there were no miranda warnings given. they went into interview him to determine whether, to gain intelligence about whether there was another bomb or another co-conspirator, where did he get the bomb, all of that information without the benefit of or without the miranda warnings. it had to be done very quickly because of the fact that he had been injured, was then in the hospital in the window of opportunity had to be undertaken very quickly but the fact remains as well later that evening he was mirandized, and went into the judicial system. i am not going to apply in one way or the other because i don't think it is my role to necessarily adopt the policy as to where the person goes. it is the other persons in the department of justice and elsewhere. >> truber implementer of that policy with respect to organization it is important role was to get a sense of what stage the policy, to what stage that policy has been developed and at what stage it first gets engaged. because if you are way down the road one way before the po

there were no miranda warnings given.they went into interview him to determine whether, to gain intelligence about whether there was another bomb or another co-conspirator, where did he get the bomb, all of that information without the benefit of or without the miranda warnings. it had to be done very quickly because of the fact that he had been injured, was then in the hospital in the window of opportunity had to be undertaken very quickly but the fact remains as well later that evening he was mirandized, and went into the judicial system. i am not going to apply in one way or the other because i don't think it is my role to necessarily adopt the policy as to where the person goes. it is the other persons in the department of justice and elsewhere. >> truber implementer of that policy with respect to organization it is important role was to get a sense of what stage the policy, to what stage that policy has been developed and at what stage it first gets engaged. because if you are way down the road one way before the pol

were his miranda rights violated? of course they were. >> he'll get due process. >> water boarding extracted a lot of very critical actionable intelligence from muhammad that is true. the other point about guantanamo bay being this big recruiting tool, first of all, they hit us on 9/11 before guantanamo bay even existed. secondly, the united states and the west continues to get hit by al qaeda terrorists even after obama said he's going to close it. >> hold on. can we -- [ all talking at once ] >> hold on for one minute. can we stay away from water boarding, please? these are the actions obama took that signaled the cia to back off. one, he restricted the cia's rendition to preempt terrorism. two, he closed secret interrogation center as broad. three, he banned water boarding. four, closing guantanamo. five, he ordered captured unlawful combat anne today be read miranda rights. six, he's trying ksm, khalid shaikh mohammed and other terrorists like abdul abdul an -- abdulmutallab. he issued no protests for italy for co

that is not just -- >> sean: not after he gives miranda rights to enemy combat tans.out of time

then he was given a miranda warning and a lawyer. not surprisingly, he stopped talking.ow did we get to this point? how did the obama administration decide to treat a foreign terrorist who had tried to murder hundreds of people as if he were a common criminal? on christmas day, the skies above detroit became a battleground in the war on terrorism. that day, the bomb being carried by abdul mutallab failed to detonate, thanks to the courageous action of the passengers and crew. nearly 300 lives were saved on the plane, and more lives were scared on the ground. -- worst bear on the ground. the government security system failed long before abdul mutallab boarded his flight to the united states. it failed when his visa was not revoked, even though his father had warned our embassy in nigeria about his son's ties to islamic extremists. it failed when the intelligence community was unable to connect the dots that would have placed abdul mutallab on the terrorist watch list. it failed when this terrorist stepped onto the plane in amsterdam with the same explosives used by the sh

instead reading him miranda rights and giving him a lawyer. as i said earlier, in my view the administration has on a number of instances struck the wrong balance over the past year between safety and civil liberties. its preference for prosecuting a terrorist like the christmas day bomber in civilian courts shows a dangerous preoccupation with prosecution over prevention just as its haasy decision to close guantanamo for safety over symbolism. whether it is guantanamo, interrogation memos or prosecuting terrorists in civilian courts, many of the administration's priorities in this fight appear to be dangerously misplaced. take the case of khalid sheikh mohammed. here's a man who admits to planning the most catastrophic terrorist attack in u.s. history. nearly 3,000 people dead on our own soil in a single day. yet once in court he will enjoy all the rights and privileges of an american citizen. classified information may be compromised as it has been many times before in such cases. the consequences are easy to imagine. trying k.s.m. in a civi

so we cannot have miranda warnings, minimization procedures and inspector general reports.this is not the time for the government to effect new barriers between the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. we understood that was a mistake before, nor is it time to read more bureaucratic red tape, new reporting requirements are unnecessary safeguards, which do nothing more than hinder the ability to thwart the next shooting, the next bombing, the next 9/11. we should use every lawful power, lawful power until we have to protect this nation. this war was declared by al qaeda and its terrorist allies long before september 11th, before guantÁnamo bay, guantÁnamo bay did not cause this terrorist attack. long before we invaded afghanistan, before the drone attacks, before the fall of saddam hussein. this is a war that began to take shape in the early 1990's when al qaeda attacked various u.s. facilities here and abroad. unfortunately, it is a war whic will continue i have to say for some time, for some years. and it is imperative that our intelligence and counterterrorism prof

they treat this fellow, reading him his miranda rights instead of getting an interrogation where we can get serious information. they didn't notify the other pilots. larry, did they do anything right is what i want to ask? this is a commander in chief who looks to me like he's not certain what to do when something goes wrong. he has to study it a couple weeks. we need better. >> larry: mark, how do you deal with the delicate balance between the constitution and rights of any individual, to presumption of innocence, the right to a lawyer and an imminent threat to the country? >> well, i don't think it's that delicate of a balance. we need to keep both things in full view. the reality is we can never compromise our values or beliefs in the service of fighting the war on terror. it's not an either/or proposition. it's a both/and proposition. we can uphold our ideals the same time we fight a war on terror. it's unfair to say president obama waited a week or nine days or however long to respond. did he wait a bit too long to give a public statement? yes. his agency was right on the money, ri

that was all gone out the window when he got read his miranda rights. >> this is worth further discussion and we'll do it next. >> iraq was yesterday's war. afghanistan is today's war. if we don't act preemtively, yemen will be tomorrow's war. that's the danger we face. >> senator joe liberman, chairman of the senate homeland security and government affairs committee on fox. anybody want to respond to the chaney comments? >> yes. or liberman. we already are in a war in yemen. we've got a lot of assets over there and predators and we're going to be more and more. i think the obama thing is speak softliers don't use a whole lot of rhetoric. but be pretty serious on the counter terrorist side. i'm pretty sure that the defense. and there is evidence in yemen they're doing a lot. they're having air raids on these al-qaeda bases on december i think it was 14th or no, 17th and 24th. those are american-staged. i mn, they may have been yemen airports but that was america at work. >> in nearly seven years the united states has been at warp in iraq, there's no al-qaeda influence in iraq or involveme

it immediately gives him a lawyer and miranda rights and shut him up. that is unbelievably irresponsible and almost criminal. >> according to reports, he is not shut up and is continuing to talk and give a valuable information. >> that is not what brennan said. >> he could shut up. >> this is not what we have had in the past, aailure to share intelligence. this was a failure, quite honestly, to integrate and respond to the intelligence and they did have. i think the sense of urgency was missing. i think it is important that we reenergize, -- that ate reenergi -- it be reenergized. but you never get the thread down to zero. you just cannot. obviously, you have a battle over privacy and security, and i think security is going to prevail . >> i spent a fair amount of time in northern ireland and they had british soldiers on every street corner, rooftops, looking out windows, and still the ira got through. >> we need an attitude adjustment. this is not a spectator sport where we sit back and watch and say, what is going on in yemen, afghanistan, iraq, what

. >> one thing, his miranda rights, we doesn't have to speak at all. >> he doesn't have to, and if hewants to engage with us in a productive manner, there are ways. >> why not treat him, you have the right as an enemy combatant, why not do that. and if he's got more intelligence about future attacks and you say there is a possibility of that, doesn't the president has the responsibility to do that? >> and the president has the responsibility and the intelligence talked about what is the best tools to use. and we looked at his case and will look at each case individually and proceed accordingly. >> tim, as this perkulates and in the papers, how will john be perceived by republicans? >> they are upset that they are not putting abdulmutallab in the enemy combatant system. he explained why to put him in the civilian courts and not so much why not the enemy combatant case, and what chris wallace was asking him. and there are arguments for labeling him as an enemy combatant that the republicans were making the programs today. i think there will be a lot back and fourth on that, and republic

i am confident it -- confident we can work the system to cut his miranda rights.e does not have to speak at all. >> there are certain things on the table. if he wants to engage with us and a productive manner, there are ways he can do that. >> why not treat him? you have the right to treat him as an enemy combatants? why not do that if he has more legible intelligence about the future attacks, doesn't the president had an opportunity to irresponsibility to do everything legal he can -- have a responsibility to do everything legal he can? >> in this instance, we felt the best way to address his case -- we will continue to look at each case individually and proceed accordingly. host: tim starks, as this story starts to percolate in the papers tomorrow, how will his comments be received are republicans? guest: they are already upset that they are not putting him in the enemy combat system. -- enemy combatant system. he explained why he put them in the civilian courts. he did not explain why not the enemy combat and kansant. there are arguments for putting him, labeli

this isn't a miranda situation with given full rights to a lawyer and saying don't say a word.we are giving you rights, privileges and immunities of an american citizen even though you aren't one and you planned evil intent for a lot of innocent people. this is beyond believe to me. i can't believe it. and i'm so grateful to the gentleman from from tyler, texas, because you are asking exactly the right question. is gitmo a recruiting tool or u.s. weakness? when you lawyer up and mir andize an actual terrorist in an act of war against america, you don't give them miranda. you interrogate them. why? because at the end of the day, will the american people be safer or will we be more at risk? closing gitmo, that location, moving it to thomson, illinois, it's still gitmo, did you gitmo north and that equals u.s. weakness and with that, i yield back to the the gentleman from from tyler, texas. mr. gohmert: it is weakness that gives a recruiting tool and the joy among jihaddist, we told them, close gitmo. it's a nice place if you're going to be held if you're a prisoner, we told them

saying we lost valuable intelligence by going in and saying you're entitled to a lawyer, read your miranda rights. you know, the white house heard that. i mean my sources tell me, i spoke with several yesterday, that inside the white house top advisors are saying we really node need to take a hard look at this. we're going to be seeing that as part of this broad review now of what the president is doing. obviously he's looking at intelligence failures but also just about the process in general. is that the right approach if this kind of thing ever happens again. >> schieffer: that's very interesting that that's what they're even wondering about in the white house. peter, i want to talk about this remarkable piece that you have coming out in next sunday's "new york times" magazine. about 9,000 words i think. you tell this... story about how a terrorism plot was... intelligence people thought it was for real. that somali group was coming across the canadian border on the day of barack obama's inauguration and planned to set off bombs on the washington mall. as late as the morning of the inau

debt he stopped cooperating once he had his miranda rights read to him. and once he had advisers to get him to seize answering questions. i have a different view from my friend from missouri, but i wanted to establish this on this man being a precedent. this is to clarify the record. he talked about a significant number of individuals and able to travel to our country because they are on the no fly lists as i understand it very few of those 400,000 would have been valid, kermit, visas. is that correct? >> that is correct but approximately 2% are in u.s. positions. there are a significant number that can come into the united states without a visa. >> that is an excellent point and it is of great concern to us for some time particularly when we are looking at individuals in great britain who may have dual citizenship in pakistan and england and maybe using one passport to travel to pakistan and their british passport to travel to our country. i realize it is an issue for another day but if it's of great concern. we have to -- >> we have to learn the lessons

so we cannot defeat al qaeda through half steps, miranda warnings, minimization procedures and inspectoreral reports. this is not the time for the government to direct new barriers between the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. we understood that was the mistake before. nor is it time to add more bureaucratic red tape, new reporting requirements are on necessary safeguards which do nothing more than hinder the ability to thwart the next shooting, the next bombing, the next 9/11. we should use every unlawful power and toole to protect this nation. this war was declared by al qaeda and its terrorist allies long before september 11th before guantanamo bay but guantanamo bay did not cause this terrorist attacks. long before we invaded afghanistan, before the drone at tax and the fall of saddam hussein this is a war that began to take shape in the early 1990's when al qaeda attacked various u.s. facilities here and abroad. unfortunately it is a war which will continue i have to say for some time for some years and it's imperative that our intelligence and counterterrorism professional

as senator lieberman said this man should be treated as an enemy combatant, not lawyered up with miranda rights. and third, the most cat troughic failure here, that of al qaeda. after 9/11, they're down to explosives hidden in underwear. we need to look at them and think about what they're thinking about their own failures. >> it's good news, then? >> the inability to pull this off. obviously, a much smaller plot than 9/11, is good news. i think the failure to connect is dots is significant because we're igt years up the learning curve since 9/11. there was an intercept of the yemeni-al qaeda leader talking about a nigerian that would be sent out. there was the suspect's father. and there was a visa that was issued. the people from the administration acknowledge that there's nothing in the way that the computer systems are put together that would do anything like a google search to connect these. you're only checked for a visa at the moment you apply. the second failure, a post afghanistan decision failure. which is that we recognize that the war has moved to afghanistan, the rationale t

a 50-minute interrogation, a decision made to give the christmas bomber the miranda rights and a civil trial. i only know press accounts. i do not have classified information on this individual. he was talking. there had to be a pause, and when he woke up, get a lawyer. understandably, the lawyer did what lawyers do. that is their job. i am not blaming the lawyers, but how we could have made a decision the way we did brings me to a larger issue. and that is the whole issue of the disposition of detainees. guantanamo bay, the trials, under what circumstances -- and it seems to me that the overall policy is so -- the word may be incoherent, but certainly not coordinated. i guess there is a more kind description. we now have kind of an ad hoc decision making as far as the treatment of detainees. we still have not resolve the issue of enemy combatants who we cannot bring to trial because of insufficient evidence, but yet, we know we cannot release them. we have learned that there is a certain percentage -- of various 10% to 20%, of detainees better back in the fight. including some in lead

. -- >> because you don't get timely intelligence when he's mirandaized. >> he has provided significant intelligence. >> we don't know that. that's what they say. then they say he clammed up. it doesn't matter. he should be in the hands of the military and then after the military is through with him, if you want to debate where he should be tried, that's fine. but they pull him off the plane and they put him into a federal detention center right away. it doesn't make sense. >> he violated u.s. law. we're not at war with nigeria. >> no, we're at war with al-qaeda and al-qaeda sponsored and trained him. come on! the president said yesterday we were at war with al-qaeda. he's an al-qaeda guy. you pull him out, you give him to the military. you aren't going to make sense if we're in a war and we need urgent information about people killing us, you don't put them in and give them a lawyer. i'll give you the last word. >> first of all, i think our legal system will work properly. i support mr. holder on that, but i also think that being at war with somebody requires more than some offhanded r

>> i take a look at this individual who has been charged criminally, does that mean he'll get his miranda warnings? does that mean the only kind of information we get from him is if he volunteers it? he's not a citizen of this country. he is a terrorist. and i don't think he deserves the full range of criminal protections of our criminal justice system as embodied in the constitution of the united states. >> what do you think about his point that he's making? are we missing vital intelligence from abdulmutallab on whether or not there are additional attackers that are out there? >> i think it is unlikely. supposedly he was speaking very freely for some time after his arrest. but what we know from the past -- for the bush torture program is that it yielded very little information, information it did yield was known to be highly suspect. but it is not really about the information that you get from special interrogations, a nice way of saying torture. it is also not about what rights he deserves. what is really the question is what rights we have to give people to maintain our credibility ar

so why is this guy charged as a criminal defendant, now as a public defender, has been read his mirandanger cooperating when we heard in the immediate aftermath that he was providing all kinds of information as well as claiming there was a long line of terrorists waiting to come attack the united states as well. he could have been charged as an enemy combatant and continue to be interrogated. that seems to go against the president saying we're at war with al-queda. >> one last thing, something important for a change. did you watch the game last night? >> i watched the first half. i was totally into the game, in fact, i said to my wife before the game, the buildup on abc was so exciting. i said i think my heart is going to explode this is so exciting. i gotta say a lot of air went out of the balloon. >> i felt bad for him. i really did. seems like such a nice kid, you know. >> and also, frankly, selfishly i think it would have been a better game with him in there. i'm not sure texas still would have won. we have not talked since a week ago when you were the star. i mean, forget the playe

. >> suarez: quickly before we go, who is the petitioner, the miranda, the roe, who is the case built around, who is the person they're going to court in favor of? >> well, there are two couples who are plaintiffs in this case. one is a female couple who live in berkeley and have four children. and the other is a male couple who are from southern california and, you know, they have decided they're willing to be the public face of this case that is controversial and may take several years to unfold, but they are definitely willing plaintiffs. >> suarez: margaret talbot of the new yorker, thanks for joining us. >> thank you. >> ifill: for the other news of the day, here's hari sreenivasan in our newsroom. >> sreenivasan: senate majority leader harry reid defended his record on race today and his relations with president obama. the nevada democrat apologized over the weekend for remarks about then-candidate obama in 2008. according to the new book "game change," reid said the illinois senator could be elected because he was a "light-skinned" african-american "with no negro dialect, unles

pete williams tells me the justice department says that this guy talked for 30 hours, waived his mirandas, and then gave a bunch of evidence. so, they've got a lot of strong evidence. but you know, a plea deal -- the trick here is, would this suspect expect to accept a plea deal? he may want to go to trial for the publicity. so, it's a tricky situation. >> ah, the martyr thing. >> yeah. >> okay, but if he gets a plea deal, what does the u.s. government get out of it? gets all the information and gets the direct sort of path back to the genesis of all this, the leaders? >> yeah. i mean, usually, there has to be a bargain for exchange, and here the exchange would be some sort of less severe sentence in exchange for information. but remember, alex, the goal here is to put this suspect away for the rest of his life. so, there's not going to be a lot of leeway on the side of the government in terms of offering a lighter sentence. >> okay. now, this is the son of a prominent nigerian banker, and i understand that the family brought in a couple of lawyers to observe, but what about official rep

we're going to continue to be able to work the system and see whether or not -- >> chris: once he has mirandaights he doesn't have to speak at all. >> he doesn't have to, but he knows certain things are on the table. if he wants to engage with us in a productive manner, there are ways he can do that. >> chris: but why not treat him -- you certainly had the right, still have the right to treat him as enemy combatant. why not do that? if he has more actionable intelligence about future attacks -- and you say there is a real possibility of that -- doesn't the president have a responsibility to do everything legal he can to get that information? >> the president has a responsibility and the department of justice makes determinations about what is the best tool to use. in this instance, we felt as though the best way to address mr. abdulmutallab's case. we'll continue to look at each of the cases individually and proceed accordingly. >> chris: just briefly, what is the down side of treating him as an enemy combatant? >> there are no down sides or up sides in particular cases. what we're trying to

he says, he seems to think that it's better to lawyer up and read them these criminals their miranda won't be at war referring to mutallab on christmas day on the northwest airlines flight. do you agree first of all, with what voip dick cheney is talking about? >> well, the white house immediately shot back and says that president says we're at war. i think that vice-president has a point. if you're at war you don't treat hims a criminal defendant, you treat him as a combatant. when you get somebody on the battlefield you don't turn them over to a lawyer and say i'm not going to say anything. you put them in the hands of the cia and fbi and military interrogators and squeeze out information who they're associated with, who they know, what they know and what's coming next and try to get that information possible. but if you view it as a criminal justice matter, then you say well, we've got to urn it-- we've got to get them a lawyer and give him miranda rights and tell them they don't have to tell us anything. >> you know what democrats are saying about this of course, comparing what h

the weekend, it appears that it was ultimately the attorney general who made the decision to read mirandad place abdulmutallab in the court system. there is ambiguity to show just how this decision came to be maismed were there any deliberations or meetings that occurred prior to this decision? was the president brought into this discussion? all of these ambiguities need to be cleared up so that we do not make the same mistakes again. as a member of one of the committees charged with oversight of homeland security, i will be asking for a written response from the administration on this issue. additionally, because the heads of government agencies charged with making the decisions do not seem to be talking. i have joined with several of my senate colleagues to cosponsor legislation authored by senator collins and senator lieberman, the distinguished ranking member and chairman of the homeland security committee. this legislation would require the attorney general to consult with the director of national intelligence, the director of national counterterrorism center, the secretary of homela

when you indict him, immediately you read miranda rights, give him a lawyer and he stops talking. you can pursue a court action against this person later on if you want to, but right now the key thing is intelligence. when the president says, "we are at war," he needs to back it up with sense of urgency and instruct the people working for him they have to treat it like a war, including gathering all intelligence you can gather and question people such as the christmas bomber over detroit. >> chris: well, let me -- i'll bring in senator reed in a moment. let me follow up on the first part of your comments about a sense of urgency in terms of personnel, because the president talked a lot about accountability. do you feel, senator kyl, that either the homeland security secretary napolitano or michael leiter the head of the national counterterrorism center who went on the skiing vacation, or presidential advisor john brennan who said that leiter could go on the vacation, should any of them be fired? >> i think the president was right when he said, "the buck stops with me." the problem

a 50-minute interrogation, a decision made to give the christmas bomber the miranda rights and a civill. i only know press accounts. i do not have classified information on this individual. he was talking. there had to be a pause, and when he woke up, get a lawyer. understandably, the lawyer did what lawyers do. that is their job. i am not blaming the lawyers, but how we could have made a decision the way we did brings me to a larger issue. and that is the whole issue of the disposition of detainees. guantanamo bay, the trials, under what circumstances -- and it seems to me that the overall policy is so -- the word may be incoherent, but certainly not coordinated. i guess there is a more kind description. we now have kind of an ad hoc decision making as far as the treatment of detainees. we still have not resolve the issue of enemy combatants who we cannot bring to trial because of insufficient evidence, but yet, we know we cannot release them. we have learned that there is a certain percentage -- of various 10% to 20%, of detainees better back in the fight. including some in leadershi

a 50-minute interrogation, a decision made to give the christmas bomber the miranda rights and a civil. i only know press accounts. i do not have classified information on this individual. he was talking. there had to be a pause, and when he woke up, get a lawyer. understandably, the lawyer did what lawyers do. that is their job. i am not blaming the lawyers, but how we could have made a decision the way we did brings me to a larger issue. and that is the whole issue of the disposition of detainees. guantanamo bay, the trials, under what circumstances -- and it seems to me that the overall policy is so -- the word may be incoherent, but certainly not coordinated. i guess there is a more kind description. we now have kind of an ad hoc decision making as far as the treatment of detainees. we still have not resolve the issue of enemy combatants who we cannot bring to trial because of insufficient evidence, but yet, we know we cannot release them. we have learned that there is a certain percentage -- of various 10% to 20%, of detainees better back in the fight. including some in leadership

think if he gives terrorists the rights of americans, let's them lawyer up and reading them their miranda rights, we won't be at war. >> it's disappointing to me that either the vice president and others have willfully mischaracterized the president's actions. >> and the white house is pushing back on the notion that president obama is not agress siflg fighting the war in al qaeda. arguing that this white house has spent more attention and resources devoted to fighting al qaeda in afghanistan, pakistan and yemen than the previous one. robin. >> that's right, jake. as you said, the one area in the world under focus is yemen, the u.s. embassy has been closed over attacks of al qaeda. millions of dollars of aid to help fight terrorism. our senior foreign affairs correspondent martha raddatz is in yemen. >> reporter: good morning, robin, from sanaa, u.s. officials will not give us specifics as to why the u.s. embassy is closed for the second day in a row. security at the u.s. embassy, british embassy and other targets are tighter than others today with fears of a massive attack. it wouldn't b

mean, that kind of gets us into a different realm than the american citizen who isn't advised of his miranda warnings. >> what i want to get to is this blackwater case. a clinton nominee, the blackwater cases, the judge decided all the other crucial evidence and witnesses and so forth, all of that's tainted by exposure to the statements that were illegally obtained from the defendants. so the same could be true of khalid shaikh mohammed and the other four defendants. >> and do you have any idea what's going to happen in america if that ever comes to pass? there would be a revolution of the highest order amongst the people. these people who killed 3,000 of our citizens and i happen to have known one very well, young woman from milwaukee that was killed there, that this bomb is going -- this bum is going to walk and they're talking about the fact, well, he's going to be found guilty. well, they don't know that. and first of all, they shouldn't be making that statement to begin with. that's not what lawyers are supposed to do. but why they ever brought somebody who wasn't even in our country an

and it is clearly not a coincidence that abdulmutallab stopped cooperating once he had his miranda rights read to him. and once he had lawyers who advised him to cease answering questions. so i have a very different view from my friend from missouri on this issue, but i did want to establish some facts on jose padilla being a precedent. i want to follow up with another issue with mr. leiter that senator levin raised, and this is just to clarify the record. on the terrorist watch list that contains 400,000 names, you had an exchange, mr. leiter, with senator levin in which you and he talked about that potentially a significant number of those individuals would be able to travel to our country because they're not on the no-fly list or even the selectee list. but, in fact, as i understand it, and again i understand the actual number is classified but very few of those 400,000 would have valid, current visas. isn't that correct? >> that's correct, senator. but approximately 2% of the people who are in tide are u.s. persons. so clearly that's an issue. and also there's a significant number tha

seem to be hell bent on treating these terrorists like common criminals who need lawyers, who need miranda rights, who need a glass of water, maybe a latte, maybe tuck-down service in their room. >> oh, come on. >> we need to get real about this war, and it's not going to stop, and it's going to come at us in every way we can. jon: susan, it seems like these days not much happens in politics or a place like the white house without poll testing, trying a phrase out and seeing how people respond to it. do you think that that's what this white house did? with that particular phrase, war on al-qaeda? >> no. i think the president is just toughening his language because the circumstances call for tough language. and as i say, because he is trying to shake this bureaucracy and try to figure out how to get people to work together. i have to say on behalf of harvard law graduates everywhere the last time i checked, we were not running the war on terror, nor were we condemning it. and i think really the issue is is there more we can be doing? are there civil liberties concerns? tell us. i think most

a 50-minute interrogation, a decision made to give the christmas bomber the miranda rights and a civil know press accounts. i do not have classified information on this individual. he was talking. there had to be a pause, and when he woke up, get a lawyer. understandably, the lawyer did what lawyers do. that is their job. i am not blaming the lawyers, but how we could have made a decision the way we did brings me to a larger issue. and that is the whole issue of and that is the whole issue of the disposition of detaine and it seems to me that the overall policy is so -- the word may be incoherent, but certainly not coordinated. the we now have kind of an ad hoc decision-making as far as the treatment of detainees. we have not yet to resolve the issue of enemy combatants we cannot bring to trial because of insufficient evidence, but yet we know that we can not release them. we have learned there is a certain percentage that varies as much as 20%, depending on who you talk to who are back in the fight, including some in leadership role. doesn't this argue for congress and the administrat

national security out of a preoccupation -- a preoccupation -- with reading the christmas day bomber his miranda rights. apparently there is little coordination among the administration's national security apparatus on how to treat this terrorist who nearly killed 300 innocent people over detroit on christmas day. shockingly, the administration then made the hasty decision to treat him as a civilian defendant, including advising him of a right to remain silent rather than as an intelligence resource to be thoroughly interrogated in order to obtain potentially lifesaving information. republicans have issued a letter to attorney general holder demanding answers to some of the vital questions that arise out of the administration's handling of this attempted attack. it is critical that americans have a full and timely understanding of the policy and legal rationale upon which the ill-advised decision surrounding this narrowly averted calamity were made. until niece concerns are -- until these concerns are addressed, republicans will continue to raise them on behalf of the american people. mr. presid

debt he stopped cooperating once he had his miranda rights read to him. and once he had advisers to get him to seize answering questions. i have a different view from my friend from missouri, but i wanted to establish this on this man being a precedent. this is to clarify the record. he talked about a significant number of individuals and able to travel to our country because they are on the no fly lists as i understand it very few of those 400,000 would have been valid, kermit, visas. is that correct? >> that is correct but approximately 2% are in u.s. positions. there are a significant number that can come into the united states without a visa. >> that is an excellent point and it is of great concern to us for some time particularly when we are looking at individuals in great britain who may have dual citizenship in pakistan and england and maybe using one passport to travel to pakistan and their british passport to travel to our country. i realize it is an issue for another day but if it's of great concern. we have to -- >> we have to learn the lessons

. >> less than an hour, that's how long they interrogated a terrorist and he was given a miranda warning and lawyer and not surprisingly he stopped talking. ho did we get to this point? how did the obama administration decide to treat a foreign terrorist who had tried to murder hundreds of people as if he were a common criminal? and on christmas day the skies above detroit became a battleground on the war on terrorism. and that day the bomb being carried by abdul failed to detonate, thanks to the courageous action of the passengers and crew, nearly 300 lives were saved on the plane and more lives were spared on the ground. and the government's security system, a frontline in the war against terrorists failed long before abdul boarded his night to the united states. and it failed when his visa wasn't revoked. even though his father had warned our embassy in nigeria about his son's ties to islamic extremists. it failed when the intelligence community was unable to connect the dots. and that would have placed abdul from the terrorist watch list. it failed when this terrorist stepped on to t

al qaeda in yemen would be beneficial to us, but once he was put into the court system and given miranda rights, he stopped giving us information that could be valuable to us and make us safer. i think they have made policy decisions that were mistakes relative to our safety. i think it was a mistake to try khalid sheik mohammed in new york city. that said, he has also done other things. the administration has maintained some of the practices of the bush administration, which is a good thing, so, you know, i will leave that for others to assess. i do know this, i'm confident in saying after the attacks of september 11, president bush and and vice president cheney made us safer as a country. i want to make a point about being as bad as the current administration in congress, when republicans ran the mace, it's just not factually accurate. taxes were lower under president bush and the republicans in congress. democratic congress and this administration proposed to raise taxes on individual income, raise taxes on dividends, raise taxes on capital gains, raise taxes on health insurance benef

and indeed i'm told that with abdulmutallab, once he was mirandaized and received civil lawyers, that'swhat he did. he stopped answering questions. so my question for each of you, starting with you mr. leiter, is were you consulted regarding the decision to file criminal charges against abdulmutallab in front civilian court? >> i was fought. >> mr. blair, were you consulted? >> senator colin, i've been a part of the deliberations which established this high value interrogation unit, which we -- which we started as part of the executive order. as part of the decision to close guantanamo, that unit was created exactly for this purpose to make a decision on whether the -- a certain person who's detained should be treated as a case for federal prosecution or for some of the other means. we did not invoke the hig in this case we should have. frankly we were thinking more of overseas people and, duh, you know, we didn't put it in. and that's what we will do now and so we need to make those decisions more carefully. i was not consulted. the decision was made on the scene. it seemed logical to

. >> so he was never consulted ahead of reading him his miranda rights? >> i don't believe so. >> do you believe there was any information lost or any opportunity to gain valuable information may have been lost? >> i have not heard him say that. i don't know it to be the case. anything else? >> that's it. >> should we expect any sweeping changes on monday in the areas of particular interest that you may be able to point out? >> we have been leading a trail of bread crumbs over the past several years in terms of where the secretary was heading in terms of reforming the defense budget. you saw it in dramatic fashion last april when he announced the fy 10 budget proposals and i think you will see fy 11 continue to build upon the reforms and the rebalancing that was put forth in the 2010 budget. but i would urge you to stay tuned until monday afternoon. we'll have a full schedule for you. i think you will see him in the early afternoon with the chairman and likely the comp. controller to talk about the q. d.r. but i don't think there will be any surprises in

fighting terrorists is to get good intelligence on them, and you can't do that when you read them their miranda rights and tell them they don't have to say anything more and that you'll provide a lawyer for them. most important front in the war on terrorism, of course, remains the battle for afghanistan. several weeks ago the president announced that he would be deploying an additional 30,000 troops to finish the mission. i strongly support that decision, yet, i also worry that the president has set an artificial time line for withdrawing american forces and that that will impede our efforts. the president declared that withdrawal would begin no later than july of next year. i hope he's willing to embrace a more flexible time line. military decisions in afghanistan should be determined by conditions on the ground, not by the political climate in washington, d.c. mr. president, let me conclude by discussing briefly how domestic spending constrains u.s. global leadership. the u.s. commitment to afghanistan has been costly and it will continue to be costly, as has our effort in iraq. and that brin

instead, once he was read his miranda rights, given a lawyer at our expense, he was advised to cease answering questions and that's exactly what he did. that poor decision making may well have prevented us from finding out more of yemen's role in training terrorists and more about future plots that are underway in yemen targeting american citizens, in this country or abroad. good intelligence is clearly critical to our ability to stop terrorist plots before they are executed. we know that lawful interrogations of terrorist suspects can provide important intelligence. to charge abdulmutallab in the civilian criminal system without even consulting three of our nation's top intelligence officials simply defies commonsense. to correct this failure and to ensure that our nation's senior intelligence officials are consulted before making the decision to try future foreign terrorists in civilian court, i am today introducing a bill that would require this crucial consultation. i'm very pleased to be joined by the chairman of the homeland security committee, senator lieberman, who's been suc