John Brennan on the Sunday talk circuit said don't blame the Obama adm for reading Miranda rights to the underware bomber.. Bush did it. What he means is that early after 9-11 ;before guidelines were established to deal with jihadists attacks on the United States ,Richard Reid the shoe bomber was taken into custody of the criminal justice system after his failed attempt and read his rights.

But later the Bush administration did establish guidelines ;guidelines that the Holder Justice Dept scrapped unilaterally if I read the testimony of the heads of the Intelligence agencies correctly.

After the guidelines were established Jose Padilla was captured and designated an enemy combattant . But a series of court decisions reversed his status.The reason for the courts decisions was that Padilla was an American entitled to rights all citizens have. The courts have never reversed a decision that foreign jihadists are not entitled to full rights Americans have . Their classification as enemy combattants has been established constitutional.

We were assured by Robert Gibbs that in the 50 minutes that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was interrogated before he was Mirandized he provided a wealth of useful informantion.Last week Holder said that he has provided more information after the fact which kind of undercuts Gibbs assurances that we got the info we needed before mirandizing .

Obama's administration is committed to the proposition that the initital detention of jihadist terrorists for the purpose of interrogations is a criminal justice function rather than a necessary part of the execution of war . We want to know his contacts and every other information he has to prevent other attacks . That is not the primary goal behind the criminal justice questioning which is designed to gather evidence against the criminal for acts carried out or attempted . Therefore by design it is not a system suited for waging war.

Bush did it to Reid so we did it to Abdulmutallab does not appear to be a well thought out policy.

Since you mentioned it earlier in regards to this thread I'll address this here. In the ongoing war between the White House and the GOP over Brennan, McCain chimed in (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32843.html#ixzz0fGTN00mQ) today.

"No one that works for the president of the United States questioned the patriotism or even the dedication to fighting the war on terror as Mr. Brennan has about us, basically saying that we are assisting Al Qaeda — that's an insult. That is really far beyond any boundary that I've ever seen."

Furthermore he said, "the reason why we passed the Military Commissions Act at the end of 2006 was to put a stop to that. It was wrong, in my view, of the Bush administration, to do what they did. But I must say, in some deference to the Bush administration, ... they never interrogated a guy for 50 minutes and said, 'We got all the information that we needed' and then gave him his Miranda rights."

That pretty well destroys the White House's "Bush did it" defense.

Gibbsy also defended Brennan again and took more cheap shots at his critics today (if I could find the video or quotes I'd post them).

Gibbsy basically told Bond and Hoekstra to mind their own business, quit playing politics and leave the counter-terrorism to the experts. This comes of course after Brennan whined on national TV, wrote an op-ed claiming, "politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of Al Qaeda," and the WH calling Bond's criticism "pathetic."

Tell me if I'm wrong, but didn't we used to hear a tremendous amount of bloviating on Bush's swagger and arrogance? I can't see how Bush's swagger and arrogance over 8 years comes anywhere near the swagger and arrogance in the Obama White House - in virtually every member of his team - in just a little over 12 months.

Update: Gibbsy also said Bond was 'confused' or 'ignoring the truth' about Brennan.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but didn't we used to hear a tremendous amount of bloviating on Bush's swagger and arrogance? I can't see how Bush's swagger and arrogance over 8 years comes anywhere near the swagger and arrogance in the Obama White House .

Come on now, a little arrogance goes with the territory.

come on now, a little arrogance goes with the territory.

These people are supposed to be public servants, not arrogant a$$es. In addition to far exceeding any arrogance in the Bush administration, the Obama team also excels at condescension.

You will also note that it's over a year since he issued his symbolic executive order to close down GITMO [now renamed 'Caribbean Detention center at Cumberland Bay'] the facility has not been closed down and I would bet will not be closed until some time in a second term.
Now the Washington compost is publishing editorials saying that the detention of the prisoners there is a "ugly" necessity and the President has realized that there are no better options but to keep the facility open and to most likely execute military tribunals .
washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/11/AR2010021103269.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)
Bush did it.

"President Obama chose symbolism."

That seems to be much of the "substance" of Obama's presidency and hopefully the downfall of the progressive movement. Symbolism doesn't get it done, it merely assuages their conscience and we see it everywhere.

From scrapping the War on Terror in lieu of overseas contingency operations, to the symbolic Gitmo closing order, to the still non-existent High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group and extending a hand to the Mullahs in Iran, Obama's symbolism is setting us up for disaster.

NRO's Dana Perino and Bill Burck explains why the narrative that "Bush did it" regarding Richard Reid is a false one.


Congress passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force on Sept. 18, 2001, authorizing President Bush to use “all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons” who perpetrated the attack. With this congressional authority and his own authority as commander-in-chief, President Bush issued a military order on Nov. 13, 2001, authorizing detentions of non-citizen members of al-Qaeda as unlawful enemy combatants.

Richard Reid's failed attack occurred on Dec. 22, 2001, and he was arrested the same day. Reid was charged in a criminal complaint a few days later. Richard Reid is not a U.S. citizen (he's a citizen of the U.K.). As such, he could have been subject to President Bush's military order. In late December 2001, however, there were no military commissions in operation, Guantanamo was not yet open to hold detainees, and no one was being held in the U.S. as an enemy combatant. By contrast, there was a well-established civilian system to handle Reid, and that system had clear rules mandated by the Supreme Court on how to treat criminal defendants, including reading them their Miranda rights shortly after arrest and respecting their right to remain silent.

What Would Bush Do? - Bill Burck & Dana Perino - The Corner on National Review Online (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzM0NDVjZjkzMGU0MTYxNGNlZjEwMDA3ZmE0YWIxYzk)=
The reason Reid was held in the criminal justice system was simply because the alternative to deal with him had not been set up yet.

Michael Mukasey has apparently had enough (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/11/AR2010021103331.html) of the administration's posturing over the Eunoch Bomber...


What to do and who should do it? It was entirely reasonable for the FBI to be contacted and for that agency to take him into custody. But contrary to what some in government have suggested, that Abdulmutallab was taken into custody by the FBI did not mean, legally or as a matter of policy, that he had to be treated as a criminal defendant at any point. Consider: In 1942, German saboteurs landed on Long Island and in Florida. That they were eventually captured by the FBI did not stop President Franklin Roosevelt from directing that they be treated as unlawful enemy combatants. They were ultimately tried before a military commission in Washington and executed. Their status had nothing to do with who held them, and their treatment was upheld in all respects by the Supreme Court...

Contrary to what the White House homeland security adviser and the attorney general have suggested, if not said outright, not only was there no authority or policy in place under the Bush administration requiring that all those detained in the United States be treated as criminal defendants, but relevant authority was and is the opposite. The Supreme Court held in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that "indefinite detention for the purpose of interrogation is not authorized" but also said in the same case that detention for the purpose of neutralizing an unlawful enemy combatant is permissible and that the only right of such a combatant -- even if he is a citizen, and Abdulmutallab is not -- is to challenge his classification as such a combatant in a habeas corpus proceeding. This does not include the right to remain silent or the right to a lawyer, but only such legal assistance as may be necessary to file a habeas corpus petition within a reasonable time. That was the basis for my ruling in Padilla v. Rumsfeld that, as a convenience to the court and not for any constitutionally based reason, he had to consult with a lawyer for the limited purpose of filing a habeas petition, but that interrogation need not stop.

The administration really has no more excuses left, but I still wonder who will be making the rounds on the Sunday news shows to present the latest excuse.

Joe Biden can try to give cover for the Administration's lack of ability to forge a coherent foreign policy . But , it is clear that besides continuing the policies of the former administration they have no means ,ability or support to conduct the policy they dreamt up in the left wing blogsphere and the delusional liberal think tanks.

Waiting for Brennan to become a victim of the bus tire tracks.

Lindsey Graham is the latest to speak out against this arrogant apparatchik .
“He has lost my confidence”... Asked if he thought Brennan should resign, Graham replied: “I think it would be better to have a new person in that job.”
Graham: Brennan has "lost my confidence" - POLITICO Live - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0210/Graham_Brennan_has_lost_my_confidence.html?showall )

Graham ,who can be frustrating in the domestic issues he takes, is a stellar national security Senator . The President has to know by now that Brennan is a liability to him.

The President has enough difficulty dealing with the Legislative branch his party dominates with domestic issues ;and he can't count on his party to support him in his role as CIC .

That leaves stalwart Republican and independent ,and Democrat foreign policy experts like Graham ,Lieberman,McCain ,Peter King ,Peter Hoekstra ,and perhaps Jim Webb to take the lead in advancing his policy goals. It doesn't serve him well to have one of his flunkies waging private war against his major support in the Legislature.

Did you catch Brennan's latest? He thinks 20% recidivism for released Gitmo detainees "isn't that bad," compared to the recidivism in US prisons.

I don't know about Brennan but I'm less concerned about a guy who can't break his car theft habits than a guy who can't keep from strapping on suicide shorts.

Meanwhile, someone needs to clamp down on Biden's motorcade. After 3 accidents in six days (http://www.insideline.com/car-news/biden-fleet-suffers-third-accident-in-six-days.html) last year (one fatal), Peggy Fleming and former bobsled champion Vonetta Flowers were injuried slightly in another Biden motorcade accident (http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/sports&id=7277548) yesterday.

At least Cheney only shot a friend once.

Scott Brown fired back at Biden's potshot (http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0210/brown_vs_biden_63b114e2-ddd7-4713-8d0f-f9bdf492ab46.html) at him yesterday.


Sen. Scott Brown thinks Vice President Joe Biden was “off base” when he suggested Sunday that the Massachusetts Republican get his facts straight on the legal procedures for military tribunals.

“It was insulting,” said Brown, who frequently jabbed the administration during his Senate campaign for giving suspected terrorists legal representation.

On CBS's “Face the Nation” last weekend, Biden shot back that he doesn’t “know whether the new senator from Massachusetts understands: When you get tried in a military tribunal, you get a lawyer, too.”

“He’s trying to give me a lesson on military law, and I didn’t think it was appropriate,” Brown told POLITICO. “And I thought he was off base when it comes to explaining to the American people that somehow I need a lesson on whether people get attorneys — of course they get attorneys. There’s a difference as to what type of attorney they’re going to get and when they’re going to get that attorney, and how are they treated, and what rights do they, in fact, get.”

Brown said he is particularly incensed by Biden’s remarks because he’s served in the Massachusetts Army National Guard for more than 30 years and is currently the Guard's top defense attorney in New England.

“I know the military rules and regulations and procedures from A to Z,” Brown said.

Biden's weekend rounds were part of the administration's new communications strategy (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/14/AR2010021403550.html). You know, making sure Obama and co. get more face time with American's to really, really, explain stuff. I hope keeping Biden front and center in this is part of a long term strategy.

Yeah make Biden the point man!!
Stand up Joe!

Maybe next Biden can lecture Lindsey Graham also . I'm sure Graham being a former JAG officer could use the instruction.