DIA warns Congress against detainee transfers
Kara Rowland at the Washington Times reports that the Defense Intelligence AGency has warned Congress in a letter about kicking loose some of the potentially dangerous detainees held by the US;
Military intelligence officials have quietly told Congress they advised against transferring 25 of the 60 Guantanamo Bay terror detainees deemed eligible for relocation by the Obama administration, including five who are considered to be highly dangerous and likely to return to the battlefield.
But the Defense Intelligence Agency officials did not raise any formal objections with the administration because they concluded the decision to move prisoners already had been made, according to a letter Sen. Tom Coburn, a member of the intelligence committee, sent Tuesday to Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair.
In the letter, obtained by The Washington Times, the Oklahoma Republican senator questions whether the White House put political considerations ahead of national security.
“The DIA told the committee that DIA has not objected to the release of many rank-and-file members of terrorist organizations ‘due to an explicit understanding that many detainees were destined to be transferred out of GTMO regardless of intelligence-based objections,’ ” Mr. Coburn wrote.
But the Obama Administration is so set on making this a legal issue instead of a national security issue, no genuine concerns about protecting Americans here or abroad can convince them otherwise.
After four years of war, in 1945, there were over 400,000 prisoners of war held in the United States from Germany, Italy and Japan. There was no outcry from Americans to release them back into their native countries because they hadn’t been proved to be criminals.
Also, our troops weren’t on the battlefields of Europe and the Pacific reading them their rights. Can you imagine George Patton reading the Miranda warning to the 14,000 Germans he captured when he broke out of Normandy? Or Alvin York and his seven buddies mirandizing his 128 prisoners in WWI?
But how much criticism did we hear from the Left that George Bush was so arrogant that he wouldn’t listen to his generals? Isn’t this arrogance, too? Just to keep an ill-considered campaign promise.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Politics, Terror War
John:
Again: “9:55. A Fox News reporter asks about a Weekly Standard report that detainees were getting read Miranda rights. Petraeus says he has “No concerns at all. This is the FBI doing what the FBI does. … The real rumor yesterday is whether our forces were reading Miranda rights to detainees and the answer to that is no.” Sorry, Steve Hayes.”
http://washingtonindependent.com/46472/petraeus-speaks-to-cnas
I get that you disagree with Obama on a ton of things…so do I. But this Miranda thing has been directly addressed by Petraeus. You really shouldn’t pound out a post that ends with a shot about listening to the generals and dismiss Petraeus.
Jonn wrote: Nice to see that, like most Leftists, you avoid the larger point of the post to focus on minutiae in order to distract.
Were there FBI agents in Germany or France during 1918 or 1944? I doubt it.
I’m pretty sure there aren’t any soldiers reading Miranda warnings to Arab detainees. Since you’ve been unable to ascertain this for yourself, let me explain it to you; it’s counter productive to make detainees think they have rights on the battlefield no matter who tells them.
Now, without being obtuse, what do you think of releasing detainees who the DIA believe to be dangerous?
LOL, I’m not trying to distract you–I’m pointing out that you’re site has put up several posts pushing this false story out there when Petraeus has directly contradicted it. I brought this to your attention in the most topical post, and you continued to repeat the inaccuracy. Excellent attempt to redirect criticism, however. Re: the ad hominem “typical Leftist” thing–I don’t throw that junk at you re: your alignments and it would be nice if we could have a civil conversation about this. I’m not attacking you personally. Please reciprocate. But to get to your question: on this point I disagree with both you and the Obama administration. )Let me say this before going further, though: I’m unclear from the article if Coburn considers transfer to a supermax federal prison “release” from Guantanamo. The language seems to use these terms interchangeably, and if that’s the case I’d take strong issue with Coburn’s characterization.) However, just to play ball with the extreme case so you don’t feel that I’m dodging: 1) Guantanamo should be closed down ASAP. 2) Prisoners within it should be transferred to supermax federal facilities (you know…where we put American-born terrorists…they aren’t mutants with superpowers…they’re not going to magically escape when (almost?) no one else ever has) 3) They should be able to challenge their detention in federal court, not in some freaky new extraneous process dreamed up by the Obama administration. I fully understand that we can’t convict some of these people under the standards afforded by the Constitution. Tough. I agree with Andrew Sullivan on this–the President doesn’t take an oath to protect us. He takes an oath to defend the Constitution, and that means there are sometimes trade-offs between that larger, overriding imperative and safety. For me the issue is not whether the DIA thinks they are dangerous. The issue is whether we can protect ourselves in while conforming to constitutional principles. If we can’t then we have to choose between the two, and the persistence of Constitutional principles has to take precedence over our fear of our personal safety. Jonn wrote: “I agree with… Read more »
To be fair, however: I read your post where you wrote “Also, our troops weren’t on the battlefields of Europe and the Pacific reading them their rights. Can you imagine George Patton reading the Miranda warning to the 14,000 Germans he captured when he broke out of Normandy? Or Alvin York and his seven buddies mirandizing his 128 prisoners in WWI?” and thought I understood from your military references that you were asserting that troops under Petraeus were mirandizing people. If I’ve misconstrued your meaning in that quote I apologize.
I’m not going to go on about gray areas of the Constitution. I don’t advocate for skipping over *any* areas of the Constitution. For example, I don’t think you can use “provide for the common defense” to justify skipping over “establish justice” in the Preamble. The Constitution requires you balance them, and that means there are tradeoffs. I believe the issue we’re discussing strikes right to the heart of even having a Constitution in the first place (i.e. the executive doesn’t just get to lock people up) in a way that justifies striking the balance the way i described above.
DC worked for Nancy Pelosi, you really don’t think logic is going to work with him do you Jonn?
You an expert on the Milligan and Quirin cases DC?
DC, maybe you ought to read the Geneva Conventions regarding unlawful combatants, lawful combatants, and someone’s, maybe anyone’s criminal code? If one takes up arms against the US, in an effort to thwart the foreign policy of the US, or to kill US service members in a country not the United States, it probably isn’t a crime, it is combat though.
TSO: I hope the past-tense nature of that reference indicates at least some measure of good sense. 🙂
I would not say that I am an *expert* on any legal case since I am not a lawyer, but I am familiar with them, yes. But if you are an expert, I’d appreciate some clarification: Quirin in particular deals with unlawful combatants and the applicability of military tribunals. However, if I’m not mistaken, one of the reasons we’re arguing for indefinite detentions for some of these folks is that we worry that we can’t even convict them in a tribunal, and therefore we must detain them without trial indefinitely. So I’m not sure out either of those cases would apply in at least part of this controversy. Help? But I think it’s curious that you’d be bringing up Supreme Court cases to support denying constitutional rights to detainees at Guantanamo, given Boumediene v. Bush.
I see two straw men here. First, this is not WWII where we are fighting a declared war against a uniformed enemy. The so-called Global War on Terror has no real beginning date and connot have an end date (unless you believe that we will actually stamp out all terrorism everywhere). Thus the comparrison is innacurate at best.
Secondly,our troops are not reading the mirada warning to anyone and the weekly standard article said that miranda warnings were bing given to certain suspects. Thus, it seems that the warnings are being done on those who we believe we can make a case against.
Its not that we can’t convict them at all. Unfortunately the Court keeps moving the target on which evidentiary standards are to be applied. Which is why Congress has tried to fix this issue over and over. We’ve never even gotten to the point where we can have Tribunals because everyone keeps shifting how they will be run.
Boumediene doesn’t really have much to do with Miranda warnings. But let me counter with this, which Constitutional rights should foreigners NOT in the US get? Should the 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendments all apply to them?
TSO: You’re right, it doesn’t have to do with the Miranda warnings; I thought we’d expanded the discussion to deal with the general idea of constitutional rights for the detainees.
Re: should foreigners get or not get certain rights in the U.S.–One of the underlying assumptions of the entire American enterprise is that you are born with your rights by future of being a person. The Constitution does not give you rights, nor does your being born an American citizen. That’s a bedrock principle. So, when you ask, “which Constitutional rights should foreigners NOT get in the US?” you’re really asking is, “Which of a foreigners natural rights should the United States violate when they come to the United States?” and my answer is, “None.”
“future of being a person” should read “virtue of being a person,” sorry!
DC–once again, BZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!! WRONG!
We grant the powers and protections of the Constitution to OUR citizens. We cannot, nor should we, extend them to each and every person. Are visitors or intruders subject to our system of justice within our borders? Yep–but therein lies the catch–WITHIN OUR BORDERS.
If you’ll note, any terrorist or potential terrorist we’ve caught on our soil has in fact been dealt with via the courts, not shipped to Gitmo. The folks sunning themselves in Cuba (and now Palau and the Bahamas) were captured carrying out operations against our troops OUTSIDE the borders of the US and its territories.
Also, I’d like to familiarize you with the Geneva Conventions of 1949, specifically the Third Geneva Convention of that year. Article 4 deals with POW status. These guys specifially don’t qualify as they are not aligned with any group and are not wearing uniforms; i.e., they are to be treated as spies and guerrillas. This goes all the way back to the 1907 adoption of Article I to the Annex of the Hauge Convention. The law of summary execution has not yet been fully abrogated; IOW, really all they’re LEGALLY entitled to is a double-tap to the back of the head. Something which the Al-Q folks would do if they weren’t so fixated on sawing off heads instead.
If you have issue with how our prisoners are treated, do a Google search on our folks who have been tortured or killed long before Abu Grahib ever came about–Petty Officer (SEAL) Neil Roberts is a classic example debunking your, “They only did it because WE did it first” crap.
Back to you, DC.
NHSparky:
Survey SAYS? EEEEEEEHNNNNNNNNN wrong.
Is your argument that your interpretation of the Geneva Conventions should trump Supreme Court rulings re: the rights of detainees? Not sure how that would work, exactly…I’m not saying that you’re bound to agree with Supreme Court decisions since we’re discussing what *ought* to be done, but I’m just saying, that’s a weird thing to say.
I’ve not made a single reference to how anyone else treats their prisoners, nor have I made anything remotely approaching the argument you’re going after in your last paragraph.
Again, the Constitution does *not* give you your rights. You are born with your rights. The idea of natural rights underpins our entire constitutional system. But that’s a broader point than the argument you’re now making. If you’re making the argument that the U.S. constitution does not apply to the folks at Guantanamo, that’s just factually incorrect until some future decision overrules Boumediene.
Back to you.
I’d further point out that under a constitutional system, NHSparky, it’s nonsensical to make any argument that any actor given its existence by that constitution can legitimately act outside the authority of that constitution, no matter *where* they are acting. That just makes no sense, unless you’re willing to grant that such a constitution is a paper tiger.
Once again, DC…nice tapdancing. You considering taking that act out on the road?
Often. 🙂 Seriously, though–do you feel I’m dodging a question? Happy to focus in on any specific item…
Well, let’s focus on the restrictions/orders given to military members, many in direct conflict with the Constitution. Would you not agree that the Constitution pretty much takes a back seat to the UCMJ, Geneva Conventions, et al? We’ll start on that and see how you fare before we go on. As a wise old chief reminded me, “You protect democracy–you don’t get to practice it.”
Can you give me an example? (Not trying to be difficult, just trying to make sure we’re on the same page.)