Posted by
Andrews on Thursday, June 11, 2009 4:39:59 PM
The
WSJ Best of the Web had the following post:
How 'Global Justice' Threatens Civil Liberties
A report by The Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes suggests that the Obama
administration has been busy expanding the rights of
terrorists--including Miranda rights:
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, according a senior Republican on the House
Intelligence Committee. "The administration has decided to change the
focus to law enforcement. Here's the problem. You have foreign fighters
who are targeting US troops today--foreign fighters who go to another
country to kill Americans. We capture them. . . . and they're reading
them their rights--Mirandizing these foreign fighters," says
Representative Mike Rogers, who recently met with military,
intelligence and law enforcement officials on a fact-finding trip to
Afghanistan.
Rogers, a former FBI special agent and U.S. Army officer,
says the Obama administration has not briefed Congress on the new
policy. "I was a little surprised to find it taking place when I showed
up because we hadn't been briefed on it, I didn't know about it. We're
still trying to get to the bottom of it, but it is clearly a part of
this new global justice initiative."
Rogers seems to be the only source claiming that terrorists are being read their rights[.]
Why this is of interest is
a post I made several months ago. In the wake of
Boumedine, I was one of those "overreacting" individuals who argued that the ruing would make inevitable the treatment of prisoners of war, as well a "enemy combatants", as simple criminal defendants, with full rights of arrested citizens. As I put it:
Time to print camouflage Miranda cards and order a bunch of khaki
evidence pouches, as our troops have suddenly become just another
police force, whether the court says otherwise or not.
At the time many, including the editors of the WSJ called such reactions "excessive" and argued we were taking it too far.
Funny how time changes those perspectives, isn't it? Also makes me wonder about all those who dismiss "slippery slope" arguments and believe in "line drawing". Seems like those lines are drawn pretty lightly and get erased with alarming frequency, doesn't it?
POSTSCRIPT
My writing on
Boumedine can be found here (including not just the legal implications for prisoners, but the significance of the Supreme Court ignoring Congress' efforts to limit review):
It Doesn't Matter What the Court Says
Be Careful What You Wish For
More on Boumedine
A Question On Boumedine
Questions Raised by Boumedine
Somehow The Media Missed This
One More Thought About FISA
Right Again
George Will Gets It Wrong
I also wrote on the Geneva Conventions themselves in "
Goodbye Geneva", "
Why Nuremberg?", "
Last Thought on the Topic" and "
Authorization vs Declaration".
POSTSCRIPT II
The conclusions in the remainder of the Best of the Web post are interesting as well, arguing that if the Obama administration allows terrorists to be tried as criminals, yet tries to reduce the rights they enjoy, the administration will end up reducing the rights of all individuals. I would also add that by making more of the criminal law federalized, and federalized with reduced rights for defendants, such a move would be a blow against both states' and individual rights, which bodes ill for the future of everyone. At least everyone not holding elected office.