FBI ORDERED TO MIRANDIZE TERRORIST!
This was taken from the Weekly Standard on 10 June 2009. I have not read about this in the Tennessee newspapers nor or other media outlets dominated by the obama worshipers.
When 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was captured on March 1, 2003, he was not cooperative. “I’ll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer,” he said, according to former CIA Director George Tenet.
Of course, KSM did not get a lawyer until months later, after his interrogation was completed, and Tenet says that the information the CIA obtained from him disrupted plots and saved lives. “I believe none of these successes would have happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar criminal – read him his Miranda rights and get him a lawyer who surely would have insisted that his client simply shut up,” Tenet wrote in his memoirs.
If Tenet is right, it’s a good thing KSM was captured before Barack Obama became president. For, the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. “The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement. Here’s the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today – foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them…and they’re reading them their rights – Mirandizing these foreign fighters,” says Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement officials on a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan.
Rogers, a former FBI special agent and U.S. Army officer, says the Obama administration has not briefed Congress on the new policy. “I was a little surprised to find it taking place when I showed up because we hadn’t been briefed on it, I didn’t know about it. We’re still trying to get to the bottom of it, but it is clearly a part of this new global justice initiative.”
Under the "global justice" initiative, which has been in the works for several months, FBI agents will have a central role in overseas counter-terrorism cases. They will expand their questioning of suspects and evidence-gathering to try to ensure that criminal prosecutions are an option, officials familiar with the effort said.
“When they mirandize a suspect, the first thing they do is warn them that they have the 'right to remain silent,’” says Representative Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. “It would seem the last thing we want is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other al-Qaeda terrorist to remain silent. Our focus should be on preventing the next attack, not giving radical jihadists a new tactic to resist interrogation--lawyering up.” That is precisely what some human rights organizations are advising detainees to do. “The International Red Cross, when they go into these detention facilities, advise these terrorist to, ‘Take the option. You want a lawyer.’”
The move is reportedly creating chaos in the field among the CIA, FBI and military personnel, according to Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich. The soldiers, especially, he says, are frustrated that giving high value detainees Miranda rights -- the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney -- is impeding their ability to pursue intelligence on the battlefield.
"What I found was lots of confusion and very frustrated people on the front lines because of this new policy and confusion is the last thing you want in a combat zone,” said Rogers, who serves on the House Intelligence Committee.
When 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was captured on March 1, 2003, he was not cooperative. “I’ll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer,” he said, according to former CIA Director George Tenet.
Of course, KSM did not get a lawyer until months later, after his interrogation was completed, and Tenet says that the information the CIA obtained from him disrupted plots and saved lives. “I believe none of these successes would have happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar criminal – read him his Miranda rights and get him a lawyer who surely would have insisted that his client simply shut up,” Tenet wrote in his memoirs.
If Tenet is right, it’s a good thing KSM was captured before Barack Obama became president. For, the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. “The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement. Here’s the problem. You have foreign fighters who are targeting US troops today – foreign fighters who go to another country to kill Americans. We capture them…and they’re reading them their rights – Mirandizing these foreign fighters,” says Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met with military, intelligence and law enforcement officials on a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan.
Rogers, a former FBI special agent and U.S. Army officer, says the Obama administration has not briefed Congress on the new policy. “I was a little surprised to find it taking place when I showed up because we hadn’t been briefed on it, I didn’t know about it. We’re still trying to get to the bottom of it, but it is clearly a part of this new global justice initiative.”
Under the "global justice" initiative, which has been in the works for several months, FBI agents will have a central role in overseas counter-terrorism cases. They will expand their questioning of suspects and evidence-gathering to try to ensure that criminal prosecutions are an option, officials familiar with the effort said.
“When they mirandize a suspect, the first thing they do is warn them that they have the 'right to remain silent,’” says Representative Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee. “It would seem the last thing we want is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other al-Qaeda terrorist to remain silent. Our focus should be on preventing the next attack, not giving radical jihadists a new tactic to resist interrogation--lawyering up.” That is precisely what some human rights organizations are advising detainees to do. “The International Red Cross, when they go into these detention facilities, advise these terrorist to, ‘Take the option. You want a lawyer.’”
The move is reportedly creating chaos in the field among the CIA, FBI and military personnel, according to Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich. The soldiers, especially, he says, are frustrated that giving high value detainees Miranda rights -- the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney -- is impeding their ability to pursue intelligence on the battlefield.
"What I found was lots of confusion and very frustrated people on the front lines because of this new policy and confusion is the last thing you want in a combat zone,” said Rogers, who serves on the House Intelligence Committee.
posted by Allen Barrett | 9:22 AM
30 Comments:
You might want to cite your source before you get sued for plagiarism. http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/06/miranda_rights_for_terrorists.asp From one right-wing nutjob to another.
The policy of mirandizing detainees began in July OF 2008 and I believe George W. Bush was still President. AND General Patraeus was quoted as saying he has "No concerns at all. This is the FBI doing what the FBI does. ... The real rumor yesterday is whether our forces were reading Miranda rights to detainees and the answer to that is no." OOPS Sounds like you don't know you own head from another bodily orifice. There are roadmaps available.
Sorry but you are just wrong 7:40 There was no one captured on the battlefield that was required to be mirandized during the Bush administration. The whole thing about being mirandized is to set the stage for these terrorist to be tried in this country under our laws.
The end result of this will be one of two things either those faced with the situation will simply kill the terrorist and avoid the whole political mess or else they will be hesitant and become a casualty.
The obama has proven to be as inept at being president as he was a senator and that was all the jobs he ever had. Allen Barrett
Why because you saw a news report on a completely biased right-wing nutjob blog? Give me a break. Here is a story from the Washington POST dated Feb. 12, 2008 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/11/AR2008021100572.html
Of course it won't mean anything to you because your mind is already made up. Obama can do nothing right and Bush did nothing wrong. I agree with you on a lot of the local business and I appreciate that fact that you keep the local people honest, but you don't hold water on this one.
People gripe and complain about wab starting a negative thread, but folks, step back and look at this thing objectively, pretend like wab didn't write it, if you can and think about 7:40's post. Naturally, it was anonymous and instead of attempting to discuss the topic, he took an opportunity to hurl a tacky, childish, immature, vulgar, slimy, disgusting, and basically ignorant insult. "ANONYMOUS", you may have had a little bit of credibility if you had stopped after your sentence which ended with: "and the answer to that is no." It was a comment that appeared to be shaping up to the beginning of an intelligent discussion. So you had a different point of view, that's great and makes for enlightening conversation. But hiding under the rock of anonymous, you had to put an end to the dignity of civil conversation to someone who is not ashamed of their beliefs. Mr Barrett insulted nobody, nor was he condescending, simply reported a news story which was relevant. Interesting, 7:40, we all know that Mr. Barrett was insulted, wonder why we don't know who was "man enough" to do the insulting. This is a grown up topic, and citizens NEED differing points of view to get the whole picture. Try for once to comment on the topic, not the writer, please.
It will be interesting to see how many respond with the same old tired, "hero, excellency, know it all, etc" rhetoric. But as I said, read it all objectively. Which poster was trying to have an intelligent conversation and which one was playing "Marco"...."Polo"?
Dixie
Well Dixie,
The reporter, by virtue of claiming to be one, is wide open to criticisms, wouldn't you think? When he behaves arrogantly or self-righteous, someone needs to bring that to his atention so that he may grow and improve, right?
7:40 wasn't me, but it's refreshing to know that others besides me are not so enthralled with him.
Dixie,
I forgot to sign my name to the above post. While I'm at it, I'd like to point out a couple of typos in my above post. I should have said self-righteously and spelled attention with two t's.
Have a good day.
Alf
How was wab's post self-righteous? I didn't know he claimed to be a reporter. Alf, you have an opinion on the topic or just an opinion on wab? I guarantee if that topic had be written anonomously the insult would not have been there. Mr Barrett certainly has you under his spell, amazing.
This situation is a frightening element and is going to cripple our military which in turned will cause tremendous loss of life. People you need to contact your representatives.This is a travesty. Our people in uniform don't deserve this!
Dixie
dixie..
Where have you been? Of course wab claims to be a reporter. Do you recall the (laughing here) Giles Rebel? He also has claimed to give exclusive reports. Does that sound like a reporter to you or are we engaged in semantics? In addition to that, I did NOT say his post was self-righteous. What I DID say is that when he behaves arrogantly and self-fighteously, someone needs to bring that to his attention so he may grow and improve. Go back and read my post, and you should understand.
As for being "under his spell", I would have to diagree. No, I am just one of a few who will not let him get away with just anything he says. He makes some good points, but I for one will not let it go unchallenged when he resorts to name-calling and such. How's that for using free speech responsibly?
Lastly, as a combat veteran, I can fully appreciate our military.
Oh come on Dixie I thought it was pretty funny. You're right, it was a cheap shot, but I think ol' Mr. Barrett's skin is thick enough to take it. And by the way, just because you signed your name "Dixie" doesn't me that you are also under the veil of anonymity. Pot meet kettle.
I don't know how wab behaves, I've never met him. I just know he signs his name to what he writes which idicates he is not ashamed of his beliefs. Maybe he arrogant, like I said, haven't met the man; haven't met you either but sounds pretty arrogant to me to self appoint yourself to the "Silence wab team". I just don't get why people hate his posts, but refuse to post anything themselves. And yeah, I would call it being under someone's spell if they could make me react in any way, much less provoke a strong reaction. Mr Barrett could have a ball if he decided to use his power over some folks for evil and played a game of reverse physcology. Can you imagine? If wab posted the opposite of what he felt was right all these folks that never read his words past his name would feel so foolish once the joke was revealed.
Yeah, the respect for our servicemen was oozing out of your emotional post regarding the dangerous practice that has begun on the battlefield. Representatives and Senators email contacts can be found online; Help protect their lives the way they protect us!
Dixie
Actually, Bush DID IN FACT start Miranda reading for terrorists in July 2008.
As simple Google search of "bush miranda rights" will put on course.
I know you don't want to hear it.
dixie,
Ouch! That sorta stung you didn't it? Just because you sign your name doesn't make you any more "known" than me.
Some people gladly sign their names out of egotism while others of us, for various reasons, are unable to do so. We just don't have that luxury, do we?
Alfred
Dixie here, Sorry I got sloppy and took a short cut and stopped posting the last name. It's Morrison. Don't have a land line, can't look # up; don't have "my space" or "face book" or "classmates.com"; so no info there, doubt if a google search would turn up the "dixie" that is me, but have at it if you feel the need.'Nice to meet you kettle, the name's Dixie'.
"Some people gladly sign their names out of egotism", I expected better of you, Alfie; thought you always saw the good, not bad in folks.Interesting standard you have there:The one's that sign their names are being egotistical, but the ones that don't are "unable" to. Yet if a public servant is accused of wrong doing, well they sure get the benefit of the doubt and you're all over the one who questions their behavior. That's what responsible citizens are supposed to do! Here's the bottom line: We can all sign our name if we choose to; Might make life a little uncomfortable but if one is posting the truth, well that's a right we all have. It's a choice we all make, it's not about ego or being "unable"; it's about owning up to what you type; some do, some don't.
Now that I am as guilty as the previous few posts, has anybody contacted your reps about this topic? That's my concern, and to anonymous who posted about Bush being the one to start this horrible practice, no I am not glad to hear that, I wasn't aware of that, and to be blunt, I don't care who started it; it will get our men and women in uniform killed; but by all means continue to attack the messengers, do no research, cover up or become indignant over corruption exposed whether it be widespread or confined to a tiny minority, accept the status quo, insult the only person that I'm aware of has posted news so that someone who may have missed an item that very well could threaten our way of life, and motivate us to try and find out more from other sources. Glad we all have our priorities in the right order; At least when wab posts, I know something's up; I don't take anybody's version of the truth at face value, but I'm glad for a tip now and then. Don't you all think it's time we all grew up a bit. The American way of life is slipping away bit by bit. Ya'll ever heard the analogy of putting the frog in a pot of water? Look that up folks, and PRAY for our country and our military. And one more thing: Mr Barrett, I am assuming that you are now the contact person if we would like to suggest a topic or post one ourselves. Would you please repeat the instructions and contact info? Thank-you.
Dixie Morrison
dixie,
You can always expect better of me than what you would surmise. You continue to miunderstand simple sentences. For one as smart as you want me to think you are, you are failing miserably. I SAID that some people post their names out of egotism. Does that sound like I said ALL of them do? No. And some who post anonymously, like myself, do so for a variety of reasons. I thought you would have understood that as well. I was wrong.
With regard to my being all over one who would point out something a public official shouldn't be doing, you are ONCE AGAIN wrong. The person I Do get all over is the one who smart-mouths and calls names. You could call it my "raising", but I find that kind of behavior intolerable. Don't you? By the way, do I not have the same right to offer rebuttal as you or anyone else has?
Dixie, I'm impressed. That analogy of boiling frogs is EXACTLY what America has been doing way back from the time they took prayer out of school and expelled Jesus Christ. That's when it all started heading South. Would you agree with that? Perhaps you and I have found a common thread of agreement?
LOL I didn't know that Jesus was enrolled in school.
1:00
You stupid attempt to be humorous didn't work. You know very well what that post referred to. Or do you just want to be contentious? LOL!
10:06 you talk about others being so dense and you show such arrogant condescension to anyone who points out the utter hypocrisy of your writings.
It's people like you that refuse to call a liar a liar and a thief a thief that continues to allow such people to abuse their positions. As has been pointed out many times by Mr. Barrett and others including myself the difference in what you write and what Mr. Barrett writes is the fact he shows ownership for his words while you never do, on every occasion he has called someone a
name you dislike he has given solid reason for using such a name you on the other hand rely on your simple minded personal feeling to justify your writings. The difference I see is the level of maturity and strength of character you both have or have not, you sir are very lacking in comparison to both maturity and character of Mr. Barrett.
howard..
Excuse me, but that post was not addressed to you. But you just had to respond, didn't you?
Speaking of ownersip of words, why don't YOU put your first and last name down at the end of your intellectual posts?
Please don't compare me with your hero when it comes to maturity and strength of character. You never see me on this blog calling people names; how's that for maturity? As for character, I'll put mine up against wab any day of the week.
Got on your cheerleading outfit today?
Well, 1:58 I am not Howard nor am I a cheerleader for him or WAB but, I will say that you are on to chastise someone for not revealing their identity. Didn't you post anonymous???? How would we know if you are on here calling people names? With all the anonymousessss who can tell. Talk about intellectual post..yours is lacking for sure.
3:05
Look, I was only chastising the one (howard) who was doing the chastising. You know, sorta making a point the it's hypocrisy gone to seed to accuse others of what one himself (or herself) is doing. Right? I believe you will gain an understanding of what my intention was if you will go back and read howard's post.
I for one have NEVER whined and complained about posting anonymously. In fact, I have stated many times that many of us, for one reason or another, are unable to post our names. Would you be less troubled if I signed as John P. Doe? Think about it.
If you signed as John Doe 5:24 at least we would know who you are and could then avoid your immature whining about everything. I remember a couple of times you were whining about Mr. Barrett signing his name only because in your mind he was motivated by arrogance. It takes either a very, very enlightened person or an absolute fool to claim to know the motivation of another especially when they claim to not even know that other person. I'll leave it up to you and other to decide which you are.
Over and over you whine about how you are chastising others for their shortcomings yet you fail to understand the greatest shortcomings are in your possession.
You are right I should not compare you to Mr Barrett as you haven't reach any level he stands on. It's as if he's an all star major leaguer and you are riding the bench for the Podunk Wild Quackers.
By putting your name even if it's only your first or last or made up name at least it allows people a trail of thoughts and comments to follow. You are worse than a mere enabler of wrongdoing you are an open accessory of wrong doing and not even smart enough to know that much. Howard
Howard - night crawler is a good name for 158. Never see it in the light of gay - shine a light on it & it skedaddles back in its hole. If you do manage to get your hands on it, you get a hand full of slime, it slips away & back to its hole. One day after a good rain, we'll find old crawler out on the concrete all shriveled up & with nothing left to say.
Clues to where you might find 158 - in a hole - in wet grass near its hole - near the concrete when the rain is a comming.
howard,
I sincerely believe he is not only motivated by arrogance but by an ego bigger than a battleship. Just because you don't see that doesn't make me wrong or you right. And, contrary to what you said about me, I never claimed to be a discerner of the hearts and intentions of others. I'm no mind reader.
As for an all-star, you make me laugh on that one. I don't want to be in the same league with him. If he's a pro, then I'll be content to remain podunk as you call it. Hilarious. I would suggest to you, as has been suggested to others on this blog, that YOU take off your rose colored glasses and stop worshipping at th feet of someone who has absolutely no qualms about the way he talks to and about people! Oh, enabler of wrongdoing. How convenient of you to again accuse me or those like me of that simply because we do not agree with your higher order thinking and mean-spirited tactics.
Your brilliance amazes me; I stand in awe of you.
Get off WAB 7:49. Have you nothing substantive to post? You are a broken record and even if I detested WAB I would have gotten tired of your mouth by know. On every thread of this blog you can read yours and others comments against WAB. I think we get your point by now. Talk about beating a dead horse for crying out loud!! Even you should be getting tired of your same ole same ole rant about WAB. It is time you show some intellect for a change. We will all be waiting.
11:27
It's you guys who keep defending wab whether he be right or wrong. I'm not the only one who has a problem with him either. Oh, but perish the thought that one of us would say even the most minute thing about him. We get tired of it too, you know.
So stop 7:36am! I don't agree with everything WAB says, but just like you he has a right to an opinion. Now just move on. You can detest him all you want but must we all have to hear it repeatedly?
These are your own exact words 7:49. Perhaps you could explain them as they are direct contradictions. Perhaps you fail to understand what "motivation" actually means or else you fail to understand what "discern" means.
This is my whole contention with you, you say one thing while doing the opposite. No one can know the true motivation of another and the only way one can speculate on the motivation of another is to claim they know the heart and intentions of that person. In other words they claim by their actions to "be a mind reader".
"I sincerely believe he is not only motivated by arrogance but by an ego bigger than a battleship. Just because you don't see that doesn't make me wrong or you right. And, contrary to what you said about me, I never claimed to be a discerner of the hearts and intentions of others. I'm no mind reader."
You are right Howard about 7:49. What a hypocrite.Of course you know with a hardhead like he has he will never agree with you or see the error of his ways.
howard,
Thanks but no thanks for the English lesson. I stand firm by what I said about the one for whom you are cheerleading. No, I cannot discern the thoughts and intents of one's heart; that's exactly why I said that I truly believe it. I NEVER said I know that for a fact. So please explain to me where the hypocrisy is. I think the problem is that you are having a hard time discerning plain English.
Post a Comment
<< Home