Earlier this month, Foreign Policy reported that the FBI had made a controversial decision to drop the term “law enforcement” from its official fact sheet in favor of “national security.” The terms were in reference to the primary functions of the FBI. After facing swift backlash, the FBI has once again revised the fact sheet to include both terms. Continue reading
Scraps of world-wide military transformations litter the news, leaving a careful observer with one uneasy and exciting implication: CHANGE. News of ground warfare has been largely replaced by flashy articles about “cyber warfare.” The Army slashed 12 combat brigades across the country, begrudgingly announcing the plan to reduce the number of active duty soldiers by 80,000 in four years (long enough a wait to pray for a Republican president to rescue their budget).
Meanwhile in Afghanistan, their infant Air Force is gleaning every drop of information they can from their Western trainers. NATO will end their training aid in 18 short months. Gen. Shir-Mohammad Karimi, the Afghan National Army chief of staff told 13 flight school grads, “Having all these U.S., coalition forces, advisers, instructors and contractors around us is a golden opportunity for all of us… Make sure you do not [squander] learning enough skills from them…”
Meanwhile in Asia, a collection of countries (including China, India, and Indonesia) sit poised to become the leading coalition of military spending. The US has been permitting (resentfully) the attrition of the budget to a mere $707.5 billion (not including FBI counter-terrorism (who do earn their budget!!! …a little prejudiced.), International Affairs, defense-related Energy Dept., Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, satellites, veteran pensions, and interest on debt from past wars). However, Asian countries are prepared to meet US military spending by 2021, anticipating an increase in spending of 35%.
Meanwhile in Israel, they stand prepared to surpass the US as the largest exporter in the world of unmanned drones this year.
So where is the victorious “meanwhile in the US” blurb? What are we overtaking? More importantly, WHAT ARE WE WINNING? Well, folks, once more we are winning the make-the-same-arguments-we’ve-been-making-for-a-decade award. Huge trophies will be delivered to the Navy SEALs, Army Rangers, Delta Force and Green Berets as soon as they can fit it in the budget. A two-year study is to be conducted. Although we hear the typical regurgitated physical-requirements argument against the inclusion of women (not surprised face), I was sickened to learn we’re still talking about the “cohesion and morality” of the group (Army Maj. Gen. Sacolick’s words). Trust me, the declarations are ripe with phrases fretting over “social implications” and “distractions.” I kid you not: “Distractions.” Once more women are to be confined from a respected and desired combat position because of men. Well, you can keep your worries because like it or not gender equality is coming for you, special ops. It may not be today. It may not be tomorrow! It may not even be in the year 2015 after your comprehensive and oh-so-fair study. But it will be soon. And for the rest of the military’s life!
Chelsea Perdue, Research Fellow
Center for Policy and Research
In an opinion piece in the Boston Globe, lawyer Harvey Silverglate claims that the FBI follows a policy of not recording interviews with suspects and witnesses in order to be able to put words in their mouth. He points specifically to the case of Robel Phillipos, who was recently arrested and charged with making materially false statements during the course of the investigation of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the suspect in the Boston bombing.
Mr. Silverglate has a point. Without electronic recording, the FBI agent can sit in the interview room, taking whatever notes he pleases, and then later attribute those statements to the interviewee. The interviewee, in disputing the statements, risks prosecution for the same crime now being alleged against Robel Phillipos. Mr. Silverglate apparently thinks that creating this opportunity is the reason for the FBI’s policy.
But there are a couple of problems with this theory. First, to do this would be a crime–the same crime that Robel Phillipos is charge with in fact, along with a couple of others. Second, the FBI do not want to soil their own evidence. Even apart from the implications for admissibility or weight, if it becomes known that an agent is falsifying witness statements, false witness statements only harm the investigation by adding incorrect information into an already complex picture.
Last, but not least, Mr Silverglate doesn’t address the one feature that may help to level the playing field between the FBI and the witness: the jury. A witness statement is not at all like a piece of physical evidence. The jury does not simply note that it exists (theoretically, the jury doesn’t even stop here for physical evidence). Instead, when confronted with the claimed falsification of the statement, the jury will decide which of the two parties they believe is telling the truth. Ignoring this aspect severely undercuts Mr. Silverglate’s argument.
However, in the end, his point still stands. Why, with the ubiquity of hand-held recording devices (like the on in your pocket or purse that rings from time to time), doesn’t the FBI record all interviews as a matter of course. If for some reason a recorder cannot be found, they can always revert back to their paper-only method, and explain to the jury why they had to do so. But it would effectively remove the possibility of interviewees claiming that they were misquoted or that their statements were falsified. And in this respect Mr. Silverglate is correct. This should be a non-issue.
Paul W. Taylor, Senior Fellow
Center for Policy and Research
Well, it seems that Tsarnaev has now been read his rights.
The FBI filed charges against the surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, alleging “using and conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction.” But Tim Noah has pointed out an interesting conundrum in his article on FP.com: How do relatively small improvised explosive devices (IEDs) amount to weapons of mass destruction?
18 USC § 2332a defines “weapon of mass destruction” as:
“(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life.”
Since the pressure-cooker bombs made by the brothers did not (so far as we know) use any toxins, poisons, biological agents, or radioactive elements, then the definition of WMD in operation in this case must be that of a “destructive device” which then allows in “any explosive bomb.” Firecrackers, too, apparently (Section 921 defines “Attorney General,” but not “bomb”).
But even setting aside the idiocy of language of the statute, it’s ridiculous to call the low-powered bombs in Boston “weapons of mass destruction,” even if they did wound scores of innocent civilians. After all, as Tim Noah points out,
“If any old bomb can be called a WMD, then Saddam most definitely had WMDs before the United States invaded Iraq 10 years ago. And if an IED is a WMD, then Iraq actually ended up with more WMDs after the U.S. invasion than before (and isn’t entirely rid of them yet).”
For the sake of clarity, I do not advocate “going easy” on Tsarnaev. He should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, which is what the federal government appears to be doing. But neither do I support equating the employment of ordinary bombs and IEDs with true weapons of mass destruction.
Paul W. Taylor, Senior Fellow
Center for Policy and Research
After capturing the second Boston Marathon bombing suspect on Friday, the FBI decided to invoke the public safety exception to the Miranda requirement. This decision has generated much debate about the rights that should be afforded to terrorism suspects, whether a distinction should be drawn between foreign and domestic terrorist suspects, and who qualifies as which.
According to the ACLU, while authorities should be able to question Tsarnaev about imminent threats, using the public safety exception “to create the case against the suspect” would be “wholly inappropriate and unconstitutional.” In this they are absolutely correct. This exception was created not as an investigatory tool, but as an excuse for officers who, under pressing circumstances and in the heat of the moment, ask a question of a suspect, such as “where is the bomb?” or “which way did your accomplice run?” It was a failsafe to allow officers who ask questions with the sole purpose of ensuring public safety before read the suspect their rights to still be able to introduce the suspects responses in court. It was not intended to create a tactic by which police could intentionally delay mirandizing suspects.
Relatedly, several Republican politicians have argued that Tsarnaev should be officially labelled an “enemy combatant” in order to remove procedural hurdles to national security investigations. For example, as an enemy combatant, Tsarnaev would not be entitled to the a lawyer during interrogation. These lawmakers hope that by removing the Miranda warning and its attendant rights, the authorities may be better able to probe possible links to al Qaeda or other terrorist groups.
Of course, there is as yet no indication that there are any such links, and if there are, the 4th and 5th Amendments have generally not gotten in the way of finding out. For example, “Millennium Bomber”Ahmed Ressam gave up all of his contacts shortly after being caught and interrogated by the FBI under full Constitutional protection. In fact, facing 130 years in prison, he sang like a bird for 4 years while his sentencing was put on hold. (The uber-liberal Ninth Circuit has since ruled that Ressam’s 22-year sentence was too lenient, and placed an effective floor of 65 year on the sentence.)
But this has not stopped some Republican lawmakers from claiming the need to apply extraordinary measures to “foreign” terrorists. However, they seem to have hit a snag here, since Tsarnaev is a naturalized US citizen, not that they let this get in the way. In fact, Senator Lindsey Graham went so far as to advocate using racial and religious profiling to to determine if Constitutional protections should apply:
“You can’t hold every person who commits a terrorist attack as an enemy combatant, I agree with that. But you have a right, with his radical Islamist ties and the fact that Chechens are all over the world fighting with Al Qaeda — I think you have a reasonable belief to go down that road, and it would be a big mistake not to go down that road. If we didn’t hold him for intelligence-gathering purposes, that would be unconscionable.”
So, according to Senator Graham. if they are Chechen and/or Muslim, screw their rights.
Discrimination aside, Sen. Graham seems to have forgotten that we don’t need to hold Tsarnaev for intelligence gathering purposes, since he’s already being held for criminal prosecution. This gives the FBI and other Federal investigators ample access to him for intelligence gathering purposes.
Indeed, holding Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant could jeopardize the government’s ability to try him, since Military Commissions have no jurisdiction over US citizens, and the latter trying him in civilian courts could trigger problems with speedy trial protections and admissibility of the evidence obtained without 4th and 5th Amendment protections.
For additional commentary on the Tsarnaev case, the following were collected by Fordham’s Center on National Security:
New York Times: “Mr. Graham’s reckless statement makes a mockery of the superb civilian police work that led to the suspect’s capture….Fortunately the Obama administration has ignored the posturing and declared that Mr. Tsarnaev, like all citizens and even alien terrorists captured on American soil, will be tried in the federal courts.”
Wall Street Journal: “The flap over reading [Tsarnaev] his Miranda rights is a largely irrelevant distraction. … The important security issue isn’t convicting Dzhokhar but finding out what he knows that might prevent a future attack or break up a terror network. This is where naming him an enemy combatant would be useful.”
New Yorker: Does the public exception to the Miranda “grant the police a limited ability to ask where a bomb is or which way an accomplice ran, and use the answers in court? Or is it a free forty-eight-hour questioning coupon the government gets for calling someone a terrorist?”
Paul W. Taylor, Senior Fellow
Center for Policy & Research