Hannity advances Cheney's dubious suggestion that troops are immediately Mirandizing detainees
SUMMARY: Sean Hannity advanced Liz Cheney's baseless suggestion that U.S. military personnel are administering Miranda warnings to detainees. In fact, the FBI -- not military personnel -- reportedly have been Mirandizing detainees in specific instances.
On the June 23 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity agreed with Liz Cheney's baseless suggestion that U.S. military personnel are administering Miranda warnings to detainees immediately upon capture. In fact, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, a June 10 Weekly Standard article about the issue reported 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." The article did not say that military personnel had been ordered to read Miranda rights to detainees. In addition, Fox News national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin has reported that FBI personnel, not military personnel, have read Miranda rights to detainees in select instances. In addition, the reading of Miranda warnings to detainees held in Afghanistan reportedly began during the Bush administration.
During a discussion about President Obama's foreign policy, Cheney claimed, "We're also now capturing guys on the battlefield, and the first thing we say to them is, 'You have the right to remain silent,' " which Hannity called "insane." Cheney then stated that "if what you're trying to do is get information, that's clearly not the way to do it." Hannity then said, "[W]e're going to Mirandize enemy combatants in a time of war," to which Cheney responded, "Yes."
However, as Media Matters has previously noted, on the June 10 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Griffin reported that "U.S. commanders tell Fox soldiers are not reading Miranda rights to detainees, but those commanders could not speak to the FBI doing so." Griffin also reported that Justice Department spokesman 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."
In addition, the FBI reportedly began giving Miranda warnings to some detainees held in Afghanistan during the Bush administration. On the June 10 edition of Special Report, Weekly Standard senior writer Stephen Hayes, who wrote the June 10 Weekly Standard article that initially reported the claim by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) that the Obama administration had ordered the Mirandizing of detainees, stated: "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."
From the June 23 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: You know, first of all, are you as amazed as I am? Because I've always been a fan of your dad's. Your dad's 40 years in public service, secretary of defense, eight years during the toughest years for national security in this country. Your father speaks out, and it's like Alka Seltzer in water for the left in this country. They melt. Why do you think that is?
CHENEY: Well, I think partly because he's having a very positive impact, in terms of explaining to the American people why some of the policies that they kept in place for the last eight years were so important. And I think that the current administration would rather not have that argument be made as eloquently, as effectively, as my dad's making it.
HANNITY: Did you ever think we'd have -- not only are we not going to use enhanced interrogations, but we're not going to tell the American people how effective they were.
CHENEY: Right.
HANNITY: But yet, we're going to tell our enemies what techniques we used?
CHENEY: No, and I think, you know, still sitting here tonight they haven't released the memos that explain how effective the detainee program was. And I think the American people have a right to know that, and they have a right to see it. We're also now capturing guys on the battlefield, and the first thing we say to them is, "You have the right to remain silent."
HANNITY: It's insane.
CHENEY: Which is just, you know -- if what you're trying to do is get information, that's clearly not the way to do it.
HANNITY: Yeah, we're going to Mirandize enemy combatants in a time of war.
CHENEY: Yes.
HANNITY: All right, I found, as I was saying earlier in the program today, I watched the president very closely. And I'm thinking this is not the same guy that was saying we're meddling in Iranian affairs, that it doesn't matter what the outcome is.
And I'm thinking Barack Obama, in typical fashion, basically punted. Barack Obama voted present.
CHENEY: Yeah.
HANNITY: And now he's trying to get in front of the, you know, curve here.















I wonder why neither of them will acknowledge that this is a continuation of a Bush era policy, not something new? Well no. That isn't true. I really don't wonder that.
And kid, you're father is not reaching any more Americans than he did when he was in office.
A good rule of thumb seems to be to take those who think Bush was a great president, divide by two, and you get the percentage of Americans who have been positively effected by your chickenhawk cowardly father.
I'm thinking maybe the high single digits.
Caddell also does a little bit where he refuses to admit who he voted for in the last election, citing the secret ballot as a right he's availing himself of. (Get it Hannitized MOnkeys? He's so ashamed of voting for Obama, and Seannie gets to play the "I told you so" part)
Caddell makes Susan Estrich look convincing.
I guess it's too bad Sean's guy lost the election. We'd be involved in three wars in the middle east and probably a fourth with North Korea.
OT but the ship named after Grampa's grampa is following a North Korean ship suspected of carrying missiles to Myanmar.
By the way, I've renounced Hateful Ageists Anonymous again.
I was doing pretty well keeping mine in check. Then I had to go to the post office 15 minutes before closing time. My fury and anger was born anew.
I was on my way to a meeting of the HAA when I ran into a store to buy beer, condoms, cigarettes and this month's issue of "Hustler" with my food stamps.
I was sent over the edge by a couple of old people who stopped to check their lottery tickets, blocking the exit to the store.
I pushed them aside and said, no more!
"According to the U.S. attorney's office, postings on Turner's web site included photos of the judges and addresses for them, with statements such as: "Let me be the first to say this plainly; These judges deserve to be killed."
I'm no expert but this doesn't appear to be protected sppech to me.
This whole thing is so imaginative and fantastic, I can't even form anything sensible and believable in my mind to accompany it... what persons and where, are being read their rights about being silent and being provided an attorney if they can't afford one?
As much as who and where, I'm befuddled about what for?
What is someone supposedly doing (and where are they doing it), that U.S. Troops are not only 'detaining' them and taking them into custody, but are reading them their rights?
Again, there are people who have a wild and crazy imaginative fantasy about some 'war on terror' going on somewhere... who's being taken into custody, and for what?
That fantastic nonsense has to make for a picture in my mind first, before the idiotic detail of them being read their rights can be added to the picture.
If terrorists are "Mirandized" [who cares who is doing it] it means they are going into the American Justice System. Does that mean the person captured is presumed innocent until proven guilty? Can he refuse to speak and demand a lawyer right then and there in Afghanistan? Can his lawyer plead Habeas Corpus and demand he be released or charged? If he is charged does he have a right to a speedy trial? Can he subpoena all the battlefield combatants in his defense? What about the battlefield commanders, can he subpoena them also?
Ok, so he's charged then what? Which judge presides over the Habeas Corpus pleading? If the battlefield combatant is innocent
until proven guilty, then we can't just shoot his friends when they aren't firing weapons at us. We can't just bomb a house full of terrorists, guaranteeing we kill them. How do we know the ones in the house are guilty? Don't they also have the "innocent until proven guilty" right of the "Mirandized One"?
If we shouldn't be killing people in houses at night with missles launched from Predator aircraft 80 miles away, then when
we do are we guilty of what? Murder? Mass Murder? Who, then,
would be the responsible person for that murder -- the soldier at Andrews AFB "flying" the predator? His commanding officer? Who?. Should we turn that person over the the Internation Courts for trial?
Mirandizing battlefield combatants is political correctness gone nuts. Whoever made the Mirandizing order should not be in a position of responsibility.
He's a bad man.
Sir Thomas More
-- There's no law against that.
William Roper
-- God's law!
Sir Thomas More
-- Then God can arrest him.
William Roper
-- While you talk, he's gone!
Sir Thomas More
-- Go he should, if he were the Devil, until he broke the law.
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!
This crap the right keeps spewing is totally fabricated.
That's all I have to say about that. Trust the men on the ground, and the reality of the situation. Not what someone sitting on TV tells you.
Hannity is impressed with Dick Cheney for his policies the last eight years in office, believing Cheney kept America safe, but he is willing to overlook the absolute fact that 9/11 happened on Cheney's watch and the whole Bush Administrate handled the situation poorly, very poorly. In fact, many believed Cheney personally prevented the military from intersecting those plans from hitting the buildings. Sean is just a stupid white racist infidel willing to let his own people lead him to hell, before he let a black man guide America to safety.
Everything else, you're pretty much right on.
Hannity disregard all of Obama's accomplishments.
Hannity calls Obama radical, a code word for different from us.
Hannity constantly reminds white America of past Presidents and founding fathers. There could only be one reason for bringing them up now. Hannity says Obama hates America, knowing this is not true, he doesn’t say such a ridiculous thing about any white politicians, because it is not even a question.
Hannity associate Obama with criminals, a classic white technique used to fear white and Hannity call Obama and his wife angry people, this is to feed into the stereotypical views white people have of black people. Need I say more?
What ever happen to our integrity.We were suppose to have sign a no torture, Hannity is hateful and promotes hate.