do they deserve miranda warnings and do they get this? of course not. what has changed. the battlefield of detainees will hamper the intelligence gather of the war on terror. even though the new approach is something founded and intended to preserve a federal court criminal prosecution. which is not necessary, because we have used the commission for battlefield captures. under the obama global justice initiative approach, even capturing high-level al qaeda operatives advise they be silent. and this has an adverse effect, and the red cross has advised the detainee, take the option and request a lawyer. and a detainee has requested a lawyer than talking. and the american people have remained in limbo whether the detainees from guantanamo will be transferred to the united states, and we got a letter last night finally on that. and the solutions that i think are dangerous. in march you said some detainees could be released in the united states. and a few days later the director of national intelligence expanded that some sort of public assist

lungren made about the miranda rights of prisoners. prior to 9/11, america generally treated acts of terrorism as breaking the law. the case in point, the 1993 bombing of the world trade center or the u.s.s. cole. these were not seen as act of war. therefore the perpetrator of those crimes got lawyers. they had miranda rights. they had all the courtesies of the u.s. government, the u.s. justice system. that is not what we need to be doing right now. after 9/11 we realized that these acts of terrorism weren't just technical but strategic acts of war and therefore we have moved over to let's treat soldiers as they are. war criminals. mr. lungren mentioned the assassins of abraham lincoln were tried by a military tribunal. it's the same situation when president roosevelt was president. we found six nazi spies onlyly -- on long island. and i believe five of them were executed, a sixth one cooperated. it was all through a military tribunal. what is it that president obama sees that president lincoln and president roosevelt and really all ou

rights to the high value presidents, this is now a common practice, to read them the miranda rights, this is a policy change -- policy change that shows that the administration has changed in the orientation that comes from fighting and the law- enforcement with the use of miranda rights. can you comment on that? >> i would need more information. >> is this true? >> i have no reason to disbelieve a member of congress, but i do not know the examples. >> would it be surprising that -- would this be surprising that this was happening? >> it would not be surprising to me but i would need more information to talk about what the congress -- with the congressman has seen. i do not know if he saw the general. i am have been to look at whatever information is coming through, and i hate to speculate on the sentences off of the report. >> when you said this would not come as a surprise, what do you mean? >> i am not surprised by this. >> you are not saying that this is being used? >> i feel like you should be reading me my rights. that is why i hope to get my lawyer. i am happy to look at what

the administration's new miranda approach will inevitably hamper intelligence gathering in the war on terror, even if the new approach is something found it and intended to preserve -- something founded and intended to preserve criminal court prosecution, which is not necessary, because we could use and is shortly have used military commissions for battlefield captures. under the obama administration's global justice initiative approach, even captured high level out qaeda operatives may be advised that they may remain silent and seek counsel before talking -- even captured high level al qaeda i. yes. the international red cross has begun advising detainees, take the option. the weekly standard reported, "and at least one instance, a high level detainee has taken that advice and requested a lawyer." likewise, the american people remain in limbo as they have waited for your word about whether detainees at guantanamo would be transferred into the united states. i think we got a letter from you either last night or this morning on that, finally. the solution that you have suggested, the s

are marines on the way to afghanistan being taught miranda speak? >> not that i know of. you've raised a question in my mind, if someone knows something i don't know. but we have had no such indication there's changes to rules of engagement. it's been a while since i've been there, it's been about six days since i talked to my commander there, but that'll be a question i ask him today or tomorrow. >> we are almost out of time. before i ask the last question, we have a couple of important matters to take care of. first of all, let me remind members of future speakers. on june 25, scan casston, president 240e6 washington nationals will be here. on june 26, robert heard, chairman of the financial accounting standards board will address regulatory reform in the financial markets and on july 1, wayne klo, secretary of the smithsonian institution will address the luncheon. second, i'd like to give our guest the traditional n.p.c. mug. you should have a matched set. >> i do. [applause] >> and for our last question, what would you tell the parents of an 18-year-old who wants to b

i do not think that soldiers are giving miranda rights on the battlefield. i think that those captured in afghanistan and iraq are being held in afghanistan and iraq. there are some terrorists that have already been tried, convicted, and jailed in the u.s. in the parlance of suspected terrorists being brought here from guantanamo to face charges that he allegedly bought the materials to blow up our embassies in kenya and tanzania. host: indianapolis. independent caller. hello, there. caller: good morning. i was studying a doctorate in military history and i am dealing with academics in europe. when president bush was in office, they said that president bush was terrible because he would say -- he was a wild cowboy. eds now they say that obama is a groveling apologist. there are some people who are never going to be happy with this. other than style, what are the major differences between the current administration and the previous one? guest: in the foreign-policy i focus on, there is remarkable continuity between the last the destruction and this one on eve

miranda rights ordered to be given by the supreme court do not apply to the group of people who have a worldwide mission to murder in the name of religion who are captured by our military in afghanistan. never mind, say it the administration. enemy war combatants must be told you have the right to remain silent, you have a right to a lawyer. if you cannot provide a lawyer we will provide one for you. and anything you say will be used against you. this new policy is misguided. never in history have captured war combatants overseas have been treated by such an overflow of privileges. they have been dealt with by our military, especially regarding interrogations. but now i guess we are changing all that, but that ought not to be. i guess next we will have a whole battalion of lawyers going into the battlefield to tell our troops if and when they can shoot back. have we gone a bit too far? and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from florida, for what purpose do you rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to re

forces that when they are on the battlefield instead of shooting they should pull out their card with miranda warnings to make sure that if the person they are encountering is captured they have to give them those rights? how about preserving the crime scene? this is nonsense. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the american clean energy and security act of 2009. i had the opportunity to visit a factory two weeks ago in my district. they are hiring 400 people to make solar panels. they are exporting some of those solar panels to china. when we talk about an economic recovery and getting our economy going, renewable energy is going to be one of the most important growth sectors to do that. the american clean energy and security act will save families money. a new study shows that the average family will save $750 a year within 10 years on their power bills monty and almost $4,000 over 20 years. the incentives and hel

justice marshall blocked the giving of miranda warnings. "do these folks deserve marin the warnings? do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter? of course not." what has changed in three months. the new approach to battlefield the city's -- battlefield detainees is founded on and intended to preserve the federal court of criminal prosecution, which is not necessary as we have used military commission for battlefield captives. under the obama administration's global justice initiative, even high level al qaeda operative this can be advised to remain silent and seek counsel before talking. apparently this has already had an adverse effect. the red cross has advised detainees to take the option. "the weekly standard" reported "in at least one instance, a high level detainee has taken the advice and requested a lawyer." likewise, the american people remain in limbo about whether detainees from guantanamo would be transferred into the united states. the solution you have suggested, i think it is dangerous. that no detainees could be release

i don't want to go all the way where they would have miranda rights. i would like to see something in the middle ground. i really do not support bush policy. on the other hand, i don't know if i am comfortable, but i would like to see them tried in court. i am not comfortable with them being housed in it united states. i would like to hear much more about how fdr in your program handled the situation. host: we can read a bit more from the washington post. you are talking about the executive approach, the alternative going to congress, will be painfully politically, the president can still get what he wants a detention if he works from congress in a bipartisan center. if he speaks often -- we will leave this now. president obama is coming to the podium. >> my administration mounted a sustained response for an economic crisis. even as we make decisive action to repair the damage to the economy we are also working to build a new foundation for a sustained and lasting economic growth. we know this will not be easy. this is a moment where we are called upon

we have to have a motion to recommit in order to discuss the issue of giving miranda rights to enemy combatants in foreign continents. that's what it takes. and that little window will be closed if it makes the majority uncomfortable. we don't get a debate on the very critical national security issue, mr. speaker, of the speaker of the house declaring the c.i.a. to be a group of if lone yuss liars and having lied to congress, the united states of america and then stated that she's going up to receive briefings after this. the united states of america's national security has to be at risk when the third person in line for the presidency declare ours intelligence community to be lying to congress. decisions get made, on this floor, in committee, behind the scenes, sometimes by staff, based on the allegations made by the speaker, the staff wants to please the speaker, the speaker is ducking the issue. we need to have a vote. i offered an amendment to get a vote on the c.i.a. we aren't going to get that vote because the rules committee shut it down. i offered an amendment that would also

regarding an apparent policy initiative by this administration to expand the practice of reading miranda rights to detainees in the custody of u.s. armed forces in afghanistan. it's called global justice. mr. rogers wanted to talk about that and offer an amendment whether we would pass it or not he had every right to do so. now mr. rogers and other members have legitimate concerns about such policies. he simply wanted the opportunity to offer his amendment and let the house vote. he complied with the printing requirement he testified late last night, sat up there late into the night, until 12:30 or 1:00 in the morning, testified at the rules committee and yet now he is unable to even offer this amendment that deals with the whole fundamental issue of the war on terror, what's taking place in afghanistan and all these issues. closing, this is a departure from the tradition of open rule theansd comity that has characterized the appropriations process over the years. if we can't even come up with a fair process to debate annual spending bills on this floor, how can we ever hope to ever, eve

record to prohibit any funds in this bill from being used by the department of justice to provide miranda rights to detainees in the custody of the united states military in afghanistan. house resolution 544, the original rule for consideration of this bill, limited amendments to those received for printing in the portion of the congressional record of june 15, 2009, or earlier, designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule 18. therefore under the terms of the house resolution 544, the original rule adopted for consideration of this bill, my amendment was in order to be considered during the amendment process in the committee of the whole. mr. speaker, it is my understanding that clause 2 of rule 21 of the rules of the house prohibits the limitation from being offered on an appropriations bill if it contains legislation. since my amendment did not constitute leng slating -- legislating on an appropriation bill my amendment would have been in order as a valid amendment during consideration of the committee of the whole. however the highly restrictive second rule that we operated under fo

imagine our shock after the president said he would not propose reading miranda rights as if they were shoplifters, that we find that they had sat down with the justice department and others and cooked up a plan called the global justice initiative. to change the priority from intelligence gathering on the field to law enforcement on the field. what does that mean? it means when they were picking up somebody on the battlefield in afghanistan after attacking say the 82nd airborne or putting i.e.d. to kill civilians or afghans or u.s. soldiers we are bringing back to a detention facility and they said we might want to prosecute that person in the future. sir, you have the right to remain silent. i cannot tell you how dangerous that is to our national security. it is not a law enforcement event. it's an enemy combatant event. the information that that individual has is perishable. maybe they are making those i.e.d.'s. maybe they are financing the networks that make those i.e.d.'s. maybe they are the ones planning the very next attack on u.s. soldiers. we need them to talk. we don't need t

and miranda right, you have the right to remain silent, you have the right to a lawyer. it's happening now. the worst part of this is that even the majority wasn't briefed either or if they were they're not talking about it. we had one opportunity to stand up today and say, enough. you can't criminalize the battlefield. we have f.b.i. agents who after our soldiers pick them up, after trying to kill members of the 82nd airborne or the 101 rt or our marines -- 101st or our marines, take them to a detention facility and read them their rights. they're nonunited states citizens, they're foreigners. we want the opportunity to tell america, we think that's crazy. you're going to tell a terrorist who just came off the battlefield that you have the right to remain silent. how much information will they not give that might save the life of one of our soldiers in afghanistan today? and the biggest trafficesty today ask you never gave us the opportunity to talk about it. to move the issue forward. we've had about three different opinions from this administration on if they are or a