By Jeremy Pelofsky
Wed May 12, 2010 12:10am IST WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A plan by the Obama administration to propose new powers to interrogate terrorism suspects risks opening a debate on national security, which could backfire in an election year.
After two failed U.S. attacks that could have been deadly, Attorney General Eric Holder has opened the door to limiting the full legal rights that terrorism suspects enjoy, including the right to remain silent and having access to a lawyer.
Republicans and even some of President Barack Obama's fellow Democrats have condemned giving such so-called Miranda rights to terrorism suspects, saying it makes it harder to get vital intelligence.
While the administration has disputed that, Holder said on Sunday he was now open to "modifying the rules that interrogators have and somehow coming up with something that is flexible and is more consistent with the threat that we now face."
That went some way toward Republican demands for a tougher stand on terrorism, but the party was likely to push for still broader measures that could include holding military trials for suspects or creating a special national security court.
At the same time, Holder's remarks angered Obama's liberal backers. Some of them accuse him of failing to fulfill a campaign pledge to fully restore the rule of law in dealing with terrorism suspects after accusations of U.S. abuse of prisoners during the Bush administration.
This could lead to a debate on the critical issue of national security, in which Republicans traditionally have an advantage, as Democrats prepare face a stiff fight to retain control of the U.S. Congress in elections in November.
"The Republicans ... smell blood, if he's willing to do this, they'll beat him over the head," said Robert Goldman, a law professor at American University and co-director of its Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law.
"So he ends up with worst of all worlds. He's demonized by the Republicans ... and at the same time he loses the support of a good part of his base who won't be charged up to go out during the election," he said.
Republicans and Democrats in Congress have already forced Obama to reconsider plans to prosecute five men accused of plotting the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in a criminal court in Manhattan rather than in a special military court. Political obstacles are also delaying closure of the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba where some terrorism suspects are held.
REPUBLICANS SAY STRATEGY NEEDED
Republicans said intelligence may have been lost when the Nigerian accused of the Detroit attempted bombing was allowed to keep silent and have a lawyer. They said he was an enemy combatant because of apparent ties to al Qaeda militants.
Some also raised questions about Faisal Shahzad, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Pakistan, who was also given his legal rights after he was arrested for the Times Square incident and allegedly had ties to the Taliban in Pakistan.
In both cases, the White House has said that the suspects were first interviewed before they were given legal rights, to determine whether any other plots or threats were imminent, and that they provided useful information before and afterward.
A Justice Department spokesman declined to elaborate on Holder's proposal but Republicans were quick to seize on it.
"It's time the administration decides on a strategy that recognizes the implications of the war we're in and the dangers we face not only abroad but here at home," said Senate Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
One expert said the White House would have to shift course.
"They realize this issue isn't going to go away and they're likely going to have other instances in the future where they have to bridge the divide of intelligence gathering and making the case" to prove in court, said Juan Zarate, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Civil liberties groups, a key part of Obama's political base dismayed by the prospect of a shift, argued that further limits on legal rights of terrorism suspects would likely be unconstitutional.
"An exception to the Miranda requirement already exists, allowing for immediate interrogation to protect the public safety, and by all accounts, it appears to be working," said Virginia Sloan, president of the Constitution Project.
(Editing by David Storey)
