111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 111–189 

RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY REQUESTING THAT THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTING THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TRANSMIT TO THE HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES ALL INFORMATION IN THEIR POSSESSION RELATING TO SPECIFIC COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING DETAINEES AND FOREIGN PERSONS SUSPECTED OF TERRORISM 

JUNE 26, 2009.—Referred to the House Calendar ordered to be printed 

Mr. CONYERS, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

ADVERSE REPORT 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H. Res. 537] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the resolution (H. Res. 537) requesting that the President and directing 

that the Attorney General transmit to the House of Representatives all information in their possession relating to specific communications regarding detainees and foreign persons suspected of terrorism, having considered the same, reports unfavorably thereon 

without amendment and recommends that the resolution not be 

agreed to. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2 

Background .............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 4 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 4 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 4 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 5 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 5 

Committee Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 5 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 6 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 6 

Advisory on Earmarks ............................................................................................. 6 

Section-by-Section Analysis .................................................................................... 6 

Minority Views ......................................................................................................... 6 


tjames on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
2 

1 Christopher Davis, House Resolutions of Inquiry, CRS Report, November 25, 2008, at 1 

(quoting U.S. Congress, House, Deschler’s Precedents of the United States House of Representatives, H. Doc. 94–661, 94th Cong., 2nd Sess., vol. 7, ch. 24, § 8. 2 Id. 

3 Id. 

4Stephen Hayes, ‘‘Miranda Rights for Terrorists,’’ Weekly Standard, June 10, 2009, available 

at http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/06/mirandalrightslforlterrorists. 

asp. 5 ‘‘U.S. Lawmaker Says Obama Administration Ordered FBI to Read Rights to Detainees,’’ 

FoxNews.com, June 11, 2009. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

On June 11, 2009, Congressman Mike Rogers (R-MI) introduced 

H. Res. 537, a resolution of inquiry. The resolution requests the 

President, and directs the Attorney General, to transmit to the 

House of Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of 

adoption of the resolution, copies of any portions of all documents, 

records, and communications in their possession referring or relating to the notification of rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 

436 (1966), by the Department of Justice, including all component 

agencies, to foreign persons, captured in Afghanistan, who are suspected of terrorism and detainees in the custody of the Armed 

Forces of the United States in Afghanistan. 

BACKGROUND

HOUSE RESOLUTIONS OF INQUIRY

Under the rules and precedents of the House of Representatives, 

a resolution of inquiry is one of the methods that the House can 

use to obtain information from the Executive Branch.1 It ‘‘is a simple resolution making a direct request or demand of the President 

or the head of an executive department to furnish the House of 

Representatives with specific factual information in the possession 

of the executive branch.’’ 2 The typical practice has been to use the 

verbs ‘‘request’’ when asking for information from the President 

and ‘‘direct’’ when addressing executive department heads.3 Clause 

7 of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives provides 

that if the Committee to which the resolution is referred does not 

act on it within 14 legislative days, a privileged motion to discharge the resolution from the Committee is in order on the House 

Floor. 

PURPOSE OF H. RES. 537

Following a recent fact-finding trip to Afghanistan, Congressman 

Mike Rogers claimed that the Obama Administration has instituted a new policy of having FBI agents provide Miranda rights to 

detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities.4 According 

to Congressman Rogers, this alleged policy change is creating chaos 

among CIA, FBI, and military personnel, and is raising concerns 

about soldiers’ ability to pursue intelligence in the field.5 Congressman Rogers introduced H. Res. 537 to request the President and 

direct the Attorney General to produce documents pertaining to the 

alleged policy change. 

THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CONFIRMS THERE WAS NO POLICY CHANGE

According to the Justice Department, there have been no changes 

to the policy regarding when to Mirandize terrorist suspects 


tjames on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
3 

6 Id. In addition, on June 23, 2009, Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs Ron 

Weich stated in a telephone call to Democratic and Republican Committee staff that there has 

been no policy change. He noted that the Department has for years had a practice of 

Mirandizing terrorist suspects only on a case-by-case basis when an assessment has been made 

that there is a possibility of prosecution in an Article III court, in order to enhance national 

security. In those cases, he explained, administering Miranda warnings strengthens the prosecution. Regarding the documents that H. Res. 537 seeks to acquire, Mr. Weich said that the 

Department has performed a review to determine whether there are any documents that evidence a new policy regarding Miranda warnings for terrorist suspects abroad, and he explained 

that they found nothing, since there is no such policy. In addition, he said the only documents 

that would be responsive to the resolution are individual case files on terrorist suspects, which 

may contain information regarding whether Miranda warnings were given during particular interrogations. According to Mr. Weich, these files have sensitive national security information, 

and their disclosure would also jeopardize the cases themselves. 7Letter from FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, III to Congressman Frank Wolf, June 12, 2009. 

A copy of the letter was also sent to Congressman Rogers, and was made part of the record 

during the Committee’s June 24, 2009 meeting to consider the resolution. 8 Id. 

9 Id. 

10 Id. In the same letter, Director Mueller also described the so-called ‘‘Global Justice’’ proposal, which seeks ‘‘to have a process that ensures all available intelligence from the intelligence 

community is consolidated for decision makers so that they have the best available information 

when determining the strategy for handling certain terrorists overseas.’’ He further noted that 

the proposal ‘‘would also ensure . . . that intelligence is gathered in a manner that best preserves future options vis-a-vis the individual terrorist at issue, including gathering evidence in 

a manner that ensures its integrity. . . .’’ Importantly, Director Mueller explained that ‘‘[f]ar 

from a policy change, the proposal would focus on the best way to manage and deploy interagency teams overseas, train the teams, and provide them forensic support. The proposal has 

never had any connection to changes in FBI policy on when Miranda warning[s] should be administered to detainees overseas.’’ 

abroad. Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd stated on June 

11 that ‘‘[t]here has been no policy change nor blanket instruction 

for FBI agents to Mirandize detainees overseas,’’ adding ‘‘[w]hile 

there have been specific cases in which FBI agents have 

Mirandized suspects overseas, at both Bagram and in other situations, in order to preserve the quality of evidence obtained, there 

has been no overall policy change with respect to detainees.’’ 6

THE FBI CONFIRMS THERE WAS NO POLICY CHANGE

In a June 12 letter to Congressman Frank Wolf, FBI Director 

Robert Mueller confirmed that ‘‘there has been no policy change 

and no blanket instruction issued for FBI agents to Mirandize detainees overseas.’’ 7 Director Mueller further explained that ‘‘FBI 

agents have been trained to analyze whether Miranda is appropriate to use on a case-by-case basis and to consider providing Miranda warnings if prosecution in the United States may occur.’’ 8

The Director noted that FBI agents have occasionally given Miranda warnings to persons captured overseas, at Bagram and elsewhere, but only when ‘‘a determination was made that a prosecution in an Article III court may be in the interest of national security and that providing Miranda warnings . . . was . . . desirable 

to maximize the likelihood that any resulting statements would be 

admissible at trial.’’ 9 In order to place the issue in its proper context, the Director explained that Miranda warnings have been provided to Bagram detainees only in a small number of cases out of 

over 4,000 individuals whom the FBI has been involved in detaining and interrogating.10

When recently asked about the FBI’s occasional provision of Miranda warnings, General David Petraeus, who supervises Afghanistan military operations as the head of U.S. Central Command, 

made clear that this does not create any problems for the military. 

He explained that ‘‘[t]his is the FBI doing what the FBI does. . . . 


tjames on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
4 

11See ‘‘Petraeus on Miranda Rights at Bagram,’’ available at http://www.prospect.org/csnc/ 

blogs/ 

tappedlarchive?month=06&year=2009&baselname=petreauslonlmirandalrightslat&2. 12 Josh White, Dan Eggen and Joby Warrick, ‘‘U.S. to Try 6 On Capital Charges Over 9/11 

Attacks: New Evidence Gained Without Coercive Tactics,’’ Wash. Post, February 12, 2008, A1. 13Letter from FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, III, to Congressman Frank Wolf, June 12, 2009. 14 Id. 15See ‘‘Obama Administration Says Some Detainees Overseas Are Being Mirandized— 

and Bush Did It, Too,’’ ABC News, June 11, 2009, available at http://blogs.abc 

news.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/obama-administration-says-some-detainees-overseas-are-beingmirandized.html. 

These are cases where they are looking at potential criminal 

charges. Were comfortable with this.’’ 11

THE PRACTICE OF MIRANDIZING TERRORIST SUSPECTS OCCURRED

DURING THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION

The practice of sometimes administering Miranda warnings to 

terrorist suspects is not unique to the Obama Administration.12 Director Mueller’s letter states that the practice has been occurring 

‘‘[f]or years.’’ 13 Indeed, when the Bush Administration announced 

in early 2008 that it intended to bring capital murder charges 

against six men allegedly linked to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, it did 

so based partly on information that the men disclosed to FBI questioners without the use of coercive interrogation tactics and after 

having been read rights similar to a standard U.S. Miranda warning, while they were detained at Guantanamo Bay.14 The Obama 

Administration has also confirmed that Bush Administration officials administered Miranda warnings to suspects overseas in some 

instances.15

HEARINGS

No hearings were held in the Committee on H. Res. 537. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On June 24, 2009, the Committee met in open session and ordered H. Res. 537 adversely reported, without amendment, by a 

rollcall vote of 13 yeas to 12 nays, a quorum being present. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the following 

rollcall vote occurred during the Committee’s consideration of H. 

Res. 537: 

H. Res. 537 was ordered reported unfavorably by a vote of 13 to 

12. 

ROLLCALL NO. 1 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Conyers, Jr., Chairman ............................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Boucher .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................

Ms. Lofgren .......................................................................................................

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................


tjames on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
5 

ROLLCALL NO. 1—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Cohen .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Johnson .......................................................................................................

Mr. Pierluisi .......................................................................................................

Mr. Quigley ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Gutierrez ..................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Sherman .....................................................................................................

Ms. Baldwin ......................................................................................................

Mr. Gonzalez ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Weiner ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Schiff .......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ......................................................................................................

Ms. Wasserman Schultz .................................................................................... X 

Mr. Maffei ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith, Ranking Member ............................................................................. X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. ...................................................................................... X 

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gallegly .......................................................................................................

Mr. Goodlatte ....................................................................................................

Mr. Lungren ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jordan ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Poe ..............................................................................................................

Mr. Chaffetz ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Rooney ........................................................................................................

Mr. Harper ......................................................................................................... X 

Total ................................................................................................ 13 12 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does not provide new 

budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee estimates that implementing the resolution would not result in any significant costs. 

The Congressional Budget Office did not provide a cost estimate for 

the resolution. 


tjames on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
6 

1See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable, because H. Res. 537 does not authorize funding. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable, because H. Res. 537 is not a bill or a 

joint resolution that may be enacted into law. 

ADVISORY ON EARMARKS

Clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives 

is inapplicable, because H. Res. 537 is not a bill or joint resolution. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

H. Res. 537 requests the President, and directs the Attorney 

General, to transmit to the House of Representatives not later than 

14 days after the date of adoption of the resolution, copies of any 

portions of all documents, records, and communications in their 

possession referring or relating to the notification of rights under 

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), by the Department of 

Justice, including all component agencies, to foreign persons, captured in Afghanistan, who are suspected of terrorism and detainees 

in the custody of the Armed Forces of the United States in Afghanistan. 

MINORITY VIEWS

For the reasons outlined below, we strongly disagree with the 

majority’s partisan decision to unfavorably report H. Res. 537, a 

resolution of inquiry seeking information from the Administration 

regarding its reported new policy to increasingly provide Miranda 

warnings to terrorists detained in Afghanistan. 

Based on recent reports, the Administration has embarked on a 

new policy in which increasing numbers of terrorists detained in 

Afghanistan are being read Miranda warnings. These warnings, as 

developed and required by the Supreme Court,1 are given by law 

enforcement officers and agents to criminal defendants, and they 

generally consist of the following formulation: ‘‘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. Do you understand these rights?’’ Miranda 

warnings are only given when criminal prosecution is the goal, but 

our goal in the war on terrorism should not be the prosecution of 

criminals in court. It should be the defeat of terrorists on the battlefield. 

THE NEED FOR THE RESOLUTION

According to multiple reports, the Administration has embarked 

on a new policy in which increasing numbers of terrorists detained 

in Afghanistan are being given Miranda warnings. Such a policy 


tjames on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
7 

2 ‘‘Transcript: Jake Tapper Interviews Barack Obama,’’ ABC News (June 16, 2008). 

3The 9/11 Commission Report, at 73. 

4 Andrew C. McCarthy and Alykhan Velshi, ‘‘We Need a National Security Court’’ (The American Enterprise Institute 2007) at 6, 9. Terrorism trials take months to complete, often following 

many years of pretrial discovery and court proceedings. Typically, the appeals also take years 

to complete. See id. at 6 n.9. 5See id. 

6 Carrie Johnson, ‘‘Marri Admits Conspiring with Al-Qaeda Operatives; Faces Up to 15 Years,’’ 

The Washington Post (May 1, 2009). 7 Andrew McCarthy, ‘‘Sweetheart Deal for a Terrorist,’’ National Review Online (May 5, 2009). 

8 Carrie Johnson, ‘‘Marri Admits Conspiring with Al-Qaeda Operatives; Faces Up to 15 Years,’’ 

The Washington Post (May 1, 2009). 

will have grave implications for our national security because it indicates an approach to the war on terror in which terrorists will 

be treated more like domestic criminal defendants, and less like 

foreign enemies with a military and political agenda against the 

United States as a nation. Because such a policy shift would have 

dramatic effects on America’s security, the House should immediately take up House Resolution 537. 

This resolution of inquiry requests that the Administration provide all documents and communications relating to this reported 

new policy to the House of Representatives so it can fulfill its constitutional duty to oversee and formulate America’s national security policies. 

During the campaign, President Obama made clear he preferred 

having prosecutors deal with terrorists like ordinary criminals to 

having our military deal with them for what they are: sworn enemies engaged in a war against all Americans. During an interview 

with ABC News, Obama said ‘‘And, you know, let’s take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks—for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. 

They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.’’ 2

However, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission firmly and unanimously rejected that approach, stating in its report that ‘‘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 harbingers of worse to come.’’ 3 Indeed, the criminal-prosecution approach employed prior to 9/11 was an abject failure. During the eight years prior to 9/11, even with the highest 

conceivable conviction rate of 100 percent, fewer than three dozen 

terrorists were neutralized through successful prosecution.4 Even 

worse, trials in the criminal justice system inevitably caused more 

terrorism by increasing opportunities for terrorist propaganda, 

leaving too many militants in place, and divulging too much information in court that tipped off other terrorists and allowed them 

to evade capture.5

The Obama Administration’s first foray back toward the criminal 

prosecution approach to terrorism has already resulted in a sweetheart deal for Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, who admitted to plotting 

attacks with cyanide gas at U.S. dams, waterways, and tunnels.6

That hard-core terrorist, who was an al-Qaeda member since 1998, 

copped a plea in which he stands to receive, at most, only 15 years 

in prison.7 As retired Commander Kirk Lippold points out, that’s 

‘‘the same sentence as a person tried for identity theft or fraud.’’ 8

That maximum 15-year sentence is especially absurd when we 

recall that the lowest-level member of ‘‘Blind Sheikh’’ Rahman’s 

cell—which bombed the World Trade Center in 1993—received 25 


tjames on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
8 

9 Andrew McCarthy, ‘‘Sweetheart Deal for a Terrorist,’’ National Review Online (May 5, 2009). 

10 Andrew McCarthy, ‘‘Sweetheart Deal for a Terrorist,’’ National Review Online (May 5, 

2009). 11http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/May/09-nsd-494.html. 12http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/May/09-nsd-494.html. 13 Charles D. Stimson, ‘‘First—and Perhaps Last—Gitmo Inmate Brought to America,’’ The 

Heritage Foundation (June 13, 2009), available at http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ 

ed061209c.cfm. 14See Andrew McCarthy, ‘‘Justice Denies the Uighers . . . For Now,’’ National Review (June 

2, 2009). 15 Id. 16 Id. 17 Id. 

years in prison.9 That low-level terrorist received a 25-year sentence when he had been recruited by the cell only at the very end 

of attack preparations and transported gasoline to a bomb-construction safehouse.10 That 25-year sentence for a low-level terrorist reflects a depth of resolve against terrorism that the more recent 15-year sentence against a hard-core terrorist does not. 

More recently, the Attorney General announced in May that the 

Justice Department would be prosecuting known terrorist Ahmed 

Ghailani in federal court.11 That prosecution is based on a March 

12, 2001, indictment for terrorism conducted prior to 9/11.12 Since 

then, Ghailani roamed free and served al-Qaeda as a document 

forger, trainer at a terrorist camp, and bodyguard for Osama bin 

Laden until he was captured by the U.S. military in July, 2004.13

The Ghailani prosecution is an exercise in looking backward, not 

forward. But only by looking forward can we prevent the next attack. 

We’re all familiar with the Miranda warnings from numerous 

television shows. Miranda warnings, spelling out the constitutional 

rights to which Americans are entitled, are only given when criminal prosecution is the goal. Our goal in the war on terrorism should 

not be the prosecution of criminals in court, but rather it should 

be the defeat of terrorists on the battlefield far from America. Now 

comes word that the Obama Administration is increasingly providing Miranda warnings to captured terrorists, a clear indication 

it’s intending to pursue more civil justice in the courtroom against 

America’s enemies, and less military justice in the war on terror. 

Before President Obama assumed office, the U.S. already granted 

enemy combatants more procedural rights than had ever been 

granted before by any nation in the history of the world. Now 

President Obama wants to extend to known terrorists the full 

gamut of constitutional rights afforded criminal defendants on trial 

in the U.S. 

President Obama’s own Solicitor General, Elena Kagan, filed a 

legal brief opposing a court’s authority to order foreign terrorists 

released in this country.14 In it, she repeatedly recognizes ‘‘the critical distinction’’ the Supreme Court has drawn ‘‘between an alien 

who has effected an entry into the United States and one who has 

never entered.’’ 15 Indeed, Solicitor General Kagan cautioned the 

Supreme Court not to ‘‘blur the previously clear distinction between aliens outside the United States and aliens inside this country or at its borders.’’ 16 ‘‘This basic distinction,’’ she continued, 

‘‘serves as the framework on which our immigration laws are structured, and repeatedly has been recognized as significant not just 

under the Constitution but also as a matter of statutory and treaty 

law.’’ 17 By bringing more terrorists onto U.S. soil, even for purVerDate Nov 24 2008 00:48 Jun 27, 2009 Jkt 079008 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR189.XXX HR189

tjames on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
9 

18 ‘‘Resolution: Are Terrorist Suspects Mirandized?’’ Office of Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) (June 

12, 2009). 19See Stephen F. Hayes, ‘‘Miranda Rights for Terrorists,’’ Weekly Standard Blog (June 10, 

2009), available at http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/06/mirandalrightsl forlterrorists.asp. 20 Id. 21 Id. 22 Id. 23See Stephen Hayes, ‘‘You Have the Right to Remain Silent . . .’’ The Weekly Standard 

(June 22, 2009). 

poses of prosecuting them, the President risks granting them even 

more constitutional rights, by his Solicitor General’s own admission. 

That the Administration may be planning on bringing more terrorists to the U.S. was indicated to Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan.18 Rep. Rogers is a former special agent of the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation and U.S. Army officer and now a senior Republican 

on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. He recently traveled to Afghanistan on a fact-finding trip, and what he 

heard from officials there startled him. He said he was told there 

that ‘‘The administration has decided to change the focus to law enforcement . . . You have foreign fighters who are targeting U.S. 

troops today—foreign fighters who go to another country to kill 

Americans. We capture them . . . and [we]’re reading them their 

rights—Mirandizing these foreign fighters.’’ 19 And once terrorists 

are given the right to remain silent, of course, they do just that. 

The result is no interrogations, no information, and more attacks. 

Just ask 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad. When he 

was captured in 2003, he was not cooperative. According to President Clinton’s CIA Director, George Tenet, he said ‘‘I’ll talk to you 

guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer.’’ 20 But no one 

read him any Miranda rights, and instead his interrogation went 

forward, whether or not he wanted it to. As a result, Director Tenet 

said the information we obtained from him saved lives and helped 

defeat al-Qaeda.21 President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair, confirmed these facts recently when 

he wrote in an April 16, 2009, unclassified internal memo to employees of the Central Intelligence Agency that ‘‘High value information came from interrogations in which those [enhanced interrogation] methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of 

the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country.’’ 

As Director Tenet wrote in his memoirs, ‘‘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 up.’’ 22

The Justice Department claims that there has been no recent 

change in overall policy, but several of the individuals responsible 

for conducting the interrogations of detainees told Rep. Rogers that 

a ‘‘change of policy’’ is exactly what has occurred.23

We are aware of one situation in which the previous Administration gave Miranda warnings to a high-level detainee, but those 

warnings were given under unique circumstances in which a female detainee who is married to Khalid Sheikh Mohammad’s nephew was waiting to be interrogated by FBI officials in Afghanistan, 

and then she grabbed the rifle of an army warrant officer and attempted to shoot and kill her captors. It was after this crime that 


tjames on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
10 

24See Stephen Hayes, ‘‘Obama Justice Department Hoes Silent on Miranda,’’ Weekly Standard Blog (June 12, 2009). 25 Josh Meyer, ‘‘FBI Planning a Bigger Role in Terrorism Fight,’’ The Los Angeles Times (May 

28, 2009). 26See video clip here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/06/10/flashbacklobamal saysldetaineesldontldeservelmirandalrights.html. 27See ‘‘2002 Video Flashback—Eric Holder: Terrorist Detainees Don’t Fall Under Geneva Conventions,’’ available at http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kerry-picket (also featuring video of Holder 

interview). 

she was read her Miranda rights. She was not read her rights after 

her initial detention, but only after she committed the subsequent 

crime of attempted murder at a U.S. detention facility.24

Apparently, the increased use of Miranda warnings for terrorists 

by the Obama Administration is in fact part of a new policy the Los 

Angeles Times described in May. According to that report, ‘‘The FBI 

and Justice Department plan to significantly expand their role in 

global counter-terrorism operations, part of a U.S. policy shift that 

will replace a CIA-dominated system of clandestine detentions and 

interrogations with one built around transparent investigations 

and prosecutions. Under the ‘global justice’ initiative, which has 

been in the works for several months, FBI agents will have a central role in overseas counter-terrorism cases [and] expand their 

questioning of suspects. . . .’’ 25

The reports that detainees are increasingly being told of a right 

to remain silent is disturbing not only for its policy implications, 

but also because it appears to violate one of President Obama’s 

own policy statements. In a ‘‘60 Minutes’’ interview aired in March, 

Obama said ‘‘Now, do these [detainees] deserve Miranda rights? Do 

they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter down the block? Of 

course not.’’ 26

Even Attorney General Eric Holder once recognized the need to 

be able to detain and interrogate terrorists 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 CNN in January 2002, 

Mr. Holder said, rightly in our view, 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; 

under the Geneva Convention you are really limited in the 

amount of information that you can elicit from people . . . If, 

for instance, Mohamed Atta had survived the attack on the 

World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner 

of war? I think not.27

It now appears, however, that the President and the Attorney 

General may be going well beyond considering terrorists captured 

on the battlefield prisoners of war by contemplating their detention 

in U.S. prisons as criminal defendants. With any increased reliance 

on criminal trials in the war on terror comes the detention of more 

terrorists in U.S. prisons and jails. Even Robert Mueller, the Director of the FBI, is concerned about that prospect. As the Associated 

Press reported, when one member of this committee ‘‘prodded 

Mueller to agree that [terrorists] could be safely kept in maximum 

security prisons in the United States . . . Mueller balked at [the] 


tjames on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS
11 

28 ‘‘FBI Director Concerned About Gitmo Releases,’’ The Associated Press (May 21, 2009). 29 Emily Pierce, ‘‘Reid Says Gitmo Prisoners Will Not Be Transferred to U.S.,’’ Roll Call (May 

19, 2009). 

suggestion, noting that in some instances imprisoned gang leaders 

have run their operations from inside prisons.’’ 28

The Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, has echoed Director 

Mueller’s concerns. When asked whether he believed prisoners 

should ever be transferred into an American prison, he said, ‘‘Not 

in the United States.’’ 29

We must assure the American people that the United States is 

not starting to treat sworn foreign enemies of America who are 

waging a war against us as common criminals who are due to be 

informed of their Miranda rights. And the only way to do that is 

to support this resolution of inquiry so that Congress can review 

and evaluate the Administration’s approach to how to treat our enemies and have a debate over that approach and change it if warranted. Our constitutional obligations require nothing less. 

This resolution simply requests that the Administration produce 

to the House of Representatives documents and communications regarding any policy of notification of Miranda rights by the Department of Justice to both foreign persons captured in Afghanistan 

who are suspected of terrorism and to detainees in the custody of 

U.S. armed forces in Afghanistan. Securing the production of these 

documents is the least we can do to provide both the transparency 

the Obama Administration claims to support and the information 

the American people and their elected representatives deserve. 

LAMAR SMITH. 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR. 

HOWARD COBLE. 

ELTON GALLEGLY. 

BOB GOODLATTE. 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN. 

DARRELL E. ISSA. 

J. RANDY FORBES. 

STEVE KING. 

TRENT FRANKS. 

LOUIE GOHMERT. 

JIM JORDAN. 

TED POE. 

JASON CHAFFETZ. 

TOM ROONEY. 

GREGG HARPER. 

Æ 


tjames on PROD1PC63 with REPORTS