Read Him His Rights, Right?

Read Him His Rights, Right?

Cartoon courtesy, Mike Ramirez and Flopping Aces

A June 10th posting by Stephen F. Hayes in the Weekly Standard brought to light a very interesting happenstance, which seems to be going on with increasing regularity among FBI agents working alongside CIA officers and American troops in Afghanistan. Hayes highlights remarks made by Mike Rogers, the senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, about his recent visit to the troops working in and around the region of Bagram Air Base, in Afghanistan.

Rogers’ remarks seem to indicate that a change in FBI and Justice Department policies as they relate to the interrogation of people suspected of being terrorists — who were captured by any one of several U.S. government entities (Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency) in the field — is in the works. What seems to be going on, in fact, is that these suspected terrorists and people who have otherwise taken up arms against U. S. forces within the country, are being read Miranda rights as if they were actual citizens of the United States, within the United States.

We cannot conceptualize the depth and breadth of legal thinking that must have gone into this decision, which seems extremely silly on its face, and possibly even dangerous to not only U.S. troops but also to the average American citizen, were one of these people that had been captured then be subsequently released to go about his or her dirty work, all on the premise that evidence gained from an interrogation hadn’t been gained “properly.”

This decision to “Mirandize” certain enemy combatants over in Afghanistan appears to be part of an overall shift in how terrorism committed against the U.S. will be handled by the government in the future, which seems to be that it will be treated as a civilian criminal justice matter rather than as something handled by the military, as a matter that falls within its purview.

It would be hard to imagine that a terrorist who was captured in the field wouldn’t go into paroxysms of ecstasy at being told that he had the right to remain silent, and that we would also be providing him with a government attorney. At no charge to him, of course. After all, it would hardly be sporting to treat him as somebody who was out to kill as many Afghans and Americans as possible, and a highly-paid lawyer (culled from some of the most prestigious law firms in America, we’ve heard) would be just the thing to help soothe his anxieties at finally being caught in the act.

We wonder again if the lack of a successful attack against this country — which hasn’t happened in nearly 8 years, thanks to certain policies put in place by the previous administration — has dulled the senses of certain civilian law enforcement officials high up in the current edition of our government, especially those of the Attorney General, Eric Holder. And we have to say that this shift to prosecution of the effort against terrorism which is being carried out by certain Islamist jihadi groups against the United States and its allies is a little worrisome. After all, this same policy was carried out previously, by the Clinton administration, in the 1990s, and with a couple of exceptions it has been judged by and large to have been a rather stupendous flop which helped to create the favorable conditions (for the jihadis) that directly led to the attacks of 9/11/2001.

Perhaps a certain type of member of the political class has lost the essential survival instinct which has given humans primacy these last 100,000 or so years. We fervently hope not, but the evidence seems to be building that more than a few people among the so-called “educated elite” are lost in a sea of solicitude for the feelings and rights of people who most certainly don’t have a reciprocal sense of feeling for those of us who live in the West and in the United States.