Obama orders Miranda rights in Afghanistan

AP Photo/Charles Dharapak

Well, now we know why Obama doesn't use the term "war on terror" anymore - he doesn't consider terrorism an act of war. Instead, he has taken us back to the days of Bill Clinton, when terrorist acts were treated like a "crime."

In a story reported in The Weekly Standard , Representative Mike Rogers (R-Mich) is accusing the Obama administration of ordering the F.B.I. to read Miranda rights to detainees being held at U.S. military facilities in Afghanistan.

This is creating a great deal of damage on the battlefield, not to mention how it is affecting the security of our military men and women overseas. Said Rogers:

I witnessed it myself, talked to the people on the ground. What you have is two very separate missions colliding in the field in a combat zone. Again, anytime that you offer confusion in that environment that's already chaotic and confusing enough, you jeopardize a soldier's life.

Why would Obama issue such an order? It's all a part of a policy shift referred to as the new "global justice initiative," which was described in a May 28th Los Angeles Times article:

Under the "global justice" initiative, which has been in the works for several months, FBI agents will have a central role in overseas counter-terrorism cases. They will expand their questioning of suspects and evidence-gathering to try to ensure that criminal prosecutions are an option, officials familiar with the effort said.

So, why is this an issue? Primarily, it treats our military like a police force, instead of a war fighting machine. Take a look at Miranda and you'll see the problem:

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.

When our brave soldiers round up enemy combatants, they'll be required to hand them over to the F.B.I. so they can build a "criminal" case. But, under Miranda, they don't have to say anything. If they decide not to talk, we get nothing from them. We get some insight into how this could damage America from the memoirs of former C.I.A. Director, George Tenet:

When 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was captured on March 1, 2003, he was not cooperative. “I’ll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer,” he said.

Gee, isn't that swell? The principle architect of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, not to mention numerous other attacks, insists on talking to his lawyer. I wonder where he got the idea that he had that right - <cough> Bill Clinton <cough>. Of course, he didn't get his lawyer, and the information that was obtained from him saved countless lives. This wouldn't have been possible if the U.S. had been required to treat him like a "white collar criminal."

Another reason this is an issue, is the fact that Obama claims that these people shouldn't be treated like we would treat a "typical" criminal. Check out this snippet from an interview with "60 Minutes."

In political circles, they call that a flip-flop or a lie. You make the call.

Under Clinton, the police action approach to terrorism led to 6 major terrorist attacks against the U.S., leaving over 415 dead and 6,500 injured, not to mention allowing the foundation to be laid that led to the 9/11 attacks.

By turning the "war on terror" to an international police action, Obama has tied the hands of our military and has made defeating those who seek to destroy us nearly impossible, in addition to making the United States less safe.

But at least those terrorists will know their Miranda rights, won't they?

Other articles by David:  Isn't Obama supposed to know the Constitution?, Obama defers to unions over U.S. mayors, Politically correct hate speech and the Dr. Tiller murder, Where are all those privacy-rights liberals now?, So, how do you measure a "saved" job?, Obama looks for an unclenched hand - gets the finger