the committee will come to order like to welcome everyone we're going to get a little bit done here before we go further the house rest five thirty seven pursuant to notice i will call up house resolution five thirty seven requesting that the president and directed attorney general transmit to the house represent all information in their possession relating specific communications regarding detainees and foreign person suspected of terrorism and move that it be reported adversely to the house without objection the bill is considered as read and is open for amendment any point recognize myself an opening statement this resolution was introduced by chairman rogers of michigan to refer to our committee under house rules required report this and fourteen legislative days of its introduction  propose motion to discharge the committee could be filed on the house floor the rogers resolution of inquiry calls for any and all information administration's possession relating to the issue of so called miranda warnings to persons detained in afghanistan to be released i urge members to support the y president bush wrote in a june twelfth letter to all members that the practice of providing miranda warnings occurs as it did before this administration only on a case by case basis when it is charming there will hance national security by preserving the integrity of evidence to bring some terror suspects to justice dark director muller's letter explained that the practice has been occurring for years quote unquote indeed when the bush administration asked early two thousand and eight that intended to bring capital murder charges six men alleged the nine eleven terrorist attacks it did matters accordingly i recommend that we report this resolution on favorably i now recognize our ranking member on a bill maher smith of texas for a statement mr chairman my statement is about as long as yours but i don't intend to read it quite as quickly so i i think the general consensus is that we will now go and proceed and do our constitution do so without objection i will this committee is in recess and will come back immediately after we broke been no policy change with this resolution of and quite a request however is not a statement as to whether there has been a policy change this resolution requested documents and communications that define what the policy is consequently this resolution of an quire remains as relevant as ever for that reason this committee should promptly report house resolution five thirty seven which requires the administration to produce documents about its miranda policy in afghanistan the american people deserve this information not only does the subject addressed by this resolution of inquiry harm our national security so does another bill on the agenda today which weakens protections that would keep sensitive national security information safe from disclosure in law suits this resolution of an inquiry request that the administration send all documents and communications related to this new policy to congress so it can fulfill its duty to protect america's national security we're all familiar with the warning now president obama wants to extend to known terrorist the constitutional rights afforded criminal defendants on trial in the u s bringing more terrorists onto u s soil even for purposes of prosecuting them risk granting them even more constitutional rights by the admission of the president's own solicitor general once terrorist are given the right to remain silent of course they do just that the result is no interrogations no information and possibly more attacks just ask nine eleven mastermind khalid shaikh mohammed when he was captured in two thousand and three he was not cooperating according to president clinton the cia director george tenet said quote i'll talk to you guys after i get to new york and see my lawyer in court but he wasn't read any miranda rights and his interrogation went forward whether he wanted it or not as a result tenet said the information we obtained from him save lives and helped defeat al qaeda as tenet wrote in his memoirs quote i believe none of these successes would have happened if we had had to treat this terrorist like a white collar criminal read him his miranda rights and get him a lawyer who surely would have insisted that his client simply shut end quote the justice department says there's been no change in overall policy but several of the individuals responsible for conducting the interrogations of detainees told congressman mike rogers that change of policy is exactly what has occurred and why i'm aware of one situation in which the previous administration gave a miranda warning to a high level detainee that warning was conducted under unique circumstances in which a female detainee who is married to the lead sheikh mohammed nephew was waiting to be interrogated by f b i officials in afghanistan and then grabbed a rifle of an army warrant officer and attempted to shoot her capt it was after this crime that she was read her miranda rights she was not read or write her initial detention but only after she committed the subsequent crime of attempted murder at a u s detention facility the reports that detainees are increasingly being told of her right to remain silent is disturbing not only for its policy implications but also because it appears to violate one of president obama's policy statements in a sixty minutes interview aired in march president obama said quote now do these detainees deserve miranda rights do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter down the block of course not and quote even attorney general eric holder once recognized the need to be able to detain and interrogate terrorist outside the normal process of criminal prosecution going so far as to say that terrorists are not even entitled to prisoner of war protections under the geneva conventions in an interview on c n n in january two thousand and two mr holder said that one of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be where other cells are located but now it appears the president and the attorney general may be going well beyond considering policy i hope that is unfortunately there seem to be other things which suggest that is not the case all the way from closing guantanamo bay the prison there which was set up specifically for the purpose of conducting military commissions or tribunals to effect decisions with respect to those who are detained there and others that were found on the battlefield we have been told that the alternative to that is to bring them to the united states and subject some of them to criminal trials i just this week we have seen an article in the new york times where the new york city police department's top counterterrorism official counterterrorism official for the new york city police department went on to say that we need to be prepared for the consequences of an indictment and a prosecution that goes badly and results in the release of someone who we really do not want released in the united states the article goes on to say that federal law enforcement officials disputed his assertion saying that even if acquitted terrorism suspects were not american citizens would be placed in immigration custody pending deportation proceedings to their native countries here's the problem with  that what if those countries don't want to take them back what if we don't want them going back to a terrorist country what if in fact they claim that they are in return to that country our laws do not allow us to a country in which they believe they will receive  physical harm so do we keep them in detention the problem is we have a decision of the supreme court which provides that after six months a removal alien cannot be detained if there is no significant likelihood of removal to a reason this case came out of the ninth circuit and all of the supreme court when it reviewed it said that they were not then considering the issue of terrorism or other special circumstances where other special an ordinary violent criminal if need to protect the community not just by the detention of a killer it similarly does not justify the detention of this petitioner though the government now makes the additional allegation that the petitioner as a result of his mental around the world we ought to know about that and if the fact that they are mirandizing more and more is an indication of that this committee this congress needs to be informed of that the only way we can make that judgment is if in fact this inquiry is adopted by this committee and by the house and goes to the administration to give us that information in other words we need to have this information so that we can make judgments because of the absolutely implications for the safety of our constituents and the american people around this country let us remember the miranda decision  evidence obtained by the police in order to effectively prosecute domestic criminal defendant where does that make it applicable to the circumstances of detained as a result of being found on the battlefield  f american in different parts of the world i would argue it does not i would argue it is frankly serious to change this from a wartime situation involving what we believe to be illegal enemy combatant to regular criminal and so for us to exercise our constitutional authority we need this information and i would hope that we would have a unanimous vote on law enforcement officers after they arrest someone and they are supposed to give certain mornings to prove that the statement arrest the defendant makes is voluntary it applies to law enforcement when they arrest somebody somebody breaks in your home and you capture the burglar and the burglar confesses that you don't have to give him his miranda warnings because you are not law enforcement and it's a narrow ruling by the supreme court states have adopted the miranda philosophy the supreme court and made it enact it into their legislative laws we have three types of people that we're talking about arrested criminals in the united states we have people who are traditional enemy combatants that wear uniforms and they are supported by a  government in war and then we have the other group that's way out there who are come bad and under no pretext of wearing uniforms no military not responsible to any organize and these are the people we're talking about are have limited rights under all international law and for the united states to say we're going to give these folks the miranda warning is absurd and it should be a function only of if ever the judicial branch not the executive branch the executive branch really has no authority to come in and say we're going to give these arrested detainees terrorists whatever you want to call them that don't fit the category of geneva convention because they are not military combatants under international law we're going to give them the miranda warnings in afghanistan i think we need to know if this is going on and justice department where they get the authority to do this and i suspect the administration doesn't have the authority to require these people to receive the miranda warnings because the purpose of miranda is law enforcement in the united states arresting domestic criminals given their warnings before a statement can be used in a court of law and to expand it further  without legislative authority or even a court ruling i think is something we should not do anyway we need to find out that's going on and we need to find out this information from the president i yield back thank you sir the gentleman how it all works but i really think he was right on with that mr chairman after nine one one it became evident that it was necessary to take a fresh look at how to combat terrorism and more importantly how to prevent it the law enforcement of which focuses on punishing crimes after they've occurred and protecting the rights of those who have not been convicted of a crime had been virtually the only tool used by the united states against terrorist prior to nine one one and it had clearly failed to protect america from attack as the nine one one commission concluded quote the law enforcement process is concerned with proving the guilt of persons apprehended and charged it was not designed to ask if the events might be harbinger of worse things to come nor did it allow for aggregating and analyzing facts to see if they could provide clues to terrorist tactics more generally to debate whether the procedures that govern the detention of enemy combatants should be supplemented with  procedures more kinda those that govern the detention of ordinary domestic criminals was placed into stark relief at a recent hearing in one hundred tenth congress before the subcommittee on the constitution civil rights and civil liberties in the u s house of representatives i was present at that to insult him but just for clarity who represents the district in new york that contained the world trade center and bradford berenson a former white house counsel so let me read if i could verbatim the exchanges between the two of them mr natter quote i don't see how you can pick up someone in new york and say that his rights are different or less because he's accused of being an enemy combatant based on whatever information as opposed to his being accused of being a murderer  witness read for parents and responded on that view we need to be clear about what that means and mr chairman hoping again the committee can be clear about what this means it means that if we had captured muhammad on september tenth we would have no choice but to treat him as a criminal defendant which would have meant no interrogation no intelligence and the world trade center is coming down on quote mr let mad hatters response quote that's exactly right unquote mr chairman i i just hope that we could consider the reality of that response under the principles articulated by chairman ladder and president obama anyone suspected of being the organizer of a terrorist attack based on intelligence information even if that person is not an american citizen and is here illegally should be treated as a common criminal meaning that the suspected terrorist right to remain silent pending trial in federal court would have to be respected and there would be no hope of preventing the attack even if it meant the death of thousands or tens of thousands of people in america in an age of weapons of mass destruction mr chairman when a handful of terrorists can now cause harm on a scale only nations were once capable of doing such a principal can only invite more tragedy than it could possibly prevent we cannot afford to make a mistake a policy in this war on terrorism when it can cost thousands of innocent lives and i'd like to go on record i hope all the folks on our side hear this as being formally and firmly opposed to mr obama's administration the obama administration's extension of miranda rights to terrorists this is one of the issues mr chairman sort of separates the men from the boys or perhaps in this case the republicans from the democrats because it seems that the two parties are very rarely more divided on the issues of national security and i don't know if there could be any more stark contrast between the two parties but for the good of the country i hope that we can come together and say that this is something that we oppose as a congress granting miranda rights to terrorists and with that i yield back thank you mr franks we have some time before we i thank you i'm and i just respond briefly to my colleague on the other side of the aisle i really don't think you should be referring to members of the minority as boys we consider you men as well however you decide this issue but i do want to address committees to prevent the giving of miranda warnings under any circumstance to terrorist captured overseas and have two concerns on the broader issue and then on this resolution as well the first is that the courts of appeals have held in cases that without giving a miranda type warning and again we're not talking about miranda warnings in precisely the same form that we have the united states but without giving some warning that demonstrates that the statements that are going to be made are voluntary it may preclude their use in a criminal prosecution and i would think and expect that the circumstances in which our armed forces or f b i would be giving miranda warnings to foreign nationals overseas would be exceedingly rare and what we understand from the justice department they are rare much  as however the minority would like to posit this ministration policy it began out of the bush administration and began for the reason that we did want to preclude prosecution of terrorists in the united states and the natural impact of what my friends a minority would have us do is basically immunize people from prosecution united states immunize any statements that they make we have to allow some discretion for our agents overseas in appropriate cases to give warnings that make sure that the statements that people give can be used against them in a prosecution we just can't do that and again it should be rare i and that's the second point in terms of this privilege resolution today and that is that we understand from the justice department that the only information that this would really apply to since there's no new policy no change in policy is individual case files of terrorism suspects when miranda warnings have been given and when they haven't which involve very sensitive information and they're concerned and quite rightly so that disclosure of where these warnings may have been given jeopardize the case themselves and that is more particular i was concerned with this request but again on the broader issue i don't think we should preclude ourselves from prosecuting foreign terrorism suspects and using their own words against them in those prosecutions and if we take too much of an overbroad approach this issue we may preclude exactly that might be happy to yield to my  colleague i thank the gentleman for yielding i just want to point out that there is nothing in this inquiry that would prohibit anyone from receiving their miranda rights as i believe you might have suggested one of the inquiries to find out what the facts are privilege resolution with a gentleman is there a way for us to draft this more narrowly that would satisfy the gentleman's objection or is a gentleman's position that any inquiry necessarily would interfere with the proper functions of the justice department and therefore we are unable as the oversight committee to gain information upon which we can make a determination as a policy i don't think reclaiming what little time have  this meeting recess should try to come back immediately there committee on the judiciary is back in order the amendment are there any detect there may not be a quorum if there is not just just on the hazard a guess that there may not be a quorum madam clerk would you call the i've called the committee back to order and recognize the gentleman from iowa for an opening statement that the gentleman from ohio is recognized for an opening statement thank you madam chair initially on the on the issue of reading miranda rights to enemy combatants in foreign lands when we're engaged in acts that have all the appearances of being the acts of war with our us military conducting themselves in a fashion that's designed to take on the enemy and when in battle kill the enemy and when when  myself with his remarks as well as trent franks remarks on this issue and frame it in perhaps a little bit different way but in the first place miranda rights there is something that i haven't ever been particularly impressed with it's something that i believe was at addition to the constitutional understanding as it was ratified and to think of the concept of an individual who has committed a crime and we'd like to think that those people to do so carry within them a guilt you're doing so maybe even a sense of conscience that was overcome for the moment while they committed the crime and when they're arrested by law enforcement if they say i did it i'm sorry and they beat the person that's this reading their miranda rights to the punch that can't be used against him in a court of law that concept is something absolutely foreign to a couple of centuries of law enforcement here in the united states and so i'm  not i'm not a great respecter of miranda in the first place and i would make the argument that i can't find miranda in our constitution and by now after all of these years of miranda rights being read  to defendants in the united states that had takes on the same kind of warning that it's on a pack of cigarettes in a way the surgeon general has determined that smoking is hazardous to your health or maybe as it is to your health i don't know it's been a long time since i read the language but everybody knows this by now and it seems as though this federal government is turning into a complete nanny state and it sounds as though they'd like to upgrade that language because perhaps the letters aren't big enough or bold enough or maybe it's not worded quite right and now we would go off to foreign lands and read miranda rights to enemy combatants and maybe we can say enemy combatants or terrorists or islamic fundamentalist terrorists longer because that's not quite politically correct but i think th also fits in reading miranda rights fits and also with us some of the philosophy that has been projected across the middle east for example one of them would be to make the statement that our commander in chief did this to the iranians which is no sovereign nation should be able to tell another sovereign nation whether they can have and develop a nuclear capability one can only read into that the president must presume the united nations would make that call not the sovereign united states of america the state but also to the iranians that we don't want to interfere in their domestic affairs and now we have miranda rights being read in afghanistan anomie combatants that it's not politically correct any longer to call them that and converting this global war on terror into a global law enforcement activity pretty shortly has to include bringing into this international law it's already been part of the discussions here and i would submit that this whole string of rights that have been conferred on people that have never seen the united states of america follows along through this  and behind that the miranda rights and what's next what's next for this administration is it going to be going for a civil rights anti discrimination rights what if there happened of any discrimination motive involved in the law enforcement activities of the united states military in a foreign land in afghanistan while they're defending the sovereignty and the safety of the american people how far does this string of logic goal before it becomes to the point where ridiculous or ludicrous civil rights have original concept of our constitution to be conferred upon american citizens and they certainly are for enemy combatants in foreign lands thank the discretion of the chair back the balance of my time in honor of my style your welcome the clerk will report madam chair twenty one members voted or reported being present or reporting score and being present the question is on reporting the resolution adversely to the are there any other members that wish to record their vote madam chair thirteen members voted aye twelve members voted na