The American Spectator : Know When to Holder

Text Size

Know When to Holder

By Andrew Cline on 5.10.10 @ 6:09AM

The president and his attorney general suddenly discover they are "now dealing with international terrorism" -- and that Miranda rights may have to wait.

If President Obama came to the podium tonight and read -- word for word -- President Bush's 2005 speech urging Congress to reauthorize the Patriot Act, the left would applaud as vigorously as President Bush was jeered back then. On national security, it's not the substance of Obama's positions that makes the left swoon, it's how he presents it.

Take the Meet the Press interview Attorney General Eric Holder gave yesterday. The Obama administration made a huge show about Mirandizing terror suspects. This was to be a tremendous and substantive break with the Torquemada… er, the Bush administration. To show the world how civilized we really were, Obama would make sure that even super-high-ranking Al-Qaida members like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were treated to civilian trials and lots of their little helpers would get read their rights just like your friendly neighborhood bounced-check passer.

But then came the actual capture and questioning of two high-profile terror suspects, last Christmas's underwear bomber, and the would-be Times Square bomber. Both of these terrorist wannabes were questioned for a while, read their Miranda rights, then questioned again. Yeah, the order isn't exactly how the left thought things would go in Captain Civility's administration. But even with the administration taking advantage of the Supreme Court's allowance for pre-Miranda questioning in cases of immediate threats to national security, the president wants more authority to pump suspects for information before reading them their rights.

As Holder put it in announcing the proposal yesterday, "I think we also want to look and determine whether we have the necessary flexibility -- whether we have a system that deals with situations that agents now confront.… We're now dealing with international terrorism. I think we have to give serious consideration to at least modifying that public-safety exception [to the Miranda requirements]. And that's one of the things that I think we#039;re going to be reaching out to Congress… to come up with a proposal that is both constitutional, but that is also relevant to our times and the threats that we now face."

Can you imagine the outcry from the left had John Ashcroft uttered those exact words? They would spell the immediate end of our civil liberties, and probably of baseball movies and cotton candy, too. But it's OK, Obama's the boss now. He loves civil liberties!

Amazingly, Holder was basically saying he wants a law to "close… dangerous gaps in America's law enforcement and intelligence capabilities, gaps that terrorists exploited when they attacked us."

He didn't use those precise words, though. George W. Bush did in 2005 when he urged Congress to renew the Patriot Act. But the tone and message are the same: We need new laws to explicitly give us the authority to treat terror suspects in ways that, under existing law, could arguably be considered violations of their civil liberties.

The similarity probably wouldn't be so clear had President Obama, and not Eric Holder, given the statement. It's that whole eloquence thing. The man could call your mother's reputation into question, but he'd say it so beautifully that the insult would float over your head as the earnest utterance of deeply held, universally shared moral conviction made you think, "He is so right!"

Holder actually said Congress has to pass a law to amend Americans' constitutional protection against self-incrimination because "we're now dealing with international terrorism." When put that way, what self-respecting liberal could possibly support this? Isn't this what Obama campaigned against? Isn't this the sort of thing he opposed when he promised to oppose warrantless wiretapping, when he preached that America could never compromise her principles?

Yes, it is exactly that sort of thing. But when Obama made those promises and delivered those uplifting speeches about upholding America's values even in the face of the monstrous barbarity of the terrorist onslaught, he didn't mean we would actually change any substantive policy.

Guantanamo Bay is going to be closed for good because it is a stain on America. But, uh, we're still going to hold those terror suspects indefinitely. But they'll be in Illinois! So, you know, it's cool and stuff.

And warrantless wiretapping? Yeah, we gotta keep that too. You wouldn't believe the information we get from that program! And we don't really spy on your grandma from Poughkeepsie, either. Who knew?!

Without all the flowery, perfume-scented speeches seducing our better natures, so many of Obama's national security positions would be so close to President Bush's that Obama couldn't squeeze between them if he turned sideways, dropped his pack of Marlboros and exhaled.

Of course, the complete lack of anti-administration, anti-war, pro-civil rights protests this week won't have anything to do with Barack Obama being a Democrat. When Jesse Jackson and Tim Robbins don't march on Washington demanding that the president leave our Miranda rights alone, it will only be because they deeply, achingly believe in the bottom of their hearts that giving the FBI enhanced authority to question American citizens before reading them their rights is A-OK.

Now, most Americans probably have no problem with getting a little questiony with terror suspects before reading them their rights. But the left is supposedly dead-set against that kind of behavior even if -- sometimes, especially if -- it catches bad guys. It will be interesting to see how the liberals react to Holder's attempt to get Congressional permission to expand the government's authority to question suspects before reading them their rights. After all, Bush went to Congress to get its permission for everything authorized by the Patriot Act, and even for enhanced interrogation techniques, but that didn't stop the left from saying those things were the start of a police state and the end of our civil rights.

If the Arizona immigration law initiates a police state complete with rampant racial profiling, why doesn't Holder's attempt to detain American citizens for questioning about terror-related activities without reading them their rights do the exact same thing?

Could it be that many on the left are more frightened by the notion of Republicans in office than they are by the prospect of losing their civil rights? In other words, it's OK to have a police state as long as there's a liberal in charge of it.

About the Author

Andrew Cline is editorial page editor of the New Hampshire Union Leader. His Twitter ID is Drewhampshire.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (30) | Leave a comment

Roberto Fahl| 5.10.10 @ 6:44AM

It makes no difference WHAT Liberal Socialists do, as long as they "feel" good about it. When they establish a fascist POLICE STATE, complete with their civilian goon squads, it will be okay because Liberal Socialist Democrats will be in charge! Now if it were Bush, well, the shoe would not fit. But Obama? No way to protest because he does it for the right reasons! The good of the people! Hail Obama! Amerika is Obama, Obama is Amerika! Today Amerika, Tomorrow THE WORLD!

Tom| 5.10.10 @ 7:15AM

I do not get the whole Obama eloquence thing. His speeches are filled with muttered ums and uhs. He seems cold and detached. I think the biggest myth of Obama is that he can carry a speech to unseen heights; he is mediocre at best.

Chalkdust| 5.10.10 @ 8:13AM

Congratulations Tom, you nailed it. The man is a uneducated (prove he's not) fool in all 57 states and without his telepromter he would be nearly mute.

Pete| 5.10.10 @ 10:03AM

It is the "extra cedit" this moron has been given his whole life for speaking the English language without a "negro dialect" as his colleague pointed out.

Old Joe| 5.10.10 @ 8:08AM

Tom,
I am with you brother. I think the favorable appraisal of Obama’s speech giving capabilities is just like the favorable appraisal of his intellect, the result of a publicity campaign. His speeches are full of inappropriate pauses and muttered mumbles while he tries to find his place on the teleprompter. He could never be in the same speech making category as Reagan, or for that matter Palin. And as for his intelligence, have we seen any of that displayed since he has been in office or even since he began campaigning. If he is such a genius why are all his records under seal? Is it because he doesn’t want to embarrass the rest of the world with his intellect or because he doesn’t want to embarrass himself? I will take a President with common sense and courage any day over a cowardly intellectual. Unfortunately, we have neither. Sarah Palin is the only one I see on the political trail that fits the profile of a real leader.

Christopher Holland| 5.11.10 @ 12:15AM

I have bookcases full of the speeches of Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan and after reading those, I think that anybody who claims that Obama is a great orator doesn't know his arse from his elbow. Compared to Churchill and Reagan, Obama is a pontificating windbag and a bore, he doesn't know Jack about what he is talking about and he lies like a pig in mud. As John F Kennedy said of Richard Nixon in 1960, he has no class. Churchill and Reagan would have have had to have their teeth extracted without painkillers before they would use an autocue, but the great Obama needs one to talk to grade school kids.

Obama is the most overrated mediocrity in living memory, he is a triumph of style over substance. And his style wears off really quickly when you think of the people he grovels too.

danny| 5.10.10 @ 8:20AM

Thank you Tom. Every time I hear what a great orator Obama is,I wonder what people are hearing that I'm not.

crookedwren| 5.10.10 @ 9:30AM

I don't hear it either, but my husband was forced to go to one of Obama's "town meetings" last year (IT'S A LONG STORY). Now I found that incredibly ironic. After only three weeks at a new desperation-times job, my husband -- a lifelong conservative's conservative -- would finally get to shake hands with a president -- and it would have to be THIS one.

(I was outside getting soaked with glorious patriots, singing God Bless America and such, holding signs protesting the man's policies.)

ANYWAY, to make a short story loooong, out of the many interesting observations my husband made, he also noted that Obama was quite charismatic in person. A looking at you in the eye. A personable quality.

But he also noted that that was never a quality spotted through a camera lens and television set.

Earlier, in O's campaign here in Bristol, while stumping for "change," the teleprompter went out. He started stumbling over his own words, scrambling to complete his thought. A child might be put on a "breathalizer," said the man who also asserted we have 57 states.

And he talks down to everyone!

Louis Jenkins| 5.10.10 @ 8:20AM

"Could it be that many on the left are more frightened by the notion of Republicans in office than they are by the prospect of losing their civil rights?"

What I find strange is the yelling over Republicans holding the office, then when a Democrat comes into it, why everything is just hunkey dorry. Have I missed something here? The Pretender n Chief is doing the same things as Bush was. Perhaps more. But now everything is just fine?

Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 5.10.10 @ 8:30AM

"Isn't this what Obama campaigned against? Isn't this the sort of thing he opposed,... when he preached that America could never compromise her principles?"

So far, the President has been very comfortable breaking most of his campaign promises, so why should this be any different? But what I don't understand is, didn't he apologize to the Muslim World, so why aren't they on board with him yet? Don't they just love him like we do too?

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.10.10 @ 8:45AM

No article of substance on Obama is complete without a quote from his teleprompter, who is also apparently running the nation.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.10.10 @ 8:45AM

No article of substance on Obama is complete without a quote from his teleprompter, who is also apparently running the nation.

Ken (Old Texican)| 5.10.10 @ 9:35AM

C'mon folks,
Please don't be side-tracked. Obama's speech making isn't what this article is about.

We know who and what Mr. Holder is.

We know what he does and has done...and not done. We know who hired him.
'nuff said.

Tom| 5.10.10 @ 9:52AM

Ken,
I agree with you that the main focus of this article is the Left's in general and Obama's in particular hyprocisy. However, I think it is important to squash the myth that has grown up around Obama and his supposed mastery of political rhetoric. Obama is an empty suit enflated by a fawning media and he desperately needs deflating,

Smith&Wesson; 40 ACP| 5.10.10 @ 9:46AM

Campaign promises are so yesterday. So is giving press conferfences.

Ken (Old Texican)| 5.10.10 @ 10:32AM

On another thread here today, an obvious "fellow traveler" accused me of being paranoid and "scaremongering" I would reply with this in-depth article from National Review Online
http://article.nationalreview......ing?page=1

UpChuck.Liberals| 5.10.10 @ 8:25PM

And just what is wrong with being paranoid? These Sweet Ol' Boys don't exactly have our or our country's best interest at heart.

Christopher Holland| 5.11.10 @ 12:22AM

Being paranoid makes a lot of sense when there are people around who want to kill you so they can go to paradise with 73 black eyed virgins. How come liberals never see that ambition as mentally deranged?

Oldefarte| 5.10.10 @ 12:48PM

Everyone hopefully NOW understands that EVERYTHING that comes forth from the mouth of Obama and his administration [including Holder] is nothing short of BULLEXCREMENT/LIES/FALSEHOODS,etc; that in one way or another are designed to BRAINWASH the American public [similar to his trojuned-horesed political campaign disguising himself as a Democrat moderate, when in fact nothing could have been further from the truth]. WAKE UP, AMERICA, WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!

Curious| 5.10.10 @ 1:17PM

So he's just like Bush. Isn't that a good thing?

Gr0w1er| 5.10.10 @ 1:42PM

Great. The Global War on Terror is now being directed by Otis B. Driftwood and carried out by Barney Fife.

It's The Constitution, Stupid| 5.10.10 @ 2:18PM

RE: "Holder actually said Congress has to pass a law to amend Americans' constitutional protection against self-incrimination because 'we're now dealing with international terrorism.' "

Holder wants Congress to "amend" protections provided under the Miranda rule for Americans' Constitutional rights because it's necessary to fight international terrorism? Did Holder actually receive a law degree from a law school, or did he just make it all up? Since when did Congress have the authority to "amend" any protections of our rights under the Constitution? At best, Holder graduated from the night-school of legal confusion run by Homeland Insecurity Secretary Napolitano. And Holder should know better than to use that totally insensitive, bigoted phrase "international terrorism" in today's enlightened world of man-made disasters and overseas contigency operations. For shame.

Jim O'Brien| 5.10.10 @ 2:21PM

Translation: Obama told Holder that they need to create the appearance of being tough on terrorists, at the risk of losing control of Congress and later the White House. It isn't just conservatives (like me) who want more terrorists killed faster; a majority of the voters want the same thing.

Similarly, a majority of voters want ILLEGAL immigrants to either accept the rule of law (including payment of taxes), go to jail, or leave the United States. Maybe the Acorn Administration and our Congress-morons will eventually get a sense of the widespread public outrage. If they don't, then they will be sent packing in the next election.

Christopher Holland| 5.11.10 @ 12:24AM

Another translation: Obama told Holder he is going to have his butt whipped in November until it bleeds white.

Anthony| 5.10.10 @ 3:37PM

Can you believe it, somebody forgot to get the memo to the Taliban and al Qaeda that Obama is the chosen savior of the Muslim world?? Louie Farrakan told us so!!!
Why these 7th century ingrates, don't they know that Allah's favorite, The One, The Obama, plans on finishing the job they started against America?
Geez guys,what's the rush? Park your camels, have a good prayer session, Obama's on the case, Inshallah!!!

JJ| 5.10.10 @ 5:00PM

those american hikers are HOSTAGES. if Bush was president the media would be SCREAMING about it. but they won't make a big deal about hostages in iran so long as Obama is president. they don't want to give him a hard time about anything.

J.P. Travis| 5.10.10 @ 7:26PM

I think the only way to explain the divergence between what the Obama Administration does and what his adoring supporters THINK the Obama Administration does, is by the well-known phenomenon of mass hysteria. That's less depressing as an explanation than mass stupididy, right?

Boris K| 5.11.10 @ 2:05PM

What's this about Hussein being a great speaker? He reads off teleprompters!

jann| 5.11.10 @ 9:37PM

I don't think the Miranda rights discussion is about the terrorists.......they want to hold US if we speak out about the government. The first thing they declared was that we were the terrorists and they were the overseas contingency plan. Who do you think they want to hold indefinitely. What did Urkel say this weekend, there's too much info out there with all those pesky gadgets. This country is changing overnight we better stop this crap REPUBLICANS! Oh but they're the same as all of the rest of them. Look what they're doing with the bank reform bill, they're mad about Bennett and they voted for the bill. Once a progressive always a progressive.