Brennan: GOP-ers Knew Xmas Bomber Was Mirandized, Raised No Objections

Source: Talking Points Memo

Brennan: GOP-ers Knew Xmas Bomber Was Mirandized, Raised No Objections
Rachel Slajda | February 8, 2010, 10:16AM

White House counter-terrorism chief John Brennan yesterday struck back at Congressional Republicans who have been attacking the administration for giving the attempted Christmas Day bomber his Miranda rights. Brennan said on Meet the Press that top GOP-ers raised no objections to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab being held in FBI custody.

Brennan said he called Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader John Boehner, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee Pete Hoekstra and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Kit Bond on Christmas night to tell them Abdulmutallab was in FBI custody.

"I explained to them that he was in FBI custody, that Mr. Abdulmutallab was, in fact, talking, that he was cooperating at that point," Brennan said. "They knew that 'in FBI custody' means that there's a process then you follow as far as Mirandizing and presenting him in front of a magistrate," Brennan said.

"None of those individuals raised any concerns with me at that point. They didn't say, 'Is he going into military custody? Is he going to be Mirandized?'" he said.

Read more: http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/brennan-gop-ers-knew-xmas-bomber-was-mirandized-raised-no-objections.php?ref=fpa

the speed at which a conservative becomes a liberal after THEY are on the receiving end of policies they want so desperately to impose on the rest of us.

It is a law of nature.

Nothing about them actually getting information, just Mitch complaining about that call made to him.

That's all I've seen about this issue!

Just because it took them 2 months to figure out how to attack Obama over this doesn't mean they are stupid! You Betcha!

When will the media call them on it? :shrug:

It's been pointed out that "in FBI custody" usually, but not obligatorily, means "mirandized." Moreover, the first reports said that they were told he was just "in custody." Notice the three letters missing from that quote.

Moreover, weren't we told that he clammed up for a while after being (or shortly before being) mirandized? So if Brennan said he was talking and cooperating at the time, he hadn't yet been mirandized. Or the reports about his clamming up for a while were wrong.

So it's possible somebody's wrong. But it's clear that somebody's making assumptions and isn't clear on the fact that he's making assumptions.

Not having the chronology absolutely pinned down doesn't help things. So we hear that he was mirandized. We hear that there were no objections from intelligence or security officials about this. But then we read Napolitano saying that she hadn't been told he was mirandized and didn't know about it for a while after it happened--with the conclusion being that her objection would be over something that had already happened, something that certainly would have been cleared with her boss, and therefore not only pointless but also irritating and probably counterproductive. Note that she, too, presumably would know that within minutes of being arrested by the FBI you're always mirandized, even though you're not.

I also find Brennan's reasons for mirandizing him--apart from "this is the way to preserve civil rights"--odd. Apparently we need Abdulmutallab's statements for prosecuting him. One has to wonder why this is so. Well, except for the fact that there's neither circumstantial evidence nor witnesses to be had that could help prosecute him. No airline passengers, forensic evidence, or anything else. Oh, wait.