry eyed dreamers far too obsessed with things like “rule of law.”

    Then again, I submit to you that the only thing standing between you and someone like Monsieur Villefort taking you ‘out back behind the chemical shed and shooting you’ are those principle centered “starry eyed dreamers.”

  4. rtc:

    I guess it sucks to be a tyrant no matter what you want to call it.

  5. rtc:

    the 2 concepts are very similar at their root. That is why I say they are the same, the difference is minimal.

  6. Bron:

    I notice you offer no due process for citizens engaged in armed conflict on the battlefield. What about US citizens off the battlefield who direct the activities of others and kill loyal Americans? Do you lose due process only when you’re in direct combat? How about waging war from 7000 miles away by ordering suicide bombers? Under Bob’s naive way of thinking, you first have to catch the citizen overseas, bring him back to our shores and then afford him due process. That’s just unrealistic in the modern world and would jeopardize the lives of hundreds of brave loyal Americans to capture and transport him and countless thousands while you spend time attempting to stop his murderous exploits. If these folks become enemy combatants then regardless of citizenship they are targets of opportunity. It’s that simple. If you decide to capture them and bring them to civil authorities, then the rules apply. (That’s for our benefit, not theirs, by the way.) Otherwise, caveat traitor. Regardless of Bob’s views, there’s a war going on out there and we have every right and obligation to defend ourselves by whatever means we can. That’s the first and most important law. Bob may not accept this but every other country including our own does. That’s why none of our allies or even our rivals are standing before the UN telling us to shut down the drone program. They get it. Bob doesn’t.

  7. bron: are you talking about engineering? Because load is resisted up until the point of failure. It’s called the breaking point. Maybe you’re talking about something else, like how socialism and fascism are the same thing.

    Yeh, run that by Bob.

  8. Bob Esq:

    There can be no contradiction in a design, it cannot resist load and succumb to load at the same time.

  9. mespo:

    I think American citizens, no matter what they do, are entitled to due process. How could it be otherwise? If they legally take steps to dissolve any connection to our country, well screw them but otherwise they deserve all the rights bestowed to all citizens of our country.

    I am surprised you would argue against this.

    As much as I would like to see drone strikes on every person who would do our people harm, if they are a citizen they should have the protection of our laws.

    If they are on the battlefield, then all bets are off and you can kill them with abandon if you wish. Once they leave the field, it becomes, in my mind anyway, a legal issue.

    Individual rights should be sacred.

  10. Bron,

    I’ve been sounding Monsieur Villefort’s arguments for moving away from rule of law and towards the prerogative of a monarch.

    As an engineer I’m sure you’ve noted the infirmities resulting in ambiguity and self-contradiction.

    BTW, Obama did away with the term “enemy combatant” back in 2009.

    Yet he still reserves the right to kill American citizens and detain whomever he wants indefinitely.

    http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/16/indefinite-detention-of-citizens-a-response-to-senator-carl-levin/

  11. Bron:

    Bob, Esq is saying that American citizens who take up arms against their nation are entitled to due process protections under all circumstances. I then asked if he would extend those protections in the obvious case of a civil war where fellow citizens are marching on US troops. To date, no answer on that but lots of verbal gymnastics and dodgeball. He also likes calling me “Villefort,” apparently the only French he knows. Cela m’est égal.

  12. Bob Esq:

    Can you explain your reasoning a little better? Are you saying an enemy combatent who is not an American citizen, who is captured in a foreign country, should be afforded all the rights of an American citizen?

    I can understand an American citizen, even one who takes up arms against us, being given those rights.

    This is an interesting debate. The rule of law is one of the things which separates us from the lower animals.

  13. We’re worried about Mirandizing a person, who is NOT a citizen of this country, who was NOT arrested in this country, so that he can be tried before a jury NOT of his peers?

    Silly lawyers, this entire thing is a due process sham. This guy should not be tried for breaking U.S. law. He should be tried for breaking international law. He should be held to answer at an international tribunal, following international rules of due process. –If no such protocol exists, perhaps that’s the complaint the author of this post should present, instead of presenting such a flagrant display of partisan nonsense.

  14. Monsieur Villefort,

    I greatly appreciate your comparison of me to Don Quixote. To equate me with a character like Sam Becket in the show “Quantum Leap” is quite a principle based compliment. I am truly humbled.

    Meanwhile, perhaps there’s still time for you. Perhaps I can show you how your unprincipled thinking has left you adrift like a ship without a compass or the stars to guide her.

    You have adopted such maxims as:

    The U.S. can kill suspects based on the level of difficulty in bringing them to our shores for justice.

    The U.S. may claim war powers by equating an idiom with the actual existence of war.

    The constitution and other laws of the land may be disregarded so as to prevent one of the most least likely forms of harm a U.S. citizen may face:

    Odds of dying in a terrorist attack: 1 in 9,300,000.

    And yet when I ask you

    How are men who systematically prey upon little children, imprisoning them, raping them and often times killing them, less worthy of the Château d’If than your occasional terrorist?

    By what principle do you make the distinction?

    You have no answer because you have abandoned principle and have gone so far as relying on the prerogative of an executive granted the power of a traditional monarch.

    Having once stated that the likes of Abu Khatallah should face “indefinite detention … without access to legal remedies,” (the raison d’être for the Château d’If) you now sing sycophantic praises to His Majesty Obama for exercising his royal prerogative to afford such a defendant due process rights.

    By abandoning principle, you drift aimlessly in a sea of whim and caprice; adopting all those characteristics you despise in your opposition.

    Thus, Monsieur Villefort, it will come as no surprise when you start speaking of torture as “enhanced interrogation.”

  15. Monsieur Villefort,

    Are you equating “the war on terror” with the revolutionary war and the civil war?

    Villefort: “As I said on the other thread war is war. I equate them all since they have the same result for the unwary or starry-eyed dreamers who think wishing away the enemy will make them go away. You can afford all the due process protection to savages that you want to, they will still be savages and you’ll be just as dead.”

    Can you show us the logic that permits you to equate an idiom (“war on terror”) with an ACTUAL war?

    I’m sure there are some folks out in Kentucky, insisting that Noah’s Ark ACTUALLY saved mankind and all the animals of the earth from a great flood less than 5,000 years ago, who could “benefit” from your “reasoning.”

Comments are closed.