About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Quick Fact: Wash. Times editorial falsely claimed Obama "instructed" FBI to begin Mirandizing suspected terrorists captured overseas

November 18, 2009 11:47 am ET — 9 Comments

In a November 18 editorial, The Washington Times falsely claimed that in May 2009, the Obama administration "instructed the FBI to begin giving Miranda warnings to terrorists captured overseas."

From the November 18 Washington Times editorial:

The defense can argue that the entire process leading up to the trial has been illegal and everything derived from it is the "fruit of the poisonous tree." The Sheikh was picked up in March 2003 in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, by a combined team of Pakistan Military Intelligence and CIA operatives. The legality of his transfer to U.S. custody is murky. He reportedly was not read Miranda rights at that time and was refused a lawyer when he asked for one.

This is critical because in May 2009, the Obama administration instructed the FBI to begin giving Miranda warnings to terrorists captured overseas as part of the "global justice" initiative. It would be difficult for the prosecution to justify how the Sheikh was treated when it contradicts current administration policy.[The Washington Times, 11/18/09]

Fact: Bush administration reportedly initiated Mirandizing suspects overseas

On the June 10 edition of Fox News' Special Report, The Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes, whose June 10 article 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," stated that "[t]here are reports that this was happening on specific bases as going back as early as July 2008." Additionally, 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 further stated 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."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by rkcomments (November 18, 2009 12:58 pm ET)
        1
      Do these right-wing media outlets have ANY journalism standards?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by historygeek001 (November 18, 2009 1:50 pm ET)
          1
        Not unless you count "anything to make the Democrats look bad" as a standard.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Tbone Slickens (November 18, 2009 3:16 pm ET)
      1 3
      Were the men to be tried in NY read THEIR Miranda rights? That is the question. I don't care who did what first. It matters now, for this trial.

      Did they or didn't they MMfA?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by open_mind (November 18, 2009 5:04 pm ET)
          1
        Um. MMfA is a media criticism site. If you think your question is more relevant to the overall subject of trying these suspects (and I think it is actually a very good question), you should ask the Washington Times or any other would-be credible news orgainzation to answer such a question if it has not indeed been answered yet.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by open_mind (November 18, 2009 5:17 pm ET)
        1
      You have got to love just how stupid conservatives really are. They do not believe in "mirandizing" terror suspects. Then we find out that is a major reason why we will have difficulty trying those suspects in court.

      Conservatives believe we can just keep people locked up forever without charges or a trial. Then we find out denying the suspects a speedy trial is a major reason why we will have difficulty trying terrorists in court.

      Conservatives have been arguing that because the Bush Administration screwed up so much and for so long (they put it more sweetly than that) that it would be better to just hold the suspects in US custody without charges forever. Its just too hard to try them in military tribunals or civilian courts.

      The FBI claims that they warned the Bush Administration very early about the dangers they were doing and nobody in the Bush Administration cared. All of this could have been prevented if somebody in the Bush Administration could have looked one minute into the future. Yep, it must be all Obama's fault. Serves him right for having integrity - yech!

      And if anything goes wrong with these trials, it will be Obama who takes the fall - because he picked the fairest and most appropriate way available to conduct trials. Imagine the nerve of that guy!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by FordGuy1972 (November 18, 2009 9:50 pm ET)
           
        You've also just got to love how ignorant liberals are. Obama and Holder's decision to try five murdering terrorists in Federal court is outrageous. By holding public trials in New York they are giving these scumbags exactly what they crave, a world stage where they can expound their hatred and whip up even more anti-US sentiment throughout the muslim world. Not to mention exposing the City to possible terrorist action and at a cost of between $75 and $100 million. Have they no concerns about re-opening the wounds of all the 911 families? How about giving these the lawyers of these five barbarians access to sensitive information through discovey? God help us if any of them decide to represent themselves and have direct access to this information. It's obvious the Bush administration and it's methods will be on trial here, that is Holder and Obama's real objective. That and to gain world admiration. A military trial is what should be used to convict terrorists. Not once in all our history has an enemy combatant been tried in a civilian court and with good reason. Liberals................stupid is as stupid does.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by albertsenj (November 18, 2009 10:51 pm ET)
         
      It seems to me that, if we can't use our justice system to mete out justice to those accused of terrorism - doesn't that mean that, on that point at least, the terrorists have won?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Mr. Buzztime (November 19, 2009 2:33 am ET)
         
      Let me get this straight. MMFA's claim that the Washington Times is lying comes from a report by ... Fox News? Does that now make Fox a reputable news organization in MMFA's eyes?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jcalton (November 19, 2009 1:45 pm ET)
         
      Remind me who was president in July, 2008?
      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.