It's understandable when someone doesn't understand the more arcane aspects of our Constitution, even if they are a member of Congress. But it is simply inexcusable when a member doesn't understand the rights of the citizens he has sworn to represent.
But such is the case with Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA). I'll remind him of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
"Would you support deportation of natural-born American citizens that are the children of illegal aliens?"
Sen. Susan Collins was on WGAN this morning, and was asked about her criticism about how Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, aka the Christmas Day Bomber, is being charged in civilian court, not before a military tribunal (h/t Collins Watch).
She makes some interesting claims - listen here:
Collins says:
It's also very troubling that our chief intelligence officials and the Secretary of Defense were not consulted by the Department of Justice on how to treat the Christmas Day Bomber; this was a unilateral decision by the Department of Justice.
On 3 February White House spokesman Robert Gibbs had this to say:
First, all the senior leadership in government involved in intelligence knew that Abdulmutallab was being indicted more than a day before and they supported that decision. Those represented in the Situation Room who discussed how he would be indicted in an Article III include the following:
Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, National Security Agency head LT General Keith Alexander, Attorney General Eric Holder, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, FBI Director Bob Mueller, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, National Counter Terrorism Center Director Mike Leiter, National Security Advisor General Jim Jones, Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Notice that was "all the senior leadership in government involved in intelligence", not just some of them.
And then Collins goes on to speculate if President Obama was even informed of these conversations:
I wonder - and we'll never know - if the president was even consulted, because he said in an interview on 60 Minutes just last year, and he was asked about this - 'Do we read them their Miranda Rights?' 'Of course not.' This is exactly what happened.
I have asked the White House exactly when President Obama was first asked about how Abdulmutallab should be treated, and will report on it when I hear back.
But Collins has used a trick of the Republican fear-mongering machine, and that is to take a quote out of context (not that I expect the hosts to know this off right off). Here is the transcript of what Obama had to say in its context:
Steve Kroft: One question about Dick Cheney and Guantanamo. I'm sure you want to answer this.
President Obama: Oh, absolutely.
Kroft: A week ago Vice President Cheney-- said essentially that your willingness to shut down Guantanamo and to change the way prisoners are treated and interrogator-- interrogated-- was making America weaker and more vulnerable to another attack. And that-- the interrogation techniques that were used at Guantanamo were essential in preventing another attack against the United States.
Obama: I fundamentally disagree with Dick Cheney. Not surprisingly. You know, I think that-- Vice President Cheney has been-- at the head of a-- movement whose notion is somehow that we can't reconcile our core values, our Constitution, our belief that we don't torture, with our national security interests. I think he's drawing the l-- wrong lesson from history.
The facts don't bear him out. I think he is-- that attitude, that philosophy has done incredible damage-- to our image and position in the world. I mean, the fact of the matter is after all these years how many convictions actually came out of Guantanamo? How many-- how many terrorists have actually been brought to justice under the philosophy that is being promoted by Vice President Cheney? It hasn't made us safer. What it has been is a great advertisement for anti-American sentiment. Which means that there is constant effective recruitment of-- Arab fighters and Muslim fighters against U.S. interests all around the world.
Kroft: Some of it being organized by a few people who were released from Guantanamo.
Obama: Well there is no doubt that-- we have not done a particularly effective job in sorting through who are truly dangerous individuals that we've got to-- make sure are not a threat to us, who are folks that we just swept up. The whole premise of Guantanamo promoted by Vice President Cheney was that somehow the American system of justice was not up to the task of dealing with these terrorists.
I fundamentally disagree with that. Now-- do these folks deserve Miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter-- down the block? Of course not.
Kroft: What do you do with those people?
Obama: Well, I think we're going to have to figure out a mechanism to make sure that they not released and do us harm. But-- do so in a way that is consistent with both our traditions, sense of due process, international law. But this is-- this is the legacy that's been left behind. And, you know, I'm surprised that-- the Vice President is eager-- to defend-- a legacy that was unsustainable.
Let's assume that we didn't change these practices. How-- how long are we going to go? Are we going to just keep on going until-- you know, the entire Muslim world and Arab world-- despises us? Do we think that's really going to make us safer? I-- I don't know-- a lot of thoughtful thinkers, liberal or conservative-- who think that that was the right approach.
Why Collins is continuing with this meme I do not understand; there is nothing that I can see for her to gain, and plenty of political cost if she falls on her face.
In an opinion piece in this morning's BDN, Sen. Susan Collins continues to repeat a falsehood that has already been refuted by the Obama administration:
The fact is, Abdulmutallab was questioned by FBI investigators for less than one hour before the Justice Department advised him that he could have a lawyer and refuse to answer.
The fact is, while Abdulmutallab might have "talked" to federal authorities and medical personnel immediately after the incident, talking with Customs agents and doctors is very different from being interrogated by trained intelligence investigators.
The fact is, once Abdulmutallab was provided a lawyer and told he could remain silent, he stopped providing authorities with critical information. He remained silent for nearly six weeks. We will never know how much valuable, actionable intelligence was lost during that time.
In the USAToday today, John Brennan, Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, wrote (link):
Politics should never get in the way of national security. But too many in Washington are now misrepresenting the facts to score political points, instead of coming together to keep us safe.
Immediately after the failed Christmas Day attack, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was thoroughly interrogated and provided important information. Senior counterterrorism officials from the White House, the intelligence community and the military were all actively discussing this case before he was Mirandized and supported the decision to charge him in criminal court.
The most important breakthrough occurred after Abdulmutallab was read his rights, a long-standing FBI policy that was reaffirmed under Michael Mukasey, President Bush's attorney general. The critics who want the FBI to ignore this long-established practice also ignore the lessons we have learned in waging this war: Terrorists such as Jose Padilla and Saleh al-Mari did not cooperate when transferred to military custody, which can harden one's determination to resist cooperation.
Why did Abdulmutallab begin to cooperate with authorities? As ABC reported last week:
The agents began a "thorough and comprehensive" background investigation of Abdulmuttalab, contacting his family, friends and associates and conducting thorough background interviews "to gain understanding of the subject."
The two agents identified those family members who "directly supported gaining Umar Farouq's cooperation and disagreed with his effort to murder innocent civilians."
The agents and key family members arrived in back in the US on January 17th. The family members met with officials from the Justice Department and the FBI to plan a way forward.
"One of the principal reasons why his family came back is because they had complete trust in the US system of justice and believed that Umar Farouq would be treated fairly and appropriately," the senior official said. "And that they would be as well."
The FBI and Abdulmuttalab's family approached the subject and "gained his cooperation. He has been cooperating for days," the official said.
And as Brennan notes:
There have been three convictions of terrorists in the military tribunal system since 9/11, and hundreds in the criminal justice system - including high-profile terrorists such as Reid and 9/11 plotter Zacarius Moussaoui.
I don't understand Sen. Collins' quixotic motive for continuing this argument. She was demonstrably wrong to imply our Constitution applies only to American citizens. She laments that suspects will clam up when provided a lawyer, without suggesting how those accused should be forced to talk. And she ignores long established procedures that as far as I have been able to determine, she has never complained about until now.
As always, Sen. Collins is more than welcome to respond in these pages.
But as of yet, she never has - perhaps she has been read a Miranda warning.
Senator Susan Collins, who's emerged as a leading critic of the decision to Mirandize the bomb plot suspect, raised no concerns about his handling while being briefed on Christmas Day about his capture on a private call with a top Homeland Security official, a source familiar with the conversation tells me.
The call was confirmed to me by Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Bobby Whithorne, who declined to confirm details.
The claim about Collins' silence comes after Obama counterterror chief John Brennan made big news yesterday by claiming that four other top GOP Congressional officials were similiarly told that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was being held in "FBI custody," prompting no objections from the Republican leaders.
I first reported on Sen. Collins' response to the President's weekly address here and in other posts.
In a statement sent to Sargent from Kevin Kelley, her press person, Collins said:
To equate the brief conversation on non-secure telephones between Senator Collins and Deputy Secretary Jane Lute to a comprehensive briefing on the detention and questioning of Abdulmutallab is preposterous. In informing Senator Collins of Abdulmutallab's arrest, Secretary Lute appeared to know very few details.
It is not, however, surprising that the Deputy Secretary knew so little about the detention of Abdulmutallab since we now know that the Department of Justice did not consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security or apparently the Deputy Secretary on how the terrorist should be handled.
It is offensive, to Senator Collins and the American people, that the Obama Administration is more concerned with political spin to cover a mistake than with taking the actions urgently needed to improve our nation's security. Clearly, the Administration is trying to divert attention from the fact that it interrogated a foreign terrorist for less than one hour before the Justice Department unilaterally decided to Mirandize him and he stopped talking.
Senator Collins calls on the Obama Administration to immediately change its policies and ensure consultation with top intelligence and security officials before treating the capture of the next foreign terrorist as only a civilian law enforcement matter. She will continue to press for her bipartisan legislation that mandates this consultation.
As Sargent notes, the statement does NOT say which details are omitted, but he has been told that Collins was not told Abdulmutallab was in FBI custody.
More importantly, the statement does not say whether Collins was given a more through briefing subsequent to the Christmas Day phone call, one that came before her video of 30 January. I have asked the White House if she had received any such additional briefing(s).
On MSNBC last night, Rachel Maddow unpacks Sen. Susan Collins video from this past Saturday. When confronted by Andrea Mitchell with the facts that contradict her, Collins refers to "allegations from the White House." She also destroys the claims made by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell - it's actually disturbing just how wrong these three senators are:
No need to hand Maine's junior senator a shovel - she's doing a fine job with the tools she has:
Mitchell doesn't ask Collins to explain why she thinks our Constitution applies only to American citizens. Will anyone ask her about this? It's not like she mispoke - she read it from a script that she herself wrote.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs issued this statement regarding the continued criticism by Sen. Susan Collins over the handling of suspected bomber , which I've written about here, here, and here:
First, all the senior leadership in government involved in intelligence knew that Abdulmutallab was being indicted more than a day before and they supported that decision. Those represented in the Situation Room who discussed how he would be indicted in an Article III include the following:
Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, National Security Agency head LT General Keith Alexander, Attorney General Eric Holder, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, FBI Director Bob Mueller, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, National Counter Terrorism Center Director Mike Leiter, National Security Advisor General Jim Jones, Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Second, the Bush administration attempted to deny Jose Padilla access to counsel when he was detained as an "enemy combatant," but was overruled by federal judge Michael Mukasey. Mukasey went on to become the Attorney General in the Bush Administration. Mukasey declared that Padilla had a right to access to counsel, even when being held as an enemy combatant. Mukasey even rejected the Bush Administration's arguments that granting Padilla access to counsel for the purposes of contesting the factual basis of his detention would "jeopardize the two core purposes of detaining enemy combatants-gathering intelligence about the enemy, and preventing the detainee from aiding in any further attacks against America." If Abdulmutallab were detained as an enemy combatant, the same standard would have applied to him. If Abdulmutallab were prosecuted in military commissions, he would also be given access to an attorney.
Third, the FBI's current policy vis-à-vis Miranda warnings for arrests inside the United States is articulated in its Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG), which was finalized at the end of the prior Administration, and in the Legal Handbook for Special Agents, the relevant portions of which have been in effect for many years. This policy, which is consistent with the policy of all known U.S. law enforcement agencies, is to provide Miranda warnings prior to custodial interrogation. As the DIOG explains (page 63), "[w]ithin the United States, Miranda warnings are required to be given prior to custodial interviews . . . ." FBI policy also reminds agents that "standard booking questions and public safety questions" are not "interrogation" for purposes of Miranda. In both terrorism and non-terrorism cases, the FBI's experience has been that many defendants will talk and cooperate with the FBI after being Mirandized.
Fourth, Abdulmutallab has not been offered anything. The Department of Justice take his cooperation "into consideration."
Fifth, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is part of the intelligence community. Since 9/11, the FBI has made preventing terrorism its principal mission. The men and women of the FBI have disrupted plots, saved American lives, and acquired intelligence that has allowed us to take the fight to terrorists overseas. That includes the counter-terrorism professionals who were on the scene in Detroit, and those who continue to gather critical intelligence from Abdulmutallab while politicians in Washington second-guess their work.
On Saturday, Maine's junior senator, Susan Collins, delivered the official Republican response to the President's weekly address to the nation. Sen. Collins used this opportunity to express her belief that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, aka the Christmas Bomber, should not be tried in civilian courts, but instead turned over to our military as an "enemy combatant," i.e. a captured soldier.
In so doing, Sen. Collins offered this mistaken opinion about the foundation of law in our country:
Abdulmutallab was questioned for less than one hour before the Justice Department advised him that he could remain silent and offered him an attorney at our expense. Once afforded the protection our Constitution guarantees American citizens, this foreign terrorist 'lawyered up' and stopped talking.
Not only was Sen. Collins incorrect in her interpretation of whom is protected by our Constitution, but she also is about the wisdom of reading Abdulmutallab a Miranda warning, because despite that, it seems that Abdulmutallab is cooperating with the FBI:
The Christmas Day attempted terror bombing suspect has been talking to investigators since last week, a law enforcement official tells CNN.
Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab has been providing useful, current and actionable intelligence -- leads that the FBI and intelligence officials have been actively following up on, the official says.
The official was not authorized to speak for attribution because the matter is under investigation.
AbdulMutallab is providing information about his training overseas, who he met with, people he worked with, and others that were part of the plot, according to a second law enforcement official.
The "underwear bomber" has resumed cooperating with FBI counterterrorism agents and has provided "useful, current" intelligence, a law enforcement source told POLITICO on Tuesday.
The Obama administration has been criticized for reading Miranda rights to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the suspect in the fizzled airborne bombing attempt on Christmas Day.
The suspect, now being held in a federal prison outside Detroit, was questioned by the FBI for 50 minutes on the day of the attack, then was read his rights.
"Since then, the FBI and Justice Department have been pressing him to cooperate," the source said. "It started last week, and has continued for several days. The information has been active, useful, and we have been following up. The intelligence is not stale. He certainly sees that there are incentives provided by the criminal justice system to cooperate."
Note when these reports say that Abdulmutallab began cooperating with authorities, "last week." Before Collins delivered her response.
Sen. Collins refuses to talk to me; her office has never returned any of my phone calls, nor even added me to their list of media outlets that receive press releases. So perhaps a news organization that she respects, or can't help but acknowledge, could ask her to explain why she is so wrong on this.
Update:Collins Watch points to this statement that Collins sent to MSNBC, in which she does not address her mistaken claim that the Constitution applies only to American citizens, but goes further in her criticism of the way Abdulmutallab is being handled:
I remain concerned that there was no consultation with intelligence officials before the Department of Justice unilaterally decided to treat Abdulmutallab as if he were an ordinary criminal. If Abdulmutallab is now talking in the context of plea negotiations, that is, of course, welcome, but it implies that the government is willing to grant him a measure of leniency for the information he is willing to provide. We will never know whether the quality and quantity of information might have been superior had he not been given a lawyer who is now guiding him on what to reveal and what not to disclose. The lack of coordination on the front end and the inexplicable, reflexive choice to use a law enforcement approach were dangerous decisions.
Collins is either ignorant about the legal protections that our Constitution affords to criminal suspects or she is encouraging the administration to ignore them, an act illegal itself. Further, how does she possibly know if any leniency has been given to Abdulmutallab?
This lack of judgment should cause real concern amongst her colleagues and constituents, and again it is unclear to me why the news media in Maine continues to ignore this story.
Over the weekend, Sen. Susan Collins released a five-minute video in which she sounded as though she were possessed by the angriest, most unhinged version of Dick Cheney. Collins recklessly accused the Obama administration of putting us all in serious danger by failing to wage War against the Terrorists. Most of what she said was just standard right-wing boilerplate, but there was one claim in particular that deserves serious attention, as it has become one of the most pervasive myths in our political discourse: namely, that the U.S. Constitution protects only American citizens, and not any dreaded foreigners. Focusing on the DOJ's decision to charge the alleged attempted Christmas Day bomber with crimes, Mirandize him and provide him with counsel, Collins railed: "Once afforded the protection our Constitution guarantees American citizens, this foreign terrorist 'lawyered up' and stopped talking" (h/t Spud1). This notion that the protections of the Bill of Rights specifically and the Constitution generally apply only to the Government's treatment of American citizens is blatantly, undeniably false -- for multiple reasons -- yet this myth is growing, as a result of being centrally featured in "War on Terror" propaganda.
Sen. Collins is more than welcome to respond in these pages, in her own words, to whatever length she requires.
Article II of our Constitution prescribes the oath that any person elected president must state upon assuming office. It is:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
In a post regarding Attorney General Eric Holder's announcement that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and four others would be tried in a Federal Court in New York City, Sarah Palin, the woman that would be president, posted this on her facebook page:
Obama Administration's Atrocious Decision
Horrible decision, absolutely horrible. It is devastating for so many of us to hear that the Obama Administration decided that the 9/11 terrorist mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will be given a criminal trial in New York. This is an atrocious decision.
Mohammed and his terrorist co-conspirators are responsible for the deaths of more than 3,000 Americans. Thousands of American families have suffered through the loss of loved ones because of the disgusting attacks launched against the United States, and now this trial venue adds insult to injury, in addition to compromising our efforts in the War on Terror. Heaven forbid our allies see this decision as a reason to become less likely to support our efforts in the future.
Criminal defense attorneys will now enter into delaying tactics and other methods in the hope of securing some kind of win for their "clients." The trial will afford Mohammed the opportunity to grandstand and make use of his time in front of the world media to rally his disgusting terrorist cohorts. It will also be an insult to the victims of 9/11, as Mohammed will no doubt use the opportunity to spew his hateful rhetoric in the same neighborhood in which he ruthlessly cut down the lives of so many Americans.
It is crucially important that Americans be made aware that the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks may walk away from this trial without receiving just punishment because of a "hung jury" or from any variety of court room technicalities. If we are stuck with this terrible Obama Administration decision, I, like most Americans, hope that Mohammed and his co-conspirators are convicted. Hang 'em high.
I wholeheartedly support the survivors and the families of the victims in their appeal to the president regarding this matter. You can read more about it here.
Sarah! can't claim the experience that Rudy! can, that of being a Federal prosecutor, but certainly even she knows that trials are typically held where the crime has been committed. In fact, it is in the interest of the prosecution to do so, and it is nearly always that the defendant requests a change of venue.
Sarah!, and those who do not quite understand what "rule of law" means, would have you believe that relying on our justice system somehow makes us weak. She considers herself in the same mold as George W. Bush, who said, "Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done." Of course, short-cutting constitutional protections does not make our nation stronger, but makes each of us less safe, less secure.
Sarah! writes that defense attorneys will "enter into delaying tactics and other methods," which ignores that these men been denied the full protection of our Constitution (see Al Odah v. United States). And more - Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times - a criminal act according to the UN Convention against Torture, and so hardly constitutional.
While Sarah! may "hope" that Mohammed is convicted, she really ought to hope that those actually guilty of the crime are convicted. And that is exactly why we have trials - to assess the evidence in a court of law before a judge and/or jury. It is disturbing to realize that Sarah!, as Governor of Alaska, had no concept of the legal protections that everyone one of us enjoy.
While all of us deplore the attacks of that day eight years ago and stand fast with those that survived or lost loved ones, it would be a dishonor to them to shortcut the legal system that Americans have relied on for over 230 years.
Q Mr. President, can you explain why you've approved of and expanded the practice of what's called rendition, of transferring individuals out of U.S. custody to countries where human rights groups and your own State Department say torture is common for people under custody?
THE PRESIDENT: The post-9/11 world, the United States must make sure we protect our people and our friends from attack. That was the charge we have been given. And one way to do so is to arrest people and send them back to their country of origin with the promise that they won't be tortured. That's the promise we receive. This country does not believe in torture. We do believe in protecting ourselves. We don't believe in torture. And --
This morning's New York Times has this story that begins:
The Justice Department has told Congress that American intelligence operatives attempting to thwart terrorist attacks can legally use interrogation methods that might otherwise be prohibited under international law.
The legal interpretation, outlined in recent letters, sheds new light on the still-secret rules for interrogations by the Central Intelligence Agency. It shows that the administration is arguing that the boundaries for interrogations should be subject to some latitude, even under an executive order issued last summer that President Bush said meant that the C.I.A. would comply with international strictures against harsh treatment of detainees.
While the Geneva Conventions prohibit "outrages upon personal dignity," a letter sent by the Justice Department to Congress on March 5 makes clear that the administration has not drawn a precise line in deciding which interrogation methods would violate that standard, and is reserving the right to make case-by-case judgments.
"The fact that an act is undertaken to prevent a threatened terrorist attack, rather than for the purpose of humiliation or abuse, would be relevant to a reasonable observer in measuring the outrageousness of the act," said Brian A. Benczkowski, a deputy assistant attorney general, in the letter, which had not previously been made public.
This is what happens when you have people in top levels of government that think they can break the law when they think it is justified to do so. They have made themselves the arbiter, in some twisted belief that they are protecting the nation. Or, to use the well known phrase from Vietnam:
We had to destroy the Constitution in order to save it.
Unfortunately, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, the leadership in Congress is unwilling to take these people on - and they know it, like a child who knows that his mother has no follow-through on her threats.
They know that Congress will not even look into their actions, and that the Justice Department, even future ones, will never prosecute them for their crimes.
The only hardship they will suffer is that the number of countries to which they can travel will be limited. No trips to Paris or London for these people, but who needs that when one can shop on the internets from one's hacienda in Panama or Paraguay, safe from any legal actions.
DIRIGO BLUE is available as an