The Patriot Files Forums  

Go Back   The Patriot Files Forums > International > Terrorism

Post New Thread  Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-02-2010, 08:19 AM
darrels joy's Avatar
darrels joy darrels joy is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indian Springs
Posts: 5,964
Distinctions
Contributor 
Question Obama’s Interrogation Policy: You Had the Right to Remain Silent

Obama’s Interrogation Policy: You Had the Right to Remain Silent

posted at 11:00 am on February 2, 2010 by Patterico

Even as Obama insists that terrorists be read their Miranda rights, his Department of Justice lawyers are in court arguing the opposite. David B. Rivkin and Marc Thiessen write in the Wall Street Journal that DoJ lawyers are fighting attempts by terrorists in criminal court to have their confessions suppressed. The DoJ’s argument? We are at war with Al Qaeda:
On Dec. 18, 2009, days before the Christmas attack, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Preet Bharara, made a secret filing in federal district court that was aimed at saving the prosecution of Ahmed Ghailani, another al Qaeda terrorist. Ghailani is facing charges for helping al Qaeda bomb U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Ghailani argues that those charges should be dropped because lengthy CIA interrogations have denied him his constitutional right to a speedy trial.

Mr. Bharara, on behalf of the Justice Department, filed a memorandum with the court stating that Ghailani’s claims are dangerous and off the mark. Interrogating terrorists must come before criminal prosecution, he wrote in language so strong that even a redacted version of his filing (which we have obtained) serves as a searing indictment of the administration’s mishandling of Abdulmutallab.

“The United States was, and still is, at war with al Qaeda,” Mr. Bharara argued. “And because the group does not control territory as a sovereign nation does, the war effort relies less on deterrence than on disruption—on preventing attacks before they can occur. At the core of such disruption efforts is obtaining accurate intelligence about al Qaeda’s plans, leaders and capabilities.”
Yes, we are at war with Al Qaeda. But then, why are we prosecuting the warriors in criminal court? Why do we feel we need to read the terrorist warriors their Miranda rights? Why are we having to beg federal judges not to throw out the warriors’ confessions?

By twisting the criminal justice system to accommodate cases that don’t belong there, Obama’s approach also threatens to weaken the protections of the system for all Americans. We have already seen how Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s trial has been turned into a show trial whose outcome is meaningless, making a mockery of the seriousness of criminal trials.

Now Obama is making a mockery of Miranda rights as well.

If unnamed sources in the Los Angeles Times are to be believed, Administration officials read the underwear bomber his Miranda rights — but only after they had decided that he was not going to talk any more:
The decision to advise the accused Christmas Day attacker of his right to remain silent was made after teleconferences involving at least four government agencies — and only after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had stopped talking to authorities, according to knowledgeable law enforcement officials.
. . . .
The source said that Abdulmutallab was not read his rights until he made it clear that he was not going to say anything else.
Let me get this straight. First they interrogate the suspect. Then, after he talks, they tell him he has the right to remain silent. (More like: he had the right to remain silent.)

If this account is correct, it’s clear that the Miranda rights are being read purely for show. Like KSM’s trial, Obama wants to give terrorists who wage war against this country the appearance of due process, by conferring on them procedural protections to which they are not entitled.

This makes a mockery of the process.

Telling terrorists we are going to try them in criminal court, but that the outcome doesn’t matter because they won’t be released if they win, makes the criminal trials a joke.

Telling terrorists we are going to read them their Miranda rights — but only after we have interrogated them to the point where they are done talking, makes Miranda rights meaningless.

The solution is simple. Listen to your lawyers, Barry. Treat criminal suspects as criminals — and foreign Al Qaeda fighters as warriors.

Your lawyers understand we are at war. Why don’t you?

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/0...remain-silent/
__________________

sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 02-03-2010, 05:04 AM
Stick's Avatar
Stick Stick is offline
Super Moderator
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Fayetteville, Georgia
Posts: 1,404
Distinctions
VOM Staff Contributor 
Default

Before 9/11 America was not at war but on that day the Muslim Nations declared war on America. http://www.alislam.org/books/study-of-islam/jihad.html
"JIHAD - THE HOLY WAR
A very important question which relates to the propagation of all divine messages. It relates to the instrument of propagation Adherents of almost all religions, as they move away in time from the source, are invariably known to have employed coercion either to keep people within the fold of their religion, or to convert others into their faith. But according to the Holy Quran, this in no way reflects upon their religion's attitude to coercion. No religion at its source has ever permitted the use of force in any form whatsoever. In fact all religions have been made targets of coercion, and no efforts were spared by their opponents to arrest the growth of religions at their source and to annihilate them completely. Every time a new prophet came, attempts were invariably made by the enemies to suppress his message through the use of force and merciless persecution. It is the most tragic irony therefore that of all the books, the Holy Quran is singled out today as proponent of the employment of coercion for the sake of the spread of its message. Even greater tragedy lies in the fact that it is the Muslim clergy itself which loudly propounds this view, blatantly attributing it to the Holy Quran.

The Holy Quran, it should be remembered, is the only Divine book which absolves all the prophets of the world, wherever and in whichever age they were born, of the crime of coercion in relation to the spread of their message. Hence it is inconceivable that the Quran should present its Holy Prophet (sa) as the harbinger of an era of bloodshed in the name of peace, and hatred in the name of love of God. This is no place to engage in intricate polemical discussions, so this brief introduction should suffice here. According to the Quran, the Holy War, called Jihad, is in reality a holy campaign which uses the help of the Quran to bring about a spiritual revolution in the world."

Those that declare war on America, if captured are "Prisoners of War" and are subject to the Rules of War and NOT Miranda rights.
__________________
With LIBERTY and JUSTICE for all
thanks to the brave who serve their Country
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-05-2010, 07:25 AM
darrels joy's Avatar
darrels joy darrels joy is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indian Springs
Posts: 5,964
Distinctions
Contributor 
Lightbulb

Obama's folly

February 3, 2010 Posted by Scott at 5:20 PM
This afternoon the Justice Department released Attorney General Holder's five-page letter to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on the case of Umar Abdulmutallab. The letter is powerful evidence of the damage wrought by the three pillars of Obamaism.

Holder first takes responsibility for the treatment of Abdulmutallab as a criminal defendant, with the agreement of the Obama administration's entire national security apparatus: "I made the decision to charge Mr. Abdulmutallab with federal crimes, and to seek his detention in connection with those charges, with the knowledge of, and with no objection from, all other relevant departments of the government." He then defends this treatment of the case:
The decision to charge Mr. Abdulmutallab in federal court, and the methods used to interrogate him, are fully consistent with the long-established and publicly known policies and practices of the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the United States Government as a whole, as implemented for many years by Administrations of both parties. Those policies and practices, which were not criticized when employed by previous Administrations, have been and remain extremely effective in protecting national security. They are among the many powerful weapons this country can and should use to win the war against al-Qaeda.

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.
Holder doesn't pass the buck for his treatment of the case, but the letter suggests (without explicitly stating) that President Obama concurred in it:
In the days following December 25 -- including during a meeting with the President and other senior members of his national security team on January 5 -- high-level discussions ensued within the Administration in which the possibility of detaining Mr. Abdulmutallab under the law of war was explicitly discussed. No agency supported the use of law of war detention for Abdulmutallab, and no agency has since advised the Department of Justice that an alternative course of action should have been, or should now be, pursued.
As Daniel Foster points out, Holder also asserts that "without a single exception" (emphasis in original) terror suspects arrested on American soil have been treated as federal criminals, although Holder later notes two exceptions under the Bush administration in which suspects arrested under criminal law were later transferred to military custody by executive order.

(Foster had previously pointed out these two case and cited the applicable executive orders here.)

Others more knowledgeable than I will have intelligent and important observations to make on this revealing document. Holder's confidence that his treatment of the case "has not, and will not, compromise our ability to obtain information needed to detect and prevent future attacks" seems particularly misplaced. For the moment, I note only the clarifying nature of the letter. The whole sorry spectacle of the Abdulmutallab case is Obama's folly.

UPDATE: Kenneth Anderson manfully grapples with the twisted logic of Holder's letter.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../02/025519.php
__________________

sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Christmas attack interrogation darrels joy Terrorism 0 01-23-2010 02:37 PM
The Silent Majority Is Silent No More Arrow Political Debate 2 08-06-2009 04:15 PM
CIA destroyed 12 harsh interrogation tapes David Terrorism 3 05-20-2009 07:59 AM
Interrogation Sites David Vietnam 0 03-27-2009 07:54 PM
US Officer fined for harsh interrogation tactics. revwardoc General Posts 0 12-13-2003 06:36 AM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.