Yesterday, USA Today ran an editorial on the Obama administration’s handling of terrorism, writing: “Officials’ handling of Christmas Day attack looks like amateur hour.” Graciously given the space to respond to this charge, Obama administration Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism John Brennan replied: “Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda.”
Got that? The Obama administration considers any criticism of its national security policies, even from as benign a source as USA Today, as serving “the goals of al-Qaeda.” And the problems with Brennan’s letter don’t end there:
Interrogation Contradictions: First Brennan asserts that “Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was thoroughly interrogated and provided important information.” But just one sentence later Brennan admits: “The most important breakthrough occurred after Abdulmutallab was read his rights.” So which is it? Was the first interrogation so thorough that no active and useful intelligence was lost, or did “the most important breakthrough” come over a month later, giving al-Qaeda a month’s head start?
Coordination Contradictions: Brennan asserts “Senior counterterrorism officials from the White House, the intelligence community and the military were all actively discussing this case before he was Mirandized and supported the decision to charge him in criminal court.” But this has been directly contradicted by the sworn testimony of National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair and FBI Director Robert Mueller. Someone is not telling the truth about a vital national security matter. Congress must investigate.
False Miranda History: Brennan writes: “Would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid was read his Miranda rights five minutes after being taken off a plane he tried to blow up. The same people who criticize the president today were silent back then.” But Brennan leaves out the fact that Reid was arrested in December 2001, before the military detention system was in place. This is like accusing George Washington of treason for not using machine guns against the British. He didn’t use them because they didn’t exist yet!
Military vs. Civilian Custody: Brennan writes: “There is little difference between military and civilian custody, other than an interrogator with a uniform. The suspect gets access to a lawyer, and interrogation rules are nearly identical.” That is perhaps the most fatuous sentence in Brennan’s op-ed. The roles of lawyers in the civilian and military system are completely different. In military custody, detainees are not read their Miranda rights and their lawyer’s purpose is to challenge his detention as an enemy combatant. Under civilian custody, the suspect is read his Miranda rights and his lawyer is there to make sure he does not say anything that will incriminate himself. The situations are completely different, not “nearly identical.”
Military vs. Civilian Trials: Brennan writes: “Cries to try terrorists only in military courts lack foundation.” The false choice of all civilian or all military trials is what lacks foundation. There are hundreds of witnesses who stand ready to testify and send Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to jail. We do not need his testimony to be admissible. There is nothing stopping the administration from questioning Abdulmutallab as an enemy combatant without reading him Miranda rights and then trying him in civilian court later.
Last month, The Washington Post editorial board, who has endorsed every single Democratic Presidential candidate since 1988, wrote:
UMAR FAROUK Abdulmutallab was nabbed in Detroit on board Northwest Flight 253 after trying unsuccessfully to ignite explosives sewn into his underwear. The Obama administration had three options: It could charge him in federal court. It could detain him as an enemy belligerent. Or it could hold him for prolonged questioning and later indict him, ensuring that nothing Mr. Abdulmutallab said during questioning was used against him in court.
It is now clear that the administration did not give serious thought to anything but Door No. 1. This was myopic, irresponsible and potentially dangerous.
Myopic. Irresponsible. Potentially dangerous. That is a spot-on assessment of the Obama administration’s knee-jerk Miranda-rights-for-everyone counterterrorism policy. And admitting as much would be the first step to defeating, not supporting, al-Qaeda.
Quick Hits:
- President Barack Obama’s goal of achieving bipartisanship succeeded yesterday when both Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) expressed opposition to different parts of the President’s agenda at a closed door meeting at the White House.
- According to ABC News, the $2 billion from Obama’s failed stimulus that was spent on wind energy has not created American jobs, since 80% of the money went to foreign manufacturers of wind turbines.
- Senior Chinese military officers have proposed that China could possibly sell some U.S. bonds to punish Washington for its latest round of arms sales to Taiwan.
- According to Reporters Without Borders, Iran now has more journalists in prison than any other country in the world, with at least 65 in custody.
- According to a new Washington Post poll, more than seven in 10 Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing, and as many say they’re inclined to look for new congressional representation, much like in 1994 and 2006.
The Obama Administration announced today that it will move one hundred Guantanamo Bay detainees to a prison in rural Illinois. This move is considered a step forward in Obama’s campaign promise to shutdown the Gitmo facility. By doing so, however, Obama is skipping a critical step in this process—the creation of a long-term detainment framework that will keep Americans safe and hold terrorists accountable.
The benefits of the Guantanamo Bay facility arguably outweigh the costs in terms of price, security, and location. While undoubtedly the Bureau of Prisons could handle the security risks associated with these detainees, FBI Director Robert Mueller has emphasized that moving these detainees to the U.S. undoubtedly brings security risks. It is, however, within the President’s prerogative as Commander-in-Chief to make a decision as to where to prosecute these national security detainees. Obama’s preference was expressed during his presidential campaign when he promised that he would close down the Gitmo facility and put place in substantial oversight aimed at remedying what he perceived as Bush era abuses.
Today marks a step in this process. However, this decision puts the cart before the horse, leaving out a significant step in a responsible transition out of Guantanamo Bay. First, there are a number of legal authorities that specifically prohibit putting these detainees on U.S. soil. Second, and most importantly, this decision skips over the development of a framework for dealing with future detainees in the long run. Simply moving terrorists out of Gitmo and inside the United States does not end the issues associated with detainment. For instance, once inside the United States, what rights will be afforded to detainees, what authorities will be in place to ensure their prolonged detainment, what will happen if they are ordered release, and what if these individuals are not apprehended on the battlefield of Afghanistan?
These are all concerns that are currently left unanswered under the present framework. As Heritage Foundation’s Cully Stimson phrased it, “closing Guantanamo or merely moving the detainees to the United States without addressing the serious underlying challenges and questions regarding detention policy in this ongoing conflict is essentially changing the zip code without confronting the broader challenges.” And if history is guide, absent guidance from the legislative or executive branch, inaction by Obama essentially punts these issues to the judiciary, where activist judges could degrade this valuable national security tool.
What Obama should have done first is get specific congressional authorization for a prolonged detention—this is in line with his promise to make America’s image stronger in the world. However, moving forward on closing Gitmo without a legal and workable detention policy in place weakens U.S. detention policy, and puts the courts in the driving seat of America’s national security.