[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 88 (Friday, June 12, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1400-E1401]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          THE MIRANDA WARNING

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. SCOTT GARRETT

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, June 12, 2009

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, there are forty-four words 
that anyone who has ever watched a police show is no doubt familiar 
with:
  ``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 an 
attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, 
one will be appointed for you.''
  The Miranda Warning, which reminds suspects in police custody of 
their rights under the Constitution, has become a staple of our 
criminal justice system, and is a vanguard of Fifth Amendment 
protection. This warning, however, was never meant to be applied to 
terrorists captured on the battlefield who are endangering American 
interests and American lives.
  Recently, my colleague from Michigan, Mr. Rogers, returned from 
Afghanistan, where he learned that the FBI may be reading Miranda 
rights to suspected terrorists at U.S. military detention facilities. 
If this report is true, it is deeply troubling and a variety of 
questions come to mind.
  First, if FBI agents are granting enemy combatants a right to silence 
and counsel, how then are operatives expected to accomplish their goal 
of obtaining actionable intelligence in the field? Second, how many 
detainees have been read the Miranda Warning? Third, on what date was 
this policy established? Fourth, what are the factors which influence 
the FBI's decision about when to grant Miranda rights?
  For obvious reasons, a suspect who has availed himself of silence and 
counsel is far less likely to surrender valuable intelligence

[[Page E1401]]

that can help us in winning the war on terror. While we have an 
obligation to treat captured combatants in a way that respects their 
human dignity, we are under no obligation to consider them U.S. 
citizens. It is dangerous to provide detainees with the same 
protections enjoyed by Americans. Furthermore, it is unwise to grant 
detainees the rights enshrined in the very Constitution they seek to 
destroy.
  We must recognize that there is a difference between police powers 
and war powers. The capture, interrogation, and trial of terror 
suspects in Afghanistan and Iraq clearly fall into the latter category. 
FBI involvement in this process can only lead to captured combatants 
being held, tried, and imprisoned in U.S. civilian facilities, thereby 
making our prison system an enclave for al-Qaeda operatives.
  One of the primary objectives of American operatives in the Middle 
East is to anticipate and prevent future attacks against U.S. soldiers 
and U.S. cities. Treating terror suspects as rank-and-file street 
criminals is a dangerous policy with grave implications for our 
domestic security and foreign interests.
  President Obama has repeatedly stated that he would govern his 
administration with transparency. However the ranking member on the 
House intelligence subcommittee learned of a serious FBI policy shift 
almost by accident.
  In waging this war, the White House must be accountable to this 
body--the people's elected representatives. I thank the gentleman from 
Michigan for bringing this issue to the House's attention, and I join 
him in calling on the Department of Defense to disclose the timeline 
and justification for this policy shift.

                          ____________________