About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Gingrich says it's "unimaginable" to Mirandize suspects in Afghanistan, but Bush reportedly did so

June 11, 2009 1:17 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: Discussing a Weekly Standard article, Newt Gingrich said that reading Miranda rights to detainees in Afghanistan is "unimaginable." But the author of the article reported that the FBI also Mirandized people at "specific bases" during the Bush administration.

32 Comments

On the June 10 edition of Fox News' Hannity, Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich characterized "[t]he idea that we pick up, in a war zone, a terrorist" and read them Miranda rights as "unimaginable. It's worse than anything Jimmy Carter ever did. It's worse than anything that President Bill Clinton ever did." Gingrich made the comment while discussing a June 10 Weekly Standard article reporting the claim of Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) that "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." However, neither Gingrich nor host Sean Hannity noted that hours earlier on Fox News, the author of The Weekly Standard report, senior writer Steve Hayes, reported that the FBI also Mirandized people at "specific bases" during the Bush administration.

On the June 10 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Hayes stated: "Well, it's interesting that back in the campaign, if you remember, this was a punch line for Republicans. You know, Barack Obama would like to read detainees their Miranda rights. And now we find out that this is, in fact, happening." Hayes then added: "There are reports that this was happening on specific bases as going back as early as July 2008. But what Mike Rogers seems to be saying is that this is happening on a more consistent basis, and that the FBI and the Justice Department don't want to talk about it."

Additionally, on Special Report, Fox News national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin reported that "[t]he Justice Department saying tonight that detainees at Bagram have been Mirandized in the past." Griffin also stated that Justice Department Dean Boyd stated that "[t]here has been no policy change nor blanket instruction issued for FBI agents to Mirandize detainees overseas" and that "there have been specific cases in which FBI agents have Mirandized suspects overseas at both Bagram and in other situations in order to preserve the quality of evidence."

From the June 10 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

HANNITY: You know, the Obama administration terrorist relocation program, because the first Gitmo detainee is now on U.S. shores.

But The Weekly Standard is reporting tonight that the Obama Justice Department -- and now we're gonna show tape of Obama saying he'd never do this, that's coming up a little bit later on the show -- that he quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high-value detainees captured or held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according to Mike Rogers.

GINGRICH: This is -- Congressman Rogers on the Intelligence Committee was in Afghanistan. This report in The Weekly Standard is unimaginable. It's worse than anything Jimmy Carter ever did. It's worse than anything that President Bill Clinton ever did.

The idea that we pick up, in a war zone, a terrorist, and the first thing we do is say to them, "We want to make sure you understand your rights. You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to an attorney."

First of all, that's just not true. They are not American citizens. They are not in the American criminal justice system. These are enemy agents in a war. I think this is -- we have got to recognize these folks are going to get a lot of people killed if we continue down this road of crippling our intelligence capability, crippling our military capability, crippling our FBI, and pretending that terrorists are Americans.

HANNITY: Well, it's frightening on a scale that I never thought possible in America.

From the June 10 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:

GRIFFIN: Bret, Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd has just issued a statement saying that there has been no policy change. I'll quote: "There has been no policy change nor blanket instruction issued for FBI agents to Mirandize detainees overseas." But he adds, "While there have been specific cases in which FBI agents have Mirandized suspects overseas at both Bagram and in other situations in order to preserve the quality of evidence obtained, there has been no overall policy change with respect to detainees."

So there you have it, Bret. The Justice Department saying tonight that detainees at Bagram have been Mirandized in the past -- Bret.

[...]

[begin video clip]

ROGERS: It's already in the field. I have witnessed it myself, talked to the people on the ground. It's obviously there. We have talked to the FBI. They said, yes, we're trying to rule this out.

I don't think it's, as I said, well thought through. We think this is a DOJ initiative. But it hasn't been well advertised, it hasn't been well talked about. And, certainly, I'm not sure it was all that well coordinated amongst all the agencies.

ROBERT GIBBS (White House press secretary): I have no reason to disbelieve a member of Congress, but I don't know any of the circumstances that are involved around it.

REPORTER: Would it come as a surprise to the White House if that's what would be happening?

GIBBS: It's not a surprise to me.

[end video clip]

BAIER: What are they talking about? Senior House Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, Congressman Mike Rogers from Michigan -- he is also a former special agent for the FBI -- just returned from Afghanistan and said that suspected terrorists at the detainee facility in Bagram were being read their Miranda rights by FBI agents there.

Let's bring in our panel on this. Steve Hayes, senior writer for The Weekly Standard; Mara Liasson, national political correspondent of National Public Radio; and Jeff Birnbaum, managing editor digital of The Washington Times.

Steve, you broke this story on The Weekly Standard. I should point out the DOJ released a statement -- Department of Justice -- saying, "There has been no policy change nor blanket instruction issued for FBI agents to Mirandize detainees overseas. While there have been specific cases in which FBI agents have Mirandized suspects overseas at both Bagram and at other institutions or situations in order to preserve the quality of evidence obtained, there has been no overall policy change with respect to detainees."

What about all of this?

HAYES: Well, it's interesting that back in the campaign, if you remember, this was a punch line for Republicans. You know, Barack Obama would like to read detainees their Miranda rights. And now we find out that this is, in fact, happening.

There are reports that this was happening on specific bases as going back as early as July 2008. But what Mike Rogers seems to be saying is that this is happening on a more consistent basis, and that the FBI and the Justice Department don't want to talk about it.

They are not eager to have this become a public issue, because I think, you know, largely, the American public is not going to be in agreement that detainees, especially detainees overseas, should be read Miranda rights -- you have the right to remain silent, you have the right to a lawyer. The government will provide one for you if you can't afford one, what have you.

So, what I think we're seeing now is confusion, as Mike Rogers says. Nobody knows what's going on. The CIA apparently did not know how often this was happening or that it was happening at all. Really very few people know a lot of the details of this. Mike Rogers is somebody who seems to.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by jon wisby (June 11, 2009 1:26 pm ET)
         
      Newt needs Google.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 11, 2009 1:33 pm ET)
      2 1
      YEAH! I mean WHO CARES about basic human rights and the RULE OF LAW!!! It's not like these vermin are real people, after all! (What 'values' do these cowards think we're actually defending anyway?)
      Report Abuse
      • Author by cbscout (June 11, 2009 3:01 pm ET)
           
        I would not call a man who takes on the US military with nothing but hand held weapons and little else may be dumb and he may be dumb and he may be desperate but he is no coward. I also fairly sure he thinks he is fighting for his country.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by highliter (June 11, 2009 3:51 pm ET)
           
        Basic human rights you have got to be kidding me. Since when are Miranda rights basic human rights.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (June 11, 2009 1:53 pm ET)
      3 1
      It may not be a legal requirement but why does that make it "unimaginable?" Gingrich is trying to stir up controversy where none exists.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 11, 2009 2:31 pm ET)
        5  
        The only thing that's "unimaginable" is that this once great country has been reduced to imprisoning people without cause; holding them for YEARS without charge, evidence or trial; torturing; spying on it own without a warrant; etc... THIS is what's "unimaginable." And it's BUSH, CHENEY and the REPUBLICANS that brought it about, and it is to Obama's and the Democrat's detriment that they haven't done more to STOP this nightmare yet. I'm still hopefull, but it needs to stop. NOW. COMPLETELY. We need to start acting like we're the greatest country in world once again.

        And Newt and his ilk will NOT get us there. They will run in the opposite direction form greatness as fast as they possibly can. Afterall, that's what cowards DO.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by fairliberal (June 11, 2009 3:45 pm ET)
          2 4
          Yes a democrat or anyone of his ilk would never consider doing such things,,,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment
          Report Abuse
          • Author by JoeSixpack (June 11, 2009 4:20 pm ET)
               
            Ah yes. The WWII concentration camps for Japanese Americans. An embarrassing blot on the history of our nation, from which the conservatives have learned nothing.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 11, 2009 4:21 pm ET)
            6  
            Yeah... you see: WE LIBERALS are the ones who are condemning that very behiavior NOW, while your lot seeks to EMMULATE and DEFEND it!

            The mistake might have been made by Democrtas, but we've learned from it while YOU GUYS want to REPEAT IT!!!

            Do you get any satisfaction from setting up such pathetic posts fro me to knock donw? If you do, it must be more than the satifaction I get from doing it. You make it way too easy, Fair.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by fairliberal (June 11, 2009 5:47 pm ET)
                4
              Well maybe it is time to criticise the Obama administration, he is now being accused of torture by a Gitmo detainee. If fact the former detainee claims that he is being tortured more under the Obama administration than the Bush administration.

              See the 6/9 talking points ..http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/
              Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (June 11, 2009 7:13 pm ET)
                3  
                If its true you BET I am going to criticize it. Lets have investigations and ANYONE who ordered, took part in or facilitated torture should go straight to prison
                Report Abuse
              • Author by seahawks123 (June 11, 2009 7:44 pm ET)
                1  
                time to criticise


                Are you one of them forinoors? You spell like a Brit or a Canadian. Your kind ain't wanted round here.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by jimvf (June 11, 2009 8:29 pm ET)
                   
                ummm fox news is not a realistic place to send people to find anything resembling facts
                Report Abuse
              • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 12, 2009 8:41 am ET)
                2  
                Fair, I don't need to YOU to tell ME how to feel about human rrights violations. As I clearly laid out in my current and previous posts: I was vehemently against them under Bush, and I remain sridently opposed to the continuation off such policies under Obama. My exact words in this case were: it is to Obama's and the Democrat's detriment that they haven't done more to STOP this nightmare yet. That may not be strong enough to satify YOU, but it is criticism. I only pull my punches actually LIKE Obama's polices aside from any alledged human rights abuse being carried over form the Buch/Cheney admin. But B/C offered very little that I didn't despise. Torture, etc... was just the crowning t*rd in the cesspool that was their administration.

                What I really find amusing/apauling however is the blatant double standard displayed by people like you and Fox News who hold up a single detainees allegation against Obama NOW, but for years defended Bush/Cheney, uttelry dismissing any allegations made by detainees, mocking those who cited them and even goidn so far as to dismiss/mock/accuse of treason those FBI and CIAgents who testified against these practices.

                Our [Libeals'] hands and souls are clean on this issue, my friend. And our position is both clear and consistant: WE WANT IT TO STOP. If Obama IS doing this, his base will DEMAND HE STOP. But we don't need YOU to US how to feel (negatively) about Obama after you defended and cheer-leaded (is that a word?) the same polices under Bush for YEARS.

                You're new to this stance. (Let me guess: You've been aginst torture since Jan 20th? Our feelings on the matter haven't changed in the slightes - and mine never will.
                Report Abuse
    • Author by jmh (June 11, 2009 1:59 pm ET)
      4 1
      all Gingrich, and that shameful (or is it shameless ?) broadcaster Hannity, shows is that the extremist wing of the Republican Party, which is ,I guess, the Mainstream Republican Party, does not have any philosophy other than greed and power for power's sake.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by fishergirlusmc (June 11, 2009 5:23 pm ET)
        1 7
        President Obama also believes in Rendition and has made Zero changes to FISA and rightfully so. We are listening to people who communicate with terrorists from within our borders. Where is all the outrage about our Constitution being ripped up? I guess because now it's a Democrat, it's OK.
        I have never read in our Constitution where the enemy on the battlefield in a foriegn country should be afforded the same rights as an American citizen, can anyone tell me where that is written? Also, when you mirandize them on the battlefield and they say they want an attorney will we be sending ACLU lawyers onto the battlefield to protect the enemies rights? Who will pay the enemies legal fees? Will we be required to have lawyers who speak their language? Will the American taxpayers being footing the bills for the attornies fees or is the ACLU working pro-bono? If the enemy has no rights in his own country will we still give him the same rights as a criminal in this country?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by fairliberal (June 11, 2009 6:44 pm ET)
            3
          Don't worry, they'll just raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for all that. They have a plan. Too bad it won't work. Then they will blame it on the Reps. After the country declares bankruptcy.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by snoopy (June 11, 2009 7:06 pm ET)
            3  
            I'm looking forward to you planting your lips on my butt and kissing real hard and long when Obama's plan works exactly as expected. Until then enjoy the lunatic rantings of your fascist government in exile...
            Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (June 11, 2009 7:18 pm ET)
            3  
            Dont worry. Some day FL will make sense. I know it hasnt happend as of yet and seems farfetched what with all his mind reading and prognosticating the future but I have faith that some day he MIGHT make sense and if we are lucky he might even make a cogent argument. Certainly I wont be holding my breath till that day arrives
            Report Abuse
        • Author by jmh (June 11, 2009 7:16 pm ET)
          3  
          the real point is not about Mirandizing prisoners on the battle field.
          You can certainly make the case for that bit of a stretch of credulity ...
          The __real__ point is that Gingrich and Hannity think it is more of an _Outrage_ to Mirandize prisoners of war than it is to rape and torture them.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (June 11, 2009 7:17 pm ET)
          3  
          I have no PROBLEM with FISA. FISA is a type of warrant. The problem with what Bush did was he BYPASSED FISA and wiretapped WITHOUT warrants and IF they are only listening to people talking to terrorists then what is the problem with getting a darn WARRANT. They dont have to mirandize those they think are enemies. THEY are POWs and all they have to give is identification. If they arent enemies if they are going to be considered criminals then OUR constitution obligates US to follow ITS STRICTURES. Why are you conservatives so quick to jetison our values. Are you really so afraid that you dont CARE about American values?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by egb (June 12, 2009 3:35 am ET)
               
            Terrorist goes to store, buys prepaid phone, calls Chicago, call is rerouted to Pakistan, talks on phone with Osama and hangs up.
            How to you get a warrant for that?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by OldMarine (June 12, 2009 11:51 am ET)
                 
              IIRC, under FISA, law enforcement was/is allowed up to 72 hours after the fact to get a warrant. Additionally, a judge is always "on call" to issue a warrant, day or night, 24/7/365. The problem was/is that they weren't even bothering with that.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (June 14, 2009 2:26 am ET)
                 
              How do you intercept that? Or do you want to just suspend the 4th amendment entirely because you are so afraid?
              Report Abuse
    • Author by Entitled (June 11, 2009 3:25 pm ET)
         
      This looks more like a DoD and DoJ miscommunication on how to do business in a war zone. POW's get rights, just not Miranda rights.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by kfraz43 (June 11, 2009 4:35 pm ET)
         
      You know your party is in trouble when every single talking point is a red herring.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (June 11, 2009 7:19 pm ET)
      2  
      What's unimaginable is that you will ever be Prez or even a major party nominee, Newt. So go away and stop wasting everybodies time.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by michaeldgiles4407 (June 12, 2009 12:13 am ET)
           
        Why is it that the right worships the second amendment, rolls around in the sheets with it, misinterprets it radically, has it posted as their epitaph (see Von Brunn) and wants it to be their "BFF", but abhors the 4th, 5th & 8th amendments?

        Hey, Newt the Grinch! If we have the AUTHORITY to arrest and take into custody these farsical "enemy combatants", shouldn't we abide by some sort of national or international laws?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by 3rdParty (June 11, 2009 8:56 pm ET)
         
      I don't belong to either gang; left or right... I think mirandizing combatants overseas sounds pretty lame to me. We act like we have never engaged in and learned from war. Why does it seem that both administrations have no clue on how to deal with POWs? Why does it seem that if we can't torture and hold those POWs for life with no categorically defined crime, that we have no other idea what to do with those people?
      So is our government admitting that our judicial system is garbage, whether it be in a civilian or military court?
      Another reason why we shouldn't administer the death penalty.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by egb (June 12, 2009 3:50 am ET)
         
      The problem with Mirandizing the battlefield combatants is that they are instantly transformed to just plain old criminals. That being the case, after being captured for killing a couple US soldiers on the battlefield, they get hauled back to -- where -- to have a trial. Let's say New York. Then the ACLU gets involved to defend the guy, requests tons of information and wants to depose all of the troops involved in his capture -- otherwise, it wouldn't be a fair trial -- and spends lots of your money gathering evidence from the CIA, NSA, Pentagon, White House, Nancy Pelosi's office and who knows where else.

      When it's all done, we find that the ACLU lawyer made a mistake and a mistrial is declared and we start all over again.

      Not only that, but there's this other issue that might arise.
      If battlefield combatants are criminals, then by American law, they are innocent until proven guilty. What right do we have to murder them on the battlefield with cannons? For that matter, what right do we have to murder innocent terrorists who haven't fired a shot at us with predator missiles and who is ultimately responsible for that murder? We are killing "alleged terrorists" in their sleep with missiles fired from predator drones so this question is anything but academic. Who is responsible for that?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by emma goldman (June 12, 2009 5:02 pm ET)
        1  
        heyif the "terrorist" is a battlefield combatant then the issue of miranda is moot...

        the issue of rights and legal framework for prosecution and detention is

        the reason for the reading of miranda...

        this to avoid the constitutional problem that president obama

        addressed in his speech at the national archives...

        thanks for reading my opinion
        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.