Phil Mudd is a counterterrorism veteran of both the FBI and the CIA. As such, he's in a unique position to assess the claims of the administration and the Republican Party that mirandizing a terrorism suspect interferes with the gathering of intelligence or undermines public safety, and to judge whether gathering intelligence is somehow at odds with law enforcement's interest in prosecution. His conclusion is similar to that of representatives I spoke to, both from the ACLU and from the conservative Heritage Foundation--the fight over Miranda is a political one, and has no bearing on reality.
Washington officials make decisions all the time on whether a detainee is providing valuable intelligence. I sat at hundreds of briefing tables for nine years after Sept. 11, 2001, and I can't remember a time when Miranda impeded a decision on whether to pursue an intelligence interview.
Conversely, Miranda can be a tool that aids the acquisition of intelligence. Mirandizing a young detainee might prove to nervous parents -- say, from countries with fearsome security services -- that the rule of law applies in the United States and that there is incentive for their child to speak. In cultures with tight family structures, those parents could be the deciding factor in whether a young detainee talks.
Mudd did seem to agree with the idea -- put forth by Brookings Scholar Ben Wittes, that the requirement to present a suspect before a magistrate within 48 hours was a legit concern, writing that "these questions merit debate." But on Miranda itself, Mudd was clear. "The issue of Miranda may offer great political theater and great dramatic theater on TV," Mudd writes, "but theater isn't real life." Of course, what would you expect from lawmakers who draw their counterterrorism expertise from 24?
-- A. Serwer
