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.I welcome the fact that the WaPo has come to question its own "knee-jerk support" for whatever Barack Obama decides.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.
But if they were to be completely honest, the Washington Post might acknowledge the part that eight years of ridicule of and denigration of the Bush administration by the MSM might have played in the knee jerk default to a crime-and-punishment model by Obama, which they now criticize so bitterly.
The administration says that the BVDetonator "probably exhausted his knowledge of al-Qaeda operations" before he was read his rights and decided to have a swig from the Fifth.
ReplyDeleteThey know this how? Maybe they figure they can make things safer by looking at a few more Grandmas through the full-body scanner.
How many people does the government have to see killed before the get the message? People should be imprisoned over the Fort Hood case. We can not tolerate such gross negligence.
Or does the government even care?
Ah, but lewy, that would require the WaPo to have the capacity to question core liberal assumptions. It's like asking Pravda to question the assumptions behind collectivization following yet another bad harvest report.
ReplyDeleteCan't be done. Even if it could be done, if it were done, it would be dangerous.
I am, however, very happy to see this editorial. Newspapers, especially the big ones, are cowardly. They only go after politicians or ideas when they are sure they are very unpopular or losers. (For example: Contrast the questions and tone on the campaign trail lobbed at Rep. Paul and compare them to those fat softballs sent Sen. McCain's way....).
So, that being true, what we have here is evidence the Establishment is now actively considering St. Barack of Oak Park a L-O-S-E-R.
Which is hilarious.
I've given my opinion elsewhere, (that can be easily found) on this handling for the Ft Hood case and now the Panty Bomber case, which happens to be rather "local" to me, just as the Afro-Jihadi shoots FBI K9/gets shot by FBI case is even more local...a few blocks from my house.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Panty Bomber, the reaction of government "officials" was naive and escapist, at best. The only reason Flight 253 didn't get blown from the sky, over my house,literally, was the guy failed to compose & mix the PETN/Catalyst (injected) pasticizer properly and let it set up( in the aircraft latrine) prior to setting a fuse to it.
It's not a matter of if, but when. Someone will get it right. A smart & evil someone will simply sew a few feet of Detcord (such as Primacord-10) in to pants and/or jacket liner and detonte it with an ad hoc electronic device (such as cell phone or laptop)just as IED's are detonate in Iraq. Detcord's core ingredient is PETN, the same compound found in the Panty Bomber's jock. Detonated properly what I just described can blow a bigger hole than that usded to bring down Pan Am Flight 103.
It is truly frightening, and more so because it seems the head beagles know less about it than I do. The Panty Bomber was carrying out an military attack against the United States. He failed by his own clumsiness. He won't be the last one to try.
He won't be the last one to try. But if you ask me, the real reason that this is such a danger to us is not because of anything particular done by the administration - but because of the things said (and some done) by the administration in the past.
ReplyDeletePeople are not as willing to step out with their opinions and to mention the gut feelings they get about something. They're not as willing to put themselves out there and be seen. Who is AG Holder going to investigate next?
And we, as a country, lose a great deal because of that. A lot of safety and a lot of intelligence. That's not to say that all interrogation, profiling, analysis, whatever is fair game - because it's not. It *IS* to say that even things that are considered appropriate at this juncture may not be used because who knows if they will be considered appropriate this time next year?
Then add to that the knowledge by those who wish to attack us that the worst that will happen to them is a cell out of Gen Pop with visits with their Imam allowed, tv, soap, etc...
I think lewy hit the nail on the head with his last statement.
I don't understand their (BO admin) reluctance to use the military tribunal. What's the problem there?
ReplyDelete"I think lewy hit the nail on the head with his last statement."
Yup. And you're right that the future attackers know they pretty much have nothing to fear if they survive.