By now, everyone knows the events of December 25 and the "underwear bomber".
Nevertheless, it's obvious that some in the Obama administration "fumbled big time" when the young terrorist was arrested.
Guess who is now criticizing Pres BO's administration today?
The answer is The Washington Post's lead editorial today:
"The Obama administration had three options:
It could charge him in federal court.
It could detain him as an enemy belligerent.
Or it could hold him for prolonged questioning and later indict him, ensuring that nothing Mr. Abdulmutallab said during questioning was used against him in court.
It is now clear that the administration did not give serious thought to anything but Door No. 1. This was myopic, irresponsible and potentially dangerous.
Whether to charge terrorism suspects or hold and interrogate them is a judgment call.
We originally supported the administration's decision in the Abdulmutallab case, assuming that it had been made after due consideration.
But the decision to try Mr. Abdulmutallab turns out to have resulted not from a deliberative process but as a knee-jerk default to a crime-and-punishment model." (WP)
Unfortunately, this administration is stocked with too many people who are at war with the Bush-Cheney anti-terror policies rather than terrorists.
"Underwear bombers" do not have rights, such as getting their Miranda reading or a public lawyer.
Scott Brown's in Massachusetts victory was about a lot more than health care.
There was also a "national security' angle to his victory, specially when he attacked the decision to treat the "underwear bomber" like some kid who stole a car in Detroit.
P.S. Check out my conversation with Bill Katz on Thursday. Bill discussed the growing concerns that the Obama administration is putting the nation in danger: