About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Hannity advances Cheney's dubious suggestion that troops are immediately Mirandizing detainees

June 24, 2009 4:35 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: 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.

26 Comments

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.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by shaggles (June 24, 2009 5:17 pm ET)
      5  
      Oooo. These 2 paint a scary picture. I can see it all now. US soldiers capture a prisoner, tell him he has the right to remain silent and the prisoner says "I do? Thank you for telling me because I was going to tell you everything I know but now I don't have to."

      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.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by open_mind (June 24, 2009 5:47 pm ET)
      4 1
      This is fairly typical. Conservative A reads something in a magazine or newspaper, but can't quite grasp the important details. Conservative A goes on television program hosted by sympathetic Conservative B. Conservative A repeats information gleaned from magazine or newspaper, but gets all of the details wrong (always in a way that is self-serving and riles up fellow conservatives -- in a few weeks or months, you will no doubt get a chain email with further elaboration). Conservative B is either too trusting, ill-informed or malicious to correct Conservative A. The story goes around the world 500,000 times. MMFA then prints an article addressing the issue. Total elapsed time: 21 hours.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (June 24, 2009 5:48 pm ET)
      4  
      And we should take Liz Cheney's opinion seriously on ANY F***ING THING because.....?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by TheDayV (June 24, 2009 7:20 pm ET)
        1  
        Because if she ever runs for office, someone should be waiting with a briefcase full of every false or ridiculous thing she's ever said, and, in front of a live feed in a sequened suit, say "Liz Cheney! This is your life!" and then start reading them off one by one.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by robyn20094113 (June 25, 2009 10:07 pm ET)
           
        Because her daddy will shoot you in the face if you don't.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by LuvLuLu (June 24, 2009 6:04 pm ET)
      1  
      I heard this last night, and knew that it would be here today.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by worrierking (June 24, 2009 6:16 pm ET)
      3  
      Does Fox think that having a woman on discussing the "detainee program", it makes it more palatable to patriotic Americans who abhor torture?

      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.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (June 24, 2009 7:00 pm ET)
        3  
        And it's not just the out-of-the-closet wingnuts as OpenMind suggested above. That guy Pat Caddell (sp?), often identified as a "Democratic Strategist" (meaning half-hearted accomplice to right wing propaganda) on Fox News,was on Hannity's radio show today, chuckling right along with the Miranda BS.

        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.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (June 24, 2009 7:26 pm ET)
          1  
          I agree with everything but the 21 hours part. That seems a bit slow.

          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.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by Dem02020 (June 24, 2009 8:27 pm ET)
         

      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.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by egb (June 25, 2009 3:33 am ET)
        2
      mmfa says: "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."

      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.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (June 25, 2009 7:40 am ET)
        4  
        Who has proven they are terrorists? People do not become guilty of a crime from a simple accusation when they do there is no longer any law. IF they are going to be treated as criminals they hell yes that should be done through the court system and if not then they must be treated as POWs. Notice they were Mirandized at the detention center. I assume WHEN the determination was made that they WERE criminals. You wingnuts are such cowards that you would eschew American values so easily. Values only mean something when they come at a cost. If its easy it doesnt mean anything. It is only tested that you HAVE values when there is risk and when it is hard. If you dont have values then you NEVER had them in the first place. I cant say it any better than it was said in A Man for All Seasons.

        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!

        Report Abuse
      • Author by NG_Officer (June 25, 2009 9:18 am ET)
        1  
        Take it from someone who just got back from Afghanistan and who has detained "enemy combatants" on the battlefield...WE DID NOT MIRANDIZE THEM. Most were even turned over to the Afghan National Army or Afghan National Police for questioning.
        This crap the right keeps spewing is totally fabricated.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by magnolialover (June 25, 2009 9:47 am ET)
             
          Thanks for that, and for your service.

          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.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by manofmystique (June 25, 2009 8:50 am ET)
      2  
      This idiot, Sean Hannity, is obssessed with Obama and he can not control himself. It is clear he is offended a black man is in the white house, and he will not be happy as long as Obama is in office. This is what drives his obssesion. Sean is a fan of Hal Turner and Turner is a racist who believes black people are not qualified to be leaders in white society.
      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.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (June 25, 2009 9:48 am ET)
        1 1
        It's not that Obama is black, it's that he's a democrat.

        Everything else, you're pretty much right on.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by manofmystique (June 25, 2009 12:59 pm ET)
          2  
          Thanks, but I respectfully disagree that it is hate for democrat and not that Obama is black. You can not befriend Rush Limbaugh and admire Hal Turner and not be a racist. Not possible. Hannity practice all the tactical tricks used in the past to hurt or discredit black people and he does so knowing he will get away with it. For example: Hannity can't accept any truth about Obama and he keeps alive the guilty by association myth, even after it has been disproven. Hannity can't let it go because it has worked so long in America. Hennity presist on painting Obama as someone he's not. Hannity continues to say “who is the REAL Barack Obama”, suggesting he has ulterior motives.
          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?
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Dawn (June 25, 2009 10:15 am ET)
      1  
      Did the policies of the Bush Administration really work? Or is this a way to torture the detainees.
      What ever happen to our integrity.We were suppose to have sign a no torture, Hannity is hateful and promotes hate.
      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.