PDA

View Full Version : KRAUTHAMMER: The Christmas Scandal Grows


Warrior-Mentor
01-28-2010, 21:00
The handling of the Christmas Day bombing suspect: the scandal grows
By Charles Krauthammer
January 29, 2010
Washington Post, A23

The real scandal surrounding the failed Christmas Day airline bombing was not the fact that a terrorist got on a plane -- that can happen to any administration, as it surely did to the Bush administration -- but what happened afterward when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was captured and came under the full control of the U.S. government.

After 50 minutes of questioning him, the Obama administration chose, reflexively and mindlessly, to give the chatty terrorist the right to remain silent. Which he immediately did, undoubtedly denying us crucial information about al-Qaeda in Yemen, which had trained, armed and dispatched him.

We have since learned that the decision to Mirandize Abdulmutallab had been made without the knowledge of or consultation with:
(1) the secretary of defense,
(2) the secretary of homeland security,
(3) the director of the FBI,
(4) the director of the National Counterterrorism Center or
(5) the director of national intelligence (DNI).

The Justice Department acted not just unilaterally but unaccountably. Obama's own DNI said that Abdulmutallab should have been interrogated by the HIG, the administration's new High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group.

Perhaps you hadn't heard the term. Well, in the very first week of his presidency, Obama abolished by executive order the Bush-Cheney interrogation procedures and pledged to study a substitute mechanism. In August, the administration announced the establishment of the HIG, housed in the FBI but overseen by the National Security Council.

Where was it during the Abdulmutallab case?

Not available, admitted National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, because it had been conceived for use only abroad. Had not one person in this vast administration of highly nuanced sophisticates considered the possibility of a terror attack on American soil?

It gets worse.

Blair later had to explain that the HIG was not deployed because it does not yet exist. After a year! I suppose this administration was so busy deploying scores of the country's best lawyerly minds on finding the most rapid way to release Gitmo miscreants that it could not be bothered to establish a single operational HIG team to interrogate at-large miscreants with actionable intelligence that might save American lives.

Travesties of this magnitude are not lost on the American people. One of the reasons Scott Brown won in Massachusetts was his focus on the Mirandizing of Abdulmutallab.

Of course, this case is just a reflection of a larger problem: an administration that insists on treating Islamist terrorism as a law-enforcement issue. Which is why the Justice Department's other egregious terror decision, granting Khalid Sheik Mohammed a civilian trial in New York, is now the subject of a letter from six senators -- three Republicans, two Democrats and Joe Lieberman -- asking Attorney General Eric Holder to reverse the decision.

Lieberman and Sen. Susan Collins had written an earlier letter asking for Abdulmutallab to be turned over to the military for renewed interrogation. The problem is, it's hard to see how that decision gets reversed. Once you've read a man Miranda rights, what do you say? We are idiots? On second thought . . .

Hence the agitation over the KSM trial. This one can be reversed, and it's a good surrogate for this administration's insistence upon criminalizing -- and therefore trivializing -- a war on terror that has now struck three times in one year within the United States, twice with effect (the Arkansas killer and the Fort Hood shooter) and once with a shockingly near miss (Abdulmutallab).

On the KSM civilian trial, sentiment is widespread that it is quite insane to spend $200 million a year to give the killer of 3,000 innocents the largest propaganda platform on earth, while at the same time granting civilian rights of cross-examination and discovery that risk betraying U.S. intelligence sources and methods.

Accordingly, Sen. Lindsey Graham and Rep. Frank Wolf have gone beyond appeals to the administration and are planning to introduce a bill to block funding for the trial. It's an important measure. It makes flesh an otherwise abstract issue -- should terrorists be treated as enemy combatants or criminal defendants? The vote will force members of Congress to declare themselves. There will be no hiding from the question.

Congress may not be able to roll back the Abdulmutallab travesty. But there will be future Abdulmutallabs.

By cutting off funding for the KSM trial, Congress can send Obama a clear message:

The Constitution is neither a safety net for illegal enemy combatants nor a suicide pact for us.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

SOURCE:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/28/AR2010012803511.html

craigepo
01-28-2010, 22:07
should terrorists be treated as enemy combatants or criminal defendants?

Krauthammer is right on target. If the terrorists are tried in US civillian courts, they will get the same constitutional protections as a US civillian. These cases will be impossible to prosecute. For example, if a US civillian is arrested, he must be Mirandized, or everything he says after his arrest (admissions, etc) can be thrown out. By trying the terrorist in our courts, we are giving the terrorist these same protections, even though they have never before set foot on our soil.

I'm attaching a link to the rules of the Nuremberg trials. Those trials were fair, and justice was served. As you will see, they damn sure did not give US Constitutional rights to the defendants (Nazis). I see no reason to deviate from the Nuremberg rules in the present case.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imtconst.asp

Thurman
01-29-2010, 00:54
Krauthammer is the best conservative journalist out there right now IMHO-- he has been spot on week after week pointing out the disaster this administration has turned out to be.

The fact that this is getting zero traction otherwise in the mainstream press is pathetic.

This will not go away-- I hope the conservative media hounds Holder about this and people realize how reckless the idealogues in this administration are

Something is going to go "boom" in the next few years, and I hope the media holds them accountable for their incompetence in preventing it

Dozer523
01-29-2010, 07:48
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab has just gotten his clock cleaned by his fellow passengers and is tied to his seat. What happened next?
Flight Attendant calls pilot and informs him of the events, and status in the back of the plane. Pilot calls the tower and passes on whats going on.
Who did the Tower notify? TSA? FBI? Local Police? Military Police?
Plane stops, door opens.
Who was first on the plane? Who cuffed Umar first? Who's vehicle did he get into and to what LE headquarters did he go?

Could this 5th Amendment issue really be a turf battle?
Once on the ground what agency took the lead?


Criminal suspects get Mirandized, Combatants get the Geneva Convention. And just to be clear, Miranda is ALL ABOUT "STFU". It has to be Either - Or.
$.02

Warrior-Mentor
01-29-2010, 08:43
Krauthammer is the best conservative journalist out there right now IMHO-- he has been spot on week after week pointing out the disaster this administration has turned out to be.

Something is going to go "boom" in the next few years, and I hope the media holds them accountable for their incompetence in preventing it

Agree on Krauthammer overall.

Andrew McCarthy drills deeper on detainee treatment and trials - but you can expect that given his training (as a lawyer) and experiences (prosecuting the blind sheik case - recounted in his book Willful Blindness).

Dozer523
01-29-2010, 10:55
Agree on Krauthammer overall.

Oh . . . never mind.:D

Warrior-Mentor
01-29-2010, 14:18
Oh . . . never mind.:D

???

craigepo
02-10-2010, 09:58
While doing some other research, I came upon this summary of Bush's tribunal rules regarding terrorist/enemy combatant rules. After a quick read of this summary, it would appear that President Bush had already set up a tribunal system which was, in many aspects, like the Nuremberg trials. Why the hell our government is now trying to switch horses in midstream, I don't know.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/rl31600.pdf

Warrior-Mentor
02-10-2010, 18:03
This sheds a lot of light into the debate you won't hear in the lame stream media:

http://www.amazon.com/Courting-Disaster-America-Barack-Inviting/dp/1596986034

craigepo
02-10-2010, 22:42
One question I have, that many on the Left point out, is that the shoe bomber, Richard Reid, was tried via the Court system. How does this square with the enemy combatants not being entitled to civilian courts argument?

I agree with Krauthammer, but doesn't the Richard Reid argument undermine the argument that terrorists are not to be mirandized?:confused:

Good question Broadsword:
Initially, let me say that the U.S. Constitution applies to U.S. soil---the people that live there all adopted the Constitution when they applied for statehood. Accordingly, folks on that dirt are, generally, bound by the Constitutions rights, privileges and duties.

Miranda warnings are Supreme Court-made law. The warnings stem specifically from a Supreme Court case concerning the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. The Court held that, in order to show that a confession is not coerced(and therefore admissible at trial), law enforcement must advise the defendant of his right to remain silent, etc. (Clearly this is not contained within the text of the Constitution, but again that rant is for another day).

The Constitution, our criminal laws, and rules of criminal procedure, were not designed to be martial---the idea when drafting those laws was that the person charged is a United States citizen, who is presumed innocent, and as a citizen should be afforded all of the rights due a citizen.

In contrast, the panty bomber and the shoe bomber were never US citizens. In fact, they had hardly any contacts with the US at all prior to their attempts at terrorism, in a plane, flying through US airspace.

Our criminal laws were not set up for such a situation, for good reason. How could a US law enforcement guy investigate the home where Mr. Panty Bomber got his explosives? Our law enforcement guys have no jurisdiction there, a US judge's search warrant wouldn't work there(Nigeria, Britain, or any other sovereign nation).

Our court rules would also be impotent in such a situation. We demand that the government prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a criminal committed the charged crime(the jury's vote must be unanimous). All evidence comes in, the press has full access to the trial, the defendant has constitutional rights to cross-examine all witnesses against him to the fullest extent. We set the standard that high because the system was designed to try US citizens.

Accordingly, this country, as most have done throughout history, generally sets up military tribunals to try war crimes(which are much akin to terrorism). These result from the reality that war is conducted far from home, and the goal of war is not to build an evidentiary basis for the prosecution of criminal cases. Evidentiary standards are more lax, appellate rights are abbreviated, etc. Although justice is served, history has never shown that a country that tries war crimes has given those defendants the same rights that it gives its own citizens.

The present administration has indeed been parroting that Richard Reid's case was handled in a US District Court. This is a true statement. What they do not discuss is that he pleaded guilty. There was no long drawn-out trial, no depositions, no problem of procuring government witnesses from somewhere overseas, no acts by the defendant during trial in front of the cameras, no worries regarding leaking classified information or sources, no chain-of-custody issues regarding evidence.

This is the same mistake Bill Clinton made. They approached war stuff like they were prosecuting cases. IMHO, it seemed they wanted proof beyond a reasonable doubt before they acted in many instances. The problem with that approach is if you want to get past "reasonable doubt" before fighting battles, launching missles, or doing counter-terrorist stuff, you often finally acquire your proof when its too late.

My apologies for such a disjointed, rambling, stream-of-consciousness response. I'm trying to keep this short, make an argument, and get ready for a long day manana.

alright4u
02-11-2010, 00:39
While doing some other research, I came upon this summary of Bush's tribunal rules regarding terrorist/enemy combatant rules. After a quick read of this summary, it would appear that President Bush had already set up a tribunal system which was, in many aspects, like the Nuremberg trials. Why the hell our government is now trying to switch horses in midstream, I don't know.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/rl31600.pdf


True, that was my understanding. I thought it was well known we were going back to military trials like in Nurnberg. Only Holder, Obama, and pals could really mess this up.

incarcerated
02-11-2010, 01:15
Not to worry: the Vice President tells us that this was a “smallbore’ attack….
WTF?
Does that mean Abdulmutallab attempted to use a .22 LR? Is Biden trying to suggest that downing an airliner is small-time?
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-10/biden-says-future-terror-attacks-more-likely-to-be-small-bore-.html

Biden Says Future Terror Attacks More Likely to Be ‘Small Bore’

February 10, 2010, 10:13 PM EST
By Nicholas Johnston
Feb. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Vice President Joe Biden said future attempts by terrorists to hit the U.S. more likely will be “small-bore” attacks such as the thwarted bombing of an airliner landing in Detroit than a repeat of Sept. 11...




The attack was not “thwarted:”
the attack failed.
Way to go, Joe.

armymom1228
02-11-2010, 01:25
Also, what happens if we end up with an American citizen who gets radicalized and goes and gets trained in say Yemen, then comes back and tries to commit an act of terror. On them, wouldn't we have to give them a civilian court trial, even though that would be denying the government of critical information on terrorists?

I would assume yes, since they ARE a citizen. However they have commited an act of treason. See Roenburgs case for reference. As for interrogation, I have no idea. However a plea deal would probably include "cooperating with the investigation" to avoid a death penalty.

By defintion "...Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

More information on Treason here. (http://www.answers.com/topic/treason) That url also includes excerpts from the Consitution.

Just my non lawyer, civilian opinion.
AM

Richard
02-11-2010, 07:19
FWIW - the AGs response to Senator McConnell is an interesting read for perspective.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26325635/Eric-Holder-letter-to-Mitch-McConnell-2-3-2010

However - YMMV - and so it goes...

Richard