Anti-terror Advisor John Brennan Defends Eric Holder's Miranda Policies

In his appearance last Sunday on "Meet the Press," John Brennan tried to quell criticism that the Obama administration had erred in reading Christmas Bomber Farouk Abdulmutallab his Miranda rights after only 50 minutes of questioning. Brennan assured his audience that Abdulmutallab had resumed talking and that he could be effectively prosecuted under criminal laws. Brennan's line was that terrorist investigations were not hampered by extending constitutional rights to Abdulmutallab and prisoners at Guantanamo.

The trouble is that certain prisoners at Guantanamo, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, have admitted guilt in the 9-11 attacks and have also provided corroborating evidence. The announced intentions of the administration, in bringing KSM and his cohorts to federal courts in New York, grants "innocent until proven guilty" status to the terrorists and provides them an excellent and endless opportunity to inveigh against western democracy.

The issue cannot now be one of guilt or innocence because that is already a known factor, if we are to believe Eric Holder. Instead, the issue becomes one of America on trial. Could anything be more damaging to the security interests of the U.S.? Terrorists could not be more pleased with the opportunity afforded them to continue the political war through worldwide electronic media.

If we can close our eyes for a moment, spin around three times and pretend we are in Kansas, and be truly convinced that the planned New York terror trials have the purpose of deciding guilt or innocence, then certainly Attorney General Eric Holder has egregiously blundered in assuring America that KSM and the others will be convicted and punished. It's laughable, even in the most fatuous liberal circles. In effect, Holder is saying this: "You will be found guilty and sentenced. However, you will have an all expenses paid seminar on the American criminal justice system which will provide you with ample opportunity to have your death cult amplified and communicated to your terror consorts around the world." If there is another way to explain this, I'd like to hear it.

It makes no sense to argue, as Brennan did, that we are getting valuable intelligence now after Abdulmutallab clammed up for several weeks. The bad guys who might have been ensnared had plenty of time to get their ducks in order. Captured Al Qaeda training manuals are full of instructions advising captured enemy combatants to behave in ways designed to stall criminal legal proceedings.

Counter-terror advisor John Brennan has long experience as a CIA agent before his current tenure. Brennan knows that U.S. intelligence chiefs were not consulted about Abdulmutallab's interrogation and notification of his Miranda rights.

Brennan's defense of White House terror policy is based on a briefing he gave to key congress members of the intelligence committees. In going to the public with his "Meet the Press" appearance, Brennan's audience was not the intelligence community-it was the American community. Imparting what used to be called "gray propaganda," Brennan told America that, when he informed congress members Abdulmutallab was in the hands of the FBI, they would immediately know that the would-be bomber would be read his Miranda rights. No protests were forthcoming, said Brennan, so the ensuing criticism must be political.

"Gray propaganda" is that which is neither entirely true nor entirely false. The Obama administration seems to prefer this type of communication. The fact of the matter is that congress members who were briefed by Brennan most likely believed Abdulmutallab would be questioned by the "special interrogation unit," recently convened.

Writer and former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen appeared this morning on Fox News to read an excerpt from the "FBI special interrogation unit" charter. The text was clear, as Thiessen pointed out, that terror suspects detained by the FBI could be questioned with or without being read their Miranda rights. So there would be no reason for briefed members to protest the Miranda reading since they didn't have certain a priori knowledge it would take place.

A real person, the President or the Attorney General presumably, would have to make the decision to read Miranda to a terror suspect. Too, it is a matter of some legal controversy as to whether an Attorney General has the legal authority to make such a decision. Indeed, Eric Holder claims responsibility for making the decision to "mirandize" Abdulmutallab, but not for squashing terrorist leads which would have turned up had Abdulmutallab not gone dark. Weeks of silence by Abdulmutallab may have served Al Qaeda objectives very well, but not those of the U.S. However, what other bias can be expected from an Attorney General whose law firm had a practice of defending terror suspects?