Crotch Bombers, Obama, Blair, Brown, and War
On January 7, President Obama finally gave us the “surprising” and indeed “shocking” details of the Christmas Day attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab — the now infamous underpants bomber — to destroy an airliner and kill all aboard plus an unknown number of others on the ground.
Things have not stood still since President Obama’s speech on January 7. Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair is reported to have said on January 20:
The Christmas Day airline bombing suspect should have been treated as a terror suspect when the plane landed. That would have meant questioning him initially by special interrogators rather than standard law enforcement officers.
Also:
He was not consulted on whether Abdulmutallab should be questioned by the recently created High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, or HIG.
“That unit was created exactly for this purpose,” Blair said. “We did not invoke the HIG in this case. We should have.”
Under questioning by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Blair and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano said they were not consulted before the decision was made to not use the high-value detainee interrogation group. Also, Michael Leiter, chief of the National Counter Terrorism Center, said he was not consulted. “That is very troubling,” Collins said.
Blair’s testimony infuriated the Obama administration:
One senior official described the comments by Blair … as misinformed on multiple levels and all the more damaging because they immediately fueled Republican criticism that the administration mishandled the Christmas Day incident in its treatment of the accused al-Qaeda operative as a criminal suspect rather than an enemy combatant.
“People are annoyed, angry, and frustrated about this,” said the senior official, who asked not to be identified, speaking about Blair’s testimony. The official added that the White House has ordered Blair to “correct” his remarks. “He’s taking a mulligan on this,” the official said.
Shortly thereafter, Blair’s office issued a clarification noting that his words had been misconstrued. The infuriated folks at the White House did not seem to think they had been misconstrued — they read them much the same as I did.
From January 26:
The leaders of a commission that investigated failures related to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks … said U.S. intelligence agencies should have been consulted before … Abdulmutallab was granted constitutional protections under U.S. law, known as Miranda rights, and initially stopped talking to investigators.
Even the Washington Post has changed its view and now argues that the underpants bomber should not have been treated as a criminal suspect.
The use of high-value interrogation techniques seems, on its face, to be inconsistent with a subsequent civilian criminal trial, as Mr. Blair seemed to understand. Why didn’t President Obama mention these things, and why is he so infuriated that Mr. Blair did?
Scott Brown’s successful campaign to “steal” the late Senator Kennedy’s seat focused to some extent on the silliness of trying terrorists in civilian courts in the United States. Scott Johnson writes at Powerline:
Scott Brown reiterated one of the winning themes of his campaign in a memorable fashion: “And let me say this, with respect to those who wish to harm us, I believe that our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation — they do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.”
The national security policy of the Obama administration in its treatment of enemy combatants as American citizens is indefensible. The case of Umar Abdulmutallab is a powerful example. The Obama administration has in fact put forth no principled defense of its endowment of enemy combatants such as Abdulmutallab with the rights of American citizens. The irrationality of the Obama administration on this point is obvious and devastating.
Blair’s “misconstrued” statement, followed by the hissy fit, suggests that Brown’s remarks struck home. This seems to be another reason why his victory “shocked and arguably humiliated the White House.”
Although perhaps “shocking,” most of the details of the Christmas Day event as declaimed by President Obama on January 7 are not at all surprising. President Obama and his colleagues may have been surprised, but they should not have been, at least not to the point of neglecting to consult with Blair and others on what to do with Abdulmutallab or where to do it. Probably the only truly “surprising” thing in his entire performance was President Obama’s belated observation:
[We face a challenge] protecting our country against a foe that is bent on our destruction. And while passions and politics can often obscure the hard work before us, let’s be clear about what this moment demands: We are at war. We are at war against al-Qaeda, a far-reaching network of violence and hatred that attacked us on 9/11, that killed nearly 3,000 innocent people, and that is plotting to strike us again. And we will do whatever it takes to defeat them. (emphasis added)
The poorly read and intellectually shallow Barack Obama is existentially convinced that America is responsible for the rage of radical Muslims. In his heart of hearts, he perceives no logical reason to focus on fighting their terrorist activities. Our country allegedly screwed over the darker skinned people of the Middle East. That means the anger is somewhat justified. It is probably best to limit any violent responses. This will only increase their anger. Sadly, Obama fails completely to realize that providing criminal trials for the terrorists—is considered a sign of weakness. Our overly nice guy approach only entices them to further outrages. We are therefore far better off, according to the Progressive left, to instead concentrate our energies fighting a so-called war against poverty, climate change, or obese children. Conquering these goals will persuade our enemies to give up their arms and became members in the utopian world community. I wish that I was speaking in a tongue in cheek in manner, but I am not. Obama’s worldview is most assuredly that childishly naïve.
Dan Miller graduated from Yale in 1963. All hell broke loose only a few years later. The Ivy League schools instituted their affirmative action policies in the mid to late 1960s. Blacks and other minorities were the first to take advantage of the lowered standards—but by 1975 the white students inevitably also jumped aboard the gravy train. The softer disciplines have never been the same since. Only a hard science credential is usually earned. The affirmative actions students don’t take those courses. A liberal arts degree is often something to ridicule. Obama entered Columbia University in 1981. Enough said.
Here is a request from Republican members of congress that Attorney General Holder respond to specific questions and testify before the appropriate congressional committees. I don’t plan to hold my breath while waiting for him to do so.
Perhaps Holder and crew are missing a great opportunity. If they claim to have extracted all necessary informatiion from the crotch bomber in 15 minutes then : Just switch from waterboarding and polite conversation etc. to explosives in the shorts. What amazing speedy results ! Although most of us would rather have the explosives in Holder’s shorts while he is sitting on Obama’s lap.
‘War’ is nothing but a word to the President, another phrase used to make a point.
“I don’t plan to hold my breath while waiting for him to do so.”
It would also behoove one not to wait to see if Eric Holder has the intellectual ability to answer any hard questions. He graduated from Columbia Law in 1976. It is obvious that Holder took advantage of the affirmative action policies instituted a few years earlier.
Our current U.S. Attorney General lacks the education necessary to carry out his responsibilities. Lindsey Graham made mincemeat of Eric Holder. All Americans should watch this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG7lm8Sfbo4
Our nation is paying an awful price for the lowered academic standards of the Ivy League universities. Their students are often so ridiculously mediocre. Still, they are the “best!” It only gets worse at the second and third tier schools.
Pressure on the Obama Administration continues to build to modify its decision to hold the KSM and other terror trials in New York City. Although other places are being considered, Obama remains firm that the trials must be held in civilian courts.
White House spokesman Bill Burton said Thursday that President Obama is committed to seeing Mohammed and his alleged accomplices brought to justice in a federal court. The president believes that can be done successfully and securely.
“Currently our federal jails hold hundreds of convicted terrorists, and the president’s opinion has not changed on that,” Burton said.
Sometimes, I wonder whether they understand the world.
I don’t know whether to characterize this testimony by Attorney General Holder as muddled, stumbling, evasive or incompetent. Maybe all four apply. In fairness, I guess it should be noted that most of the talking was done by Lindsey Graham who was questioning him.
Now playing at a courtroom near you in New York, and there is lots more to come.
Now, the savvy “Terror Mom” of three is pulling out all the stops to win a mistrial. Among her Cirque du Jihad antics:
— Demanding that jurors be genetically tested for a “Zionist or Israeli background” to ensure a fair and impartial jury of her Jew-hating peers.
— Ranting about 9/11 Israel conspiracies during voir dire.
— Screaming out loud during the testimony of U.S. Army Capt. Robert Snyder, who was in the room in Ghazni when Siddiqui allegedly grabbed an M-4 rifle and proclaimed, “Allahu Akbar!” and “I hate Americans! Death to America!” Before being ejected from the courtroom, Siddiqui shouted to Snyder, “You’re lying!” She also babbled about torture at a secret prison.
#8 DAN MILLER—You said it all. No reason to post on this story.
Thanks, Keyboard555. However, this does seem worth noting: Next year’s budget will included $200,000,000 to “help defray the security costs resulting from the criminal trials of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow 9/11 terrorists.” The author continues,
Aren’t Khalid and his pals ordinary criminals? Even trying John Gotti didn’t shut down Manhattan. The reason why such extraordinary security will be necessary is that the 9/11 plotters are not merely criminals. They are combatants in a war against the United States; it is their fellow combatants who are still in the field who pose such a risk that extraordinary measures are necessary.
Worth thinking about.
War ? It is of little use to ask about a single three letter word . He did not mean anything he said .
The Crotch Bomber has started talking again, apparently under a plea deal and has provided “valuable intelligence.” That’s probably a good thing, but it suggests that the powers that be were puffing smoke when they announced that he had said all that he was going to say before being given a Miranda warning and counsel.
Word that Mr. Abdulmutallab has resumed cooperating with authorities isn’t likely to end the controversy. “There’s no changing the fact that Mirandizing Abdulmutallab gave terrorists a six-week head start to cover their tracks,” said Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri, the top Republican on the Senate intelligence committee. “We will never know what life-saving information on co-conspirators and future plots we missed out on.”