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:
2 comments:
The Democrats will not treat terrorists like the enemy, they have long advocated a "law enforcement" approach to terror and have a lot at stake on the issue. You're right, on principle they will do as much as possible to do the opposite of what Bush and Cheney did, which was to declare war on terror (and Islamo-fascism). In doing so, we can only expect that Obama will accomplish the opposite of what Bush and Cheney accomplished, which was to keep terrorists from attacking the US since 9-11. Let's hope that candidates for office understand the seriousness of this national security angle, what Obama is doing is tantamount to what Clinton did in the nineties, he is giving the terrorists an opportunity to regroup and recoup strength. History repeats... and man forgets...
S Hayes has an update:
"We learned that the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Michael Leiter, whose agency is responsible for pulling together pieces of intelligence to prevent attacks, went on vacation the day after the attack.
We learned that the top White House counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, told him to go.
We learned that the White House's initial view of the botched attack -- from Janet Napolitano and Robert Gibbs -- was that "the system worked."
We learned that President Obama still believed the attempted bombing was the work of "an isolated extremist" three days after the attack, despite a wealth of evidence that Abdulmutallab had been sent by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).
We learned that Brennan was surprised that AQAP was capable of attacking the United States.
We learned that Napolitano was surprised by al Qaeda's "determination" to hit the U.S. and stunned that they would send an individual -- not a group -- to conduct an attack.
We learned that four top U.S. counterterrorism officials -- Leiter, Napolitano, FBI Director Robert Mueller and Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair -- were not consulted about whether to treat Abdulmutallab as an enemy combatant or a criminal.
We learned that a proposed "high-value detainee interrogation unit," or HIG, does not exist one year into the Obama administration.
We learned that Blair, the nation's top intelligence official, thought that it did.
We learned that Abdulmutallab was read his Miranda rights less than twelve hours after he was captured.
We learned that the FBI interrogated Abdulmutallab for just 50 minutes before he was told he had the right to remain silent and chose to exercise it.
That's an impressive record of incompetence."
(http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gibbs-fbi-learned-all-it-could-about-abdulmutallab-50-minute-interview)
Post a Comment