Feb 09 The Obama Administration's Misuse of Miranda

Last week, the Obama administration went to great lengths that they were still getting information from Nigerian terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab despite the FBI's Mirandizing him. Frankly, that's missing the point. Here's what Wikipedia says about Miranda rights:

The Miranda warnings were mandated by the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda v. Arizona as a means of protecting a criminal suspect's Fifth Amendment right to avoid coercive self-incrimination (see right to silence).

First, it's worth noting that, prior to this administration, Miranda only applied to criminals. Second, it's worth noting that, since terrorists never have to be released, there isn't a need to Mirandize a terrorist. That's only important if the federal government thought it was important to prosecute terrorists in federal criminal court. Third, it's important to note that the Obama administration is using a double standard.

When Abdulmutallab attempted to detonate his bomb over Detroit on Christmas Day, Abdulmutallab thought that that airplane was his battlefield just like the mountains of Tora Bora were was for bin Laden. The American people wouldn't accept this, or any other, administration Mirandizing bin Laden. Clearly, the American people have rejected as failed policy the Mirandizing of Abdulmutallab.

Marc Thiessen is right in pointing out that, even after a terrorist has been captured and he's been stripped of his weapons, he's still a threat to our national security because he still has knowledge of (a) future terrorist plots, (b) existing terrorist networks and (c) where terrorist training camps are hidden.

Until they've drained every bit of information about these things from a terrorist, neither the CIA nor the FBI should think about anything other than interrogating the terrorist. Even after that, in the interest of national security, no administration should consider Mirandizing a terrorist because we always want to keep open the option of interrogating him.

Let's further stipulate that the Obama administration's use of drones to kill terrorists is bad policy. Furthermore, President Obama says that it's important that terrorists captured on battlefields above the United States should receive due process rights with a full set of constitutional rights. Why should terrorists captured on the battlefields of Yemen, Afghanistan or Pakistan be summarily executed? Why should someone monitoring UAV flights be given the authority to play judge, jury and executioner?

I'd further suggest that killing high value terrorists without interrogating them is stupid. By killing high value terrorists like a KSM or abu Zubaydah, you lose an opportunity to gain insights into terrorist networks, their financing and training, and potentially into upcoming terrorist attacks.

Isn't that information significantly more important than bragging that we're killing terrorists with high tech toys? In fact, shouldn't this administration be asked why they aren't putting a high priority on gathering intel? I wrote about President Obama's commitment to gathering as much intel as possible in this post:

In our ever-changing world, America's first line of defense is timely, accurate intelligence that is shared, integrated, analyzed, and acted upon quickly and effectively.

I questioned then President Obama's commitment to that principle because this statement was made after Mirandizing Abdulmutallab and after the American people criticized his administration for its mishandling of that intel opportunity.

This administration's tactics and strategies in gathering intel on the jihadists has been lackluster at best and foolish to downright dangerous at worst. This administration should put a higher priority on gathering intel than it's putting on giving terrorists constitutional protections. Until that changes, we won't be as safe as is possible.

Comments welcome at LFR.