Christmas Day negligence

[Warrior-Mentor]

What's particularly telling about this editorial is that it's the Washington Post criticizing the Obama Administration...that doesn't happen often...[relative to praise that is].

EDITORIAL
The Washington Post
Christmas Day negligence
The unthinking handling of a would-be bomber

Did the Obama administration blow an opportunity in the Flight 253 case?
Saturday, January 23, 2010

UMAR FAROUK Abdulmutallab was nabbed in Detroit on board Northwest Flight 253 after trying unsuccessfully to ignite explosives sewn into his underwear.

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.

In testimony Wednesday before the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, and Michael Leiter, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, all said they were not asked to weigh in on how best to deal with Mr. Abdulmutallab. Some intelligence officials, including personnel from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, were included in briefings by the Justice Department before Mr. Abdulmutallab was charged.

These sessions did provide an opportunity for those attending to debate the merits of detention vs. prosecution. According to sources with knowledge of the discussions, no one questioned the approach or raised the possibility of taking more time to question the suspect. This makes the administration's approach even more worrisome than it would have been had intelligence personnel been cut out of the process altogether.
ad_icon

The fight against an unconventional enemy such as al-Qaeda cannot be waged exclusively or effectively through any single approach. Just as it would be a mistake to view all terrorist acts as law enforcement challenges, so would it be unwise to deal with all such incidents as acts of war. All paths must be seriously considered before a determination is made.

The administration claims Mr. Abdulmutallab provided valuable information -- and probably exhausted his knowledge of al-Qaeda operations -- before he clammed up. This was immediately after he was read his Miranda rights and provided with a court-appointed lawyer. The truth is, we may never know whether the administration made the right call or whether it squandered a valuable opportunity.

SOURCE:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...ditorialpages/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012204349.html

[Adam35]

Given the multitude of threads on this subject, I was initially unsure as to where to post this article, so I hope this is appropriate.

Is this a legitimate legal defense at all for this case? Thank you again for allowing me to be here.

-Adam


Legal adviser: Suspect to challenge bomb's danger
Robert Snell and Mike Wilkinson / The Detroit News
Last Updated: January 26. 2011 1:00AM

Detroit— The legal adviser to Nigerian terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab intends to challenge federal prosecutors over whether the device allegedly used by the so-called underwear bomber could have brought down the airliner on Christmas Day 2009.

The adviser, Detroit lawyer Anthony Chambers, told reporters Tuesday he will argue that the materials found in Abdulmutallab's underwear could not have destroyed Northwest Flight 253.

"It's a very defensible case," Chambers said. "To have an explosion, you have to have an explosive."

He said the device that ignited, burning the alleged terrorist, "could not have done the damage" that prosecutors have alleged.

U.S. District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds set an Oct. 4 trial date for Abdulmutallab.

He is representing himself after firing his court-appointedlawyers.

"Mr. Abdulmutallab, I'm not sure what reason you have for wanting to represent yourself in this matter," the judge said. "I respect that you have that right and have exercised that."

Chambers recently requested files held by the defendant's former lawyers. The files contain information from experts who don't believe Abdulmutallab was capable of destroying Northwest Airlines Flight 253 from Amsterdam, according to a filing in U.S. District Court in Detroit.

Prosecutors say he tried to kill nearly 300 people aboard the flight when he attempted to set off a chemical explosive hidden in his underwear over Metro Airport on Dec. 25, 2009.

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110126/...#ixzz1CChGnnSz

[tonyz]

Yes, I had a bomb;

Yes, I tried to detonate that bomb;

But, I am stupid, and it was not really a very good bomb.

And that big friggen Dutch guy ASSAULTED ME !!