June 22, 2009

US House over-rules Obama on Miranda rights for terrorists

Forgive me if this was already reported at Race42012.  I’m just now absorbing the entire story, and the whole thing is amazing.

Here’s John Boehner last Thursday, June 18:

Boehner Statement on Passage of GOP Proposal to Prohibit Miranda Rights for Terrorists

Washington, Jun 18 - House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today applauded passage of a House GOP proposal during consideration of the Fiscal Year 2010 Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Act (H.R. 2847).  The proposal, offered as a motion to recommit by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), would prohibit any funds under the act being used to provide the rights Americans enjoy under Miranda v. Arizona by the Department of Justice, to terrorist detainees in the custody of U.S. Armed Forces in Afghanistan:

“Terrorists who want to kill Americans and destroy our way of life should not be granted the same rights as American citizens.  I am pleased House Democrats joined Republicans to send a clear message to the Obama Administration that terrorists should not be given Miranda rights and an opportunity to take advantage of the U.S. legal system.  As this legislation is finalized, House Democrats who supported this proposal must ensure it remains a part of the bill ultimately sent to the President’s desk.  Let’s be clear: terrorism is not a law enforcement issue.  That is a pre-9/11 mentality that helped pave the way for deadliest terrorist strike in American history, and granting terrorists Miranda rights would be a significant blow to our efforts to defeat the terrorist threat.”

Here’s The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes on the Campaign Standard blog June 10:

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 Mirandarights 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 high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee.

And here’s another article by Hayes in the print-edition Weekly Standard scheduled to be published today, June 22, and so it may have been written prior to the June 18 House vote.

I don’t have time right now to find out, but it would be interesting to know whether there was a recorded vote on the Miranda-related amendment (and who voted against it).  After searching around a bit, it looks like the amendment was offered by California Rep. Jerry Lewis (R), and I’m thinking the answer to the roll call question might be on this page, if a reader has time to interpret that page.

by @ 12:35 am. Filed under Uncategorized
Trackback URL for this post:
http://race42008.com/2009/06/22/us-house-over-rules-obama-on-miranda-rights-for-terrorists/trackback/

10 Responses to “US House over-rules Obama on Miranda rights for terrorists”

  1. Heath Says:

    Dude that’s poor form raising a question and asking for others to do the work to find the answer. If you don’t have time don’t raise it!

  2. Thunder Says:

    This is a good first step. However, we must keep it clear that these prisoners are under the Geneva Convention and are illegal combatants. So in the words of Cheney, they should be lined up and shot. That would send a clear message to other terrorist, if we catch you, your dead!

    During WWII, if someone was caught out of uniform, they were considered spies and shot under the Geneva Convention even if they were US Citizens. They have declared war on us, and we must respond in kind.

  3. Thunder Says:

    While I hate to hijack a posting and even though I am a critic of Palin (Support Romney), once in a while you run across something where you must give credit where credit is due.

    She challenged the notion that children must be born perfect and that unplanned pregnancies are inconvenient and can be ended by abortion. “I know for sure my son is perfect just as he is, made in the image of God,” she said.

    http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/palin_obama_abortion/2009/06/21/227535.html

    I share her opinion completely. Unborn children are not chattel to be discard at whim. I make exception when it comes to a risk to the life of the Mother, Rape and incest. If you willing to take the risk of having children, you must accept the fate that god gives you if it looks like the child will not be perfect. Or in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. Life has consequences and when you do something resulting in a negitive consequence, you must deal with it directly.

    Also, Abortion should be a states rights issue, nothing in the constitution gives the Federal Government the right to regulate the issue.

    Sorry for the Hijack, hopefully someone will start a new thread on the issue.

  4. Joseph D. Walch Says:

    Glad to see that the GOP is doing some good in the house.

  5. Kristofer Lorelli Says:

    Constitutional Law is my area of weakness…but is this not just hot air? If the courts wants to assign Miranda rights, there is nothing we can do….correct?

    (Win M.?)

  6. Mike gamecock DeVine Says:

    #5 Kris, without having studied this matter in any detail yet, nevertheless I am very confident it is unconstitutional and quite vapid in any event and unenforceable.

    There are better ways to deal with this matter. Will do a DeVine Law column on this soon.

  7. Mike gamecock DeVine Says:

    #2 I do not agree with Commander in Chief Anthony Kennedy’s two 5-4 decisions that unconstitutionally limited the President’s executive war powers that still allow to hold illegal EC’s indefinitely.

    But, that the President MAY so hold them does not and should not preclude a decision to also charge them in civil court if a statute applies.

    What I oppose are courts or congresses that limit executive power and this attempt is unconstitutional in any event. Congress could change jurisdictional laws or elements of crimes to achieve the result.

    more later

  8. Kristofer Lorelli Says:

    Awesome Mike, I look forward to it.

  9. Kristofer Lorelli Says:

    Obama’s Persian Tutorial
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124563005022735881.html

  10. Gamecock Says:

    #2 We tried many in military tribunals.

The Candidates





























Featured Archives


Race 4 2008 Interviews

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives

Search

Blogroll

Facebook


Join Race 4 2008 on Facebook

Site Syndication

Twitter

Main

Meta Data

Design and Hosting By