New transcripts from David Rivkin television appearances

From Fox & Friends, original airdate: 2/6/10

Was it proper for them to be mirandizing this guy in the first place?

David Rivkin: Utterly improper and Clayton forget about the critics. The justice dept senior official, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York [Preet Bharara] on Dec. 18 argues in a filing that its essential to treat a person like Ghailani or Abdumuttalab as intelligence assets, with protracted interrogations, psychological dominance, to illicit ever bit of intelligence information back and forth—not 15 minutes.
Remember he’s at his most vulnerable right after his capture. This was a huge mistake.

We seem to have gotten a lot of information from this guy.

Of course. But we didn’t get this information in a timely fashion. So intelligence got stale. And just because we’re getting some intelligence stream out of this guy doesn’t mean we couldn’t have gotten more.
My point is, don’t listen to me, listen to Mr. Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, who wrote this filing up to consult the intelligence community that espouses the virtue of treating somebody as an intelligence asset. Forget about where he’s going to be tried eventually, that’s a different debate. We could’ve treated him as an enemy combatant, interrogated him humanely for several months, got everything out of him and then made a decision whether we want to put him in a criminal justice system.…. We got some information out of him, we could’ve gotten more. There’s no doubt about that.





From THE ED SHOW on MSNBC original airdate: 2/8/10

Video opening of footage of top counter terrorism chief John Brennan explaining the night of Detroit bombing.

Ed: Why the Republican criticism so late when they knew the day it took place what was going on?

Rivkin: First of all, they didn’t. It’s interesting that Mr. Brennan says that being in FBI custody is synonymous with being Mirandized. What’s interesting is at the beginning of this administration they announced the creation of something called HIG, high interrogation group that was centered in the FBI. They specifically said it did not mean people would be invariably Mirandized. So Brennan is just factually wrong. Let me just point out isn’t it kind of silly to be talking about, gee, why didn’t the other side complain instead of looking at the underlying substance of this.
We’re talking about somebody who is interrogated for 50 minutes, that interrogation was interrupted and he is Mirandized. I don’t know of any serious interrogator who does not believe that we should have a go at him for several weeks.

Well, what you’re saying may be true. But no Republican at the time had any objection for weeks on end on this issue?

Ed, I just explained that they did not know when he was going to be Mirandized.

Well you’re assuming that. You’re putting your credibility against Mr. Brennan who says they were told.

No, Mr. Brennan said that Abdulmutallab was in FBI custody and that invariably meant he would be Mirandized …. I’m telling you when the administration eye-level announcement, when they created HIG, specifically said it did not mean that people would get Mirandized. So unless they could read Mr. Brennan’s mind … The notion they [Republicans] could conceive the administration would be so foolish as to Mirandize him in 50 minutes is quite simply ludicrous. Of course they didn’t conceive of it. It would’ve been crazy!



From Fox and Friends, original airdate:  2/11/10

Host: Supreme Court said California is different; they do have, under the Constitution there, a right to free speech in parts of the mall subject to reasonable regulation. So wasn’t the pastor’s first amendment right violated?

David Rivkin: I think it’s an excellent case as you correctly point out under the California Constitution; it’s broader in scope than the federal Constitution. And the gist of it would be this: the regulations the mall put in place were overly broad and they were enforced in an arbitrary fashion. Remember he did not carry placards, he did not try to organize a demonstration which is the kind of activity for which you would need a permit, he just had a conversation with free shoppers. And the notion that you need to get advance approval for that kind of interaction is quite frankly, silly.

The mall instituted two “reasonable” restrictions—a specific place in the mall, and the speaker has to submit an application four days in advance. Doesn’t that strike you, as a lawyer, as maybe potential censorship and unreasonable?

It is. And again it would be quite different if we were talking about a large city where you were going to organize a demonstration of many thousands. A number of cities don’t require that long of an advance period. So they manage it. 

But another thing to emphasize: these regulations only apply to conversations involving political and religious and other noncommercial speech. So it’s not just a question of reasonable regulations such as place. But it’s the content because it seems to single out religious and political content.

That may be what bothers people. It’s ok to strike up conversations about baseball but not God. There’s something that may be offensive to a great many people about that.

That is absolutely true. Let’s be clear: content regulation, or regulations that treat one type of speech different from another are almost always unconstitutional … For example in the context of getting a permit, let’s say: It was reasonable to get a permit for a large demonstration, but regulations said you don’t need to get one when talking about art, but if you’re talking about God you need a permit. That would be struck down without a doubt.

If I’m a business owner and someone is proselytizing in my store, I guess I have a legit business interest in preventing that from happening and thus the reasonableness of the designated area?

No, what you want to do is tailor restrictions as narrowly as possible. Concerning behavior in a store: If someone is driving customers away there would be nuisance and loitering approaches that would enable you to ask the person to leave, or cause them to be arrested. You don’t need to have regulations of this kind here. But nothing like that happened here.

Yes or no: Is the preacher going to win?

Well, it's in California State courts but I think he has an excellent change of winning. He obviously lost so far at the trial level, but things tend to get better results at the appeal level. I’m optimistic he would win.

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites