Still Bananas Over Miranda

A few weeks ago, Mike Rogers was making the right-wing news rounds with dire predictions about the dangers of Mirandizing Afghan detainees.

More recently, Mr. Rogers has been spreading the "news" in the local media, like WHMI and the Press & Argus.

"As an American citizen, it chills my blood to think that these foreign fighters from other nations who enter Afghanistan to kill our soldiers and allies are being given the same rights as American citizens accused of a crime," Rogers said in a statement.

CQ Politics' Jeff Stein was intrigued by this story of chilled blood (not to mention the chaos), so he talked with the Michigan Republican about his concerns.

Turns out that Mr. Rogers, on his most recent taxpayer-funded trip to Bagram Air Base, sat in on a meeting to which he had not been invited:

“I’m telling you, it was being implemented,” added Rogers, who slipped his minders at Bagram long enough to join a regular morning meeting of FBI, CIA, Defense Department and other U.S. agency personnel involved in interrogations.

“I saw it. I talked to people who were doing it,” he said.

(As Rhett Butler once noted, eavesdroppers often hear highly entertaining things...)

Stein interviewed some very credible people who were not going bananas over a policy which has been in place since 1998.

“Whether a person is Mirandized or not, he can remain silent,” Marion “Spike” Bowman, a former senior legal counsel to FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III , pointed out for me.

“Interestingly, with a good interrogator, most do not,” added Bowman, who was also at one time a legal adviser to the Navy’s elite counterterrorism unit, SEAL Team Six.

“A Mirandized person may be interrogated — whether he responds is a different matter,” Bowman said. “Some, in fact, related details that ratted out relatives. The Arab culture is not like ours and the ‘right to remain silent’ is not a part of their culture.”

FBI Director Robert Mueller wrote to Reps. Rogers and Wolfe (R-VA), stating that there has been "no policy change and no blanket instruction" issued for FBI agents to Mirandize detainees overseas.

For detainees held in military custody overseas, approval by the Department of Justice is required before Miranda warnings may be given. [skip]

There are cases in which FBI agents have provided Miranda warnings to persons captured and held overseas, at Bagram and elsewhere. In those cases, a determination was made that a prosecution in an Article III court may be in the interest of national security and that providing Miranda warnings (modified to take into account the overseas location of the detainee) was, therefore, desirable to maximize the likelihood that any resulting statements would be admissible at trial. In practice, Miranda warnings have been provided to Bagram detainees in only a small handful of cases out of over 4,000 individuals detained and interrogated by the FBI.

Faced with this, um, discrepancy between Mr. Rogers' allegations and statements by the Director of the FBI and senior DOJ officials, Stein asked the question that so many media types have been dodging:

I asked the former G-man if he was calling the head of the FBI a liar.

He paused.

"I don't know what Mueller's doing," he said. "There's certainly a contradiction between this and what Mueller told me."

If things are really as bad as this self-styled national security expert (and former FBI Guy) says, shouldn't he be leading a House investigation instead of playing games with nonsense amendments?

If It's On Fox, It Must Be True!

The FauxNews machine is working overtime to promote Mr. Rogers' recent trip to Afghanistan.

According to Mr. R., the Obama administration is "creating chaos in the field among the CIA, FBI and military personnel" by "quietly ordering the FBI to start reading Miranda rights to suspected terrorists at U.S. military detention facilities in Afghanistan."  

[It would be interesting to determine the amount of time Mr. Rogers spends "in the field" relative to "inside the gates of Bagram Air Base."]

Chaos in the field?  That's a pretty serious statement.  

Yet U.S. military commanders told Fox that soldiers aren't Mirandizing anyone, and a DOJ spokesman stated that

"There has been no policy change nor blanket instruction for FBI agents to Mirandize detainees overseas," he said in a statement, adding, "While there have been specific cases in which FBI agents have Mirandized suspects overseas, at both Bagram and in other situations, in order to preserve the quality of evidence obtained, there has been no overall policy change with respect to detainees."

It's worth noting that no other mainstream news source seem to be reporting this. Other than the usual suspects in the right-wing blogosphere, no one else is talking about it.  Some conservative bloggers are hedging a bit:  

More confirmation is needed before a general outcry takes hold 

Even The Weekly Standard has held off on a hissy fit: 

A lawyer who has worked on detainee issues for the U.S. government offers this rationale for the Obama administration’s approach. “If the US is mirandizing certain suspects in Afghanistan, they’re likely doing it to ensure that the treatment of the suspect and the collection of information is done in a manner that will ensure the suspect can be prosecuted in a US court at some point in the future.”

That's right, folks: evidence given under duress [i.e., torture] is inadmissible in a court of law. You can't prosecute the bad guys without evidence.  Ergo, all law enforcement professionals -- from local cops to the FBI -- know that they need to play by the rules when capturing and interrogating suspects or they risk letting dirtbags walk out of the courtroom.

Approaching terrorism as a law enforcement issue instead of a military issue isn't a new idea. The United States tried and convicted Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.  Abdel-Rahman was sentenced to life in prison and has been sitting in SuperMax since 1996.  The British, no strangers to fighting terrorism, have successfully prosecuted such cases through their court system for years.

Mr. Rogers once again turns to the emotional anecdote in lieu of sensible policy.  If he's genuinely concerned about troop safety and national security, and convinced of the facts, why isn't he shouting this from the rooftops instead of selectively whispering into friendly ears?  

UPDATE:  The American Prospect has a post on Gen. Petraeus' press conference, where he stated that 

"This is the FBI doing what the FBI does," Petraeus replied. "These are cases where they are looking at potential criminal charges. We're comfortable with this." He denied that his soldiers and other relevant American agents are reading Miranda rights to detainees, some of whom are detained as enemy combatants, while others are high-value anti-terror targets. (A U.S. federal court recently ruled that some Bagram detainees have the same habeas rights as prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.)

While it seems that Rogers (and the Fox News correspondent) are happy to play up fears that the Obama administration is soft on terror, Petraeus' didn't seem to concerned by the DOJ practice, which the DOJ denies began with the current administration. In another portion of his speech, discussing the comprehensive strategy launched against Al Qaueda in Iraq as an indirect model counter-terror operations in Afghanistan, Petraeus noted the importance of counter-insurgency amoung detainee populations and the need for releasing certain detainees to help win over the populace, noting that by the end of his time in Baghdad the recdivism rate among released detainees was a very impressive 1 percent.  [emphasis added]

General Petraeus says that his troops aren't Mirandizing detainees -- and he's not concerned about the FBI doing so.  Mr. Rogers says that IS happening.  Does that mean the four-star general is "soft on terror," or does that mean the congressman is a manipulator "misinformed"?

Your Turn, Mr. Rogers

During the recent House Energy & Commerce committee debate on climate change legislation, Mike Rogers energetically offered up an amendment to tie U.S. adoption of cap-and-trade carbon policy to similar action by China and India. 

His amendment would allow the U.S. to get out of the cap-and-trade plan if India and China -- two of the world's biggest sources of greenhouse gases -- did not agree to similar limits.

From Bloomberg:

The provision focusing on China and India, offered by Republican Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan, would have allowed greenhouse-gas emission limits in the U.S. only if those two countries adopted standards that were “at least as stringent.” The committee rejected the proposal on a 36-23 party-line vote.

Fred Upton also chimed in:

 "If we don’t demand that they have the same kind of criteria that we do, we’re going to see those jobs go,” Upton said. “We can put a gun to China’s head” to push them to adopt pollution limits, he said."

Well, it looks as though guns won't be necessary.  The lead story in today's NYT Business section?

China Is Set to Plan Strict Gas Mileage Rules

Yep, China is getting ready for standards even stricter than those proposed by President Obama, including improving fuel economy an additional 18% by 2015.  On top of that, 

Cars with small fuel-sipping engines are now subject to a 1 percent sales tax, while sports cars and sport utility vehicles with the largest engines are subject to a 40 percent sales tax. Stricter fuel economy standards have won support from four interest groups within the Chinese government, said a Chinese government official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue.

It's clear that we need to seriously address global warming. in addition, there are some pretty compelling economic reasons for the United States to lower its greenhouse gas emissions. It will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, an idea that so excited Mr. Rogers that he made an animated video.  Increasing competitiveness for U.S. companies? Ditto.

While Mr. Rogers gets a point or two for actually doing some Congress-type work while he's in Washington (as opposed to enforcing the party line and hosting GOP fundraisers), it would be great if he accomplished something that would help the state of Michigan.

Just Plain Wrong

As regular readers may have guessed, I disagree with Mike Rogers on a wide variety of issues. Many of these are differences of opinion on things like government transparency, civil rights, fiscal responsibility and science-based public policy.

In today's Press & Argus, though, I read a letter to the editor that transcended politics. After losing her mother to pancreatic cancer, the writer went to D.C. as a volunteer for the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network. She met with Mr. Rogers (and his health legislative assistant) to urge his support for H.R. 745, the Pancreatic Cancer Research and Education Act.

This should have been a no-brainer for Mr. Rogers, who not only loves the emotional connection of a good story but has also been active in specific health care issues. Alas, it seems as though Mr. Rogers wasn't paying attention:

After many follow up e-mails and phone calls, Congressman Rogers has not yet co-sponsored the bill, and I thought his constituents might be interested in some of the legislation he has felt compelled to co-sponsor, as listed on his Web site:

H.R. 970: Expressing support for designation of June 30 as National Corvette Day.

H.R. 142: Expressing the sense of the Congress that there should be established a National Pet Week.

H.R. 225: Congratulating Tony Dungy, a native of Jackson, for leading the Indianapolis Colts to victory in Super Bowl XLI.

H.R. 1059: Congratulating the Adrian College Bulldogs men's hockey team for winning the Midwest Collegiate Hockey Association regular-season title and postseason tournament and for having the best five-year win-loss record in Division III.

HR 325: Commending the Michigan State University Spartans men's hockey team for their victory in the 2007 NCAA championships.

H.R. 745 was introduced by RogersPal Anna Eshoo (D-CA) and has 139 co-sponsors -- both Democrats and Republicans (including fellow GOP Michiganders Candice Miller & Thad McCotter).

Mr. Rogers has worked with Ms. Eshoo on many occasions, including a bill to block a decision by the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) to control coverage of a specific drug used to treat anemia in cancer patients. To clarify, this bill was actually a Congressional Review Act joint resolution, "a rarely used mechanism for overturning executive branch regulations."

Clearly, Mr. Rogers isn't afraid to micromanage. So why no support for H.R. 745?

Is it because Mr. Rogers has avoided pretty much any sort of legislative effort this term? (He has been rather busy with GOP fundraising and party discipline, though.)

Is the bill just some pork-packed government spending spree?

Hardly.

Among other things, H.R. 745 would require the Secretary of HHS to develop an interdisciplinary committee to establish research objectives, provide a strategic research plan, and evaluate NIH research grants. The bill would also require the NIH and CDC to create a communications toolkit for patients and their families. The Congressional Research Service summary has all the specifics.

The writer's pain and sorrow -- too familiar to all of us who have lost relatives and friends to cancer -- is joined by her frustration. She traveled to Washington as a citizen advocate, a volunteer who hopes to help other families fighting this deadly disease. Her "representative" still hasn't co-sponsored the bill, deciding for whatever reason that it wasn't worth the bother... unlike National Pet Week or National Corvette Day.

Now that her letter has made the local paper, though, it will be interesting to see if Mr. Rogers changes his tune.

Attack of the Attacks!

Poor Mr. Rogers.  

He's been under attack -- unfair attack, no less! -- for his votes in Washington. 

He's been "unfairly attacked" by the League of Conservation Voters, who disagree with his stance on carbon cap-and-trade; the "League's attack takes the low road" according to a supporter.

His press secretary primly noted that "Partisan attack ads can't change facts."

Mr. Rogers has also been "unfairly attacked" over $800,000 earmarked for a local private university.

The good news: he has plenty of mouthpieces friends who will leap to his defense, regardless of the facts.

An editorial in the Press & Argus argued that anyone who saw a contradiction in Mr. Rogers' insertion of $17.6 million worth of earmarks and his subsequent vote against said bill was just being silly, or partisan, or something.

The same editorial allowed the university president to "calmly explain" the need for a $475K geothermal retrofit of the school's racquetball court.*  It's a fairly reasonable explanation; turns out that it isn't just for the racquetball court and the entire project is also depending on $3 million in private donations.  

Funny how Mr. Rogers assumes that projects in other states haven't any reasonable explanations, and thus are worth attacking based on a headline.  

*It would have been interesting for the editor to follow up on the university president's assertion that his institution is competing with "community college and state universities that are awash in public funding."  I'm sure that Mary Sue Coleman (U of M), Lou Anna K. Simon (MSU), Timothy R. Meyer (OCC), Brent Knight (LCC) and their other Michigan higher ed colleagues would beg to differ with that description...  Here's a breakdown of Rogers' earmarks for private and public institutions in the 8th Congressional District.  

 

Pollution and Unemployment: OK by Mike

Here in The Neighborhood, we've already noticed that Mike Rogers has been pretty vocal about his dislike of reducing greenhouse gases.  

Using the GOP playbook phrase "cap and tax" to argue that cap-and-trade carbon policy will hurt Michigan's economy, he's downplayed the real gains that can come from this market-based approach to pollution reduction.  

He also thinks that American manufacturers don't have the skills to step up and meet the opportunities of renewable energy technologies.  

Well, we're not the only ones who are underwhelmed by Mr. Rogers' pronouncements of doom.

Starting tomorrow, the League of Conservation Voters will air ads in the Lansing area critical of Rogers' opposition to the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.  

“Reps. Blunt and Rogers have made it clear they are siding with Big Oil and saying no to millions of new jobs and no to making America a global leader on clean energy,” said League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinksi. “Why do they seem to have such little faith in American ingenuity and know-how?” 

That's a pretty good question.

If Mr. Rogers' loyalties lie with his district (not to mention his state and his country), he'll stop his knee-jerk "no" responses and work to enact legislation that can help our nation.  

If his loyalties lie with the GOP leadership, Mr. Rogers will keep on fundraising, party-building and wagging his finger at empty rooms.

We'll see what choices he makes in the weeks and months to come.

Is it the Good Russia, or the Bad One?

Mr. Rogers recently returned from his spring break visit intelligence trip to Russia with some amazing news:  they have a better business plan than we do.

"Why is it I had to go all the way to Moscow to hear a good idea on turning the economy around?" Rogers said.

Hmm.  A quick Google search of "Russian economy" shows a country facing slumping oil prices, an overvalued ruble, a central bank rate of 12%, a 13.5% inflation rate, and international currency reserves that have plunged by $200 billion in just six months.  

Perhaps if Mr. Rogers had spent a bit more of his time in Washington listening -- rather than reflexively saying no to protecting children from tobacco and reducing carbon emissions -- he wouldn't have had to go all the way to Moscow. 

 

Russia didn't receive the same admiring words from Mike Rogers last month, though, when he co-signed a letter criticizing President Obama's attempts to engage Russia in preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons:

Over the last year, as you know, Russia has pursued a divisive policy to re-exert its Soviet-era sphere of influence. During this time, Russia invaded Georgia, intimidated other nations from joining NATO, and threatened to target Eastern Europe with nuclear missiles should the proposed European missile defense sites be built. Further, amidst a global economic crisis, Russia has disrupted shipments of natural gas to Europe for the second time in three years. Most recently, Russia used financial incentives to persuade Kyrgyzstan to deny the U.S. access to its Manas military base in order to support coalition operations in Afghanistan.

Does Mr. Rogers really think that this is a country we should emulate?

Whoa there, Washington Waste Watcher Guy!

Mr. Rogers is Concerned About Waste.

He was in Lansing yesterday for the MI tea party festivities.

He's set up a "Washington Waste Watch" website to track how tax dollars are being spent, and issued this statement:

“Republicans and Democrats have spent recklessly in the past, but now the problem is worse than ever,” Rogerssaid. “The federal deficit has ballooned to more than a trillion dollars. It is irresponsible and will ensure that our children and grandchildren have a huge debt to pay to countries like China.”

Rogers, who also will address a Lansing “Tea Party” today organized to protest out-of-control spending and taxation, highlighted the long history of poor spending decisions made in Washington.   “For too long, we have watched as our money was wasted on bridges to nowhere, a hippie museum in New York, or an indoor rainforest in Iowa,” Rogers said. “We need an open, honest debate about how much money Washington should take in taxes, how much money Washington should borrow in our name and just how that money will be spent.”

Sounds good... except for a few picky details:

1.) "Republicans and Democrats have spent recklessly in the past." 

Mr. Rogers is now serving his fifth term in Washington -- so that pretty much disqualifies him from using the passive voice and the third person, as if he had nothing to do with it.  

2.) "For too long, we have watched as our money has been wasted on bridges to nowhere"  

Mr. Rogers is welcome to mock other representatives' requests for "hippie museums" as long as he remembers that he personally asked for $17.6 million worth of earmarks -- including "wood utilization research" and $475,750 for a private university's recreation center.   

On his website, Mr. Rogers conveniently ignores his own earmark requests, and instead singles out a $550,000 project in Pawtucket, RI as an example of silly spending.  Unsurprisingly, Mr. Rogers chose to steal a headline without reading the rest of the article.  What did he miss in his froth of indignation?  

Michael Cassidy, the city planning director, said the money is for shovel-ready projects and the city is ready to go on both the skateboarding park and work on the athletic courts. A bid request has been issued seeking a contractor for the site, which takes in the three recreational projects, at Division and North Bend streets.

Cassidy said the stimulus will allow Pawtucket to forge ahead with more work than expected over the summer, giving jobs to construction workers. He estimated 30 to 40 workers on the projects, which includes subcontractors the contractor hires. He predicted a ripple effect: those working on the projects will buy lunch at local eateries and have their cars repaired at local service stations, and the contractor will buy materials, from lumber to basketball nets and fencing.

Ronald L. Wunschel, the city’s finance director, said people have sought for years to have a safe skateboard park so that young people don’t skate on other public property.

It will be an outdoor park, so it can’t be used in bad weather, Cassidy said. It won’t require staffing because the design –– size of ramps, etc. –– meets standards set by the insurer, the Rhode Island Interlocal Trust. The major work is expected to start when school ends and finish around Labor Day.

Hmmm.  Doesn't sound quite so wild-eyed anymore, does it?  

3.) "The Federal deficit has ballooned to over a trillion dollars" 

Yes, it certainly has.  I don't know anyone who is happy with this, Republican or Democrat.   But while Mr. Rogers has fun stomping his feet and hanging out with the Obama-hating Teabag gang, he'd do well to remember what has happened in Washington since he was first elected in 2000:

And here is a report from the Bureau of Public Debt of the annual federal debt outstanding at the end of the last 8 federal fiscal years:

09/30/2008    $10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007    $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006    $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005    $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004    $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003    $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002    $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001    $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000    $5,674,178,209,886.86

Hale Stewart sums it up nicely:

Republican/conservative rank and file are protesting because they are out of power and their leadership is terrible. But they aren't protesting spending; they are protesting the Democratic Party's governance. And that is fine. But please, don't tell me it's about spending or debt. If that were the case, you guys should have taken to the streets years ago.

Celebrities in Lansing!

The Washington Indpendent has a great article on today's Michigan "Tea Party."  It was a happening place -- not only was Joe the Plumber there, but Representative Rogers was, too!  Lots of photos, as well.  Enjoy.

Tobacco Road

Tobacco is bad for you. In 2009, there shouldn't be any debate about this statement -- but some Michigan lawmakers are taking issue with it.

Earlier this month, the U.S. House passed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (H.R. 1256). This bill gives the Food and Drug Administration regulatory authority over tobacco and tobacco products. In plain English:

The bill doesn't give the FDA power to ban existing tobacco products but gives the agency power to restrict sales on safety grounds. The FDA also would be able to stop companies from touting their brands as "low tar" and "mild" and restrict advertising to plain black-and-white ads. Health advocates say advertising restrictions are a key tool to keeping tobacco products away from children and young adults.

Supporters of H.R. 1256 included the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, and the American Cancer Society.

No prize for guessing how Mike Rogers voted... he was one of the 112 members who thought the FDA had no business regulating tobacco.

Not only did Mr. Rogers vote against it, but he threw in four separate amendments to try and block it. All of them failed, largely because they were silly: the FDA couldn't regulate tobacco until the until the Secretary of HHS certifies that the FDA had "approved or disapproved" "all of the heart disease drugs... for the therapy of those in need," as well as "all pediatric cancer, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and human papilloma virus drugs."

All drugs? For someone who receives quite a lot of funding from the pharmaceutical industry, Mr. Rogers should know that there isn't an endpoint for drug development. There's always something in the pipeline; to say that "all" drugs must be approved or disapproved before allowing the FDA to do something sounds remarkably like Cinderella's stepmother -- setting an impossible list of chores as a condition of going to the ball.

When his "all or nothing" approach didn't work, Mr. Rogers tried the "fiscally responsible" gambit. He tossed in an amendment that would require the FDA to fund tobacco regulation exclusively from user fees, rather than "overburdening" the FDA's general fund. Sounds reasonable, until you learn that the bill uses general fund monies for only the first six months, then it rolls over to user fee funding. in addition, the money borrowed from the general fund would be paid back from money collected in user fees.

A Lansing State Journal editorial makes an important point:

This isn't about partisanship. Michigan Republicans Vern Ehlers and Dave Camp said yes in the final vote on the FDA bill... [skip] And Mike Rogers could have backed the FDA bill as a step in the right direction, once it was clear his own alternative would not pass.

Cigarette smoking is responsible for roughly 1 out of every 5 deaths in the U.S. each year. Here in Michigan, 21% of adults are smokers -- higher than the national average (19%). Michigan women are more likely to smoke than the average woman; Michigan's cancer rates for both men and women are also higher than the national rate.

The picture is even more grim for Michigan's kids. Our state is ranked 47th out of 50 in protecting children from tobacco. 18% of our high school students smoke. Smoking-related health care costs Michigan $3.4 billion each year. And the tobacco industry is spending $415.9 million in marketing right here in Michigan.

Why would any responsible adult think that all this was worth protecting?