The editors of the mainline liberal Washington Post describe the Obama administration as being “myopic, irresponsible and potentially dangerous.” You’d think that would generate some media buzz.
Did the Obama administration blow an opportunity in the Flight 253 case?
Saturday, January 23, 2010UMAR 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.
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.
Here’s Stephen Hayes’ commonsense response to the Washington Post repudiation of its earlier support for Obama’s
The Washington Post supported the Obama administration’s treatment of Christmas day bomber Umar Abdulmuttalab as a criminal rather than as an enemy combatant. In an editorial published yesterday, It has nevertheless retracted its support. The Post writes that it “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.”
The Obama administration’s treatment of Abdulmutallab as a criminal accorded the constitutional rights of an American citizen is absurd and indefensible. Yet the administration persists in it.
It is highly unusual to see a prominent newspaper editorial board publicly change its mind. The stated ground for the Post’s original editorial position is lame. It criticizes the decision on procedural grounds. Is the Post incapable of judging its substance?
A defective decision making process is more likely to have resulted in a defective decision, but who cares what process the Obama administration used to come to the wrong decision? The administration is full of world-class liberal chin pullers who would come to the same decision if they had taken more time to think about it. They are simply on the wrong track.
Yesterday’s Post editorial also concludes on a lame note. The Post can’t quite bring itself to the conclusion that the Obama administration’s treatment of Abdulmutallab as a criminal is in fact a mistake. Maybe, maybe not. It professes to have an open mind on that question.
It notes, on the one hand: “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.”
That sounds bad. Abdulmutallab was singing like a bird until the FBI read him a Miranda warning. Reasonable people would conclude that he stopped singing because of the warning.
But here the Post injects a note of epistemological uncertainty befitting a college philosophy class. The Post asserts, on the other hand: “The truth is, we may never know whether the administration made the right call or whether it squandered a valuable opportunity.” The truth is, we may never know this only if we are prohibited from employing the most basic common sense to assess the situation.
More importantly, however, the administration’s decision to treat Abdulmutallab as a criminal is mistaken on its face. It cannot be defended on the merits in principle and the administration has not chosen to do so. It is an obvious mistake that can be rectified — the administration can dismiss the criminal proceedings and remit Abdulmutallab to the custody of the armed forces as an enemy combatant — but it would be helpful to have reasonable administration allies like the Post editorial board say that it should do so forthrightly.
If the administration now chose to treat Abdulmutallab as an enemy combatant, he might well remain “clammed up.” At that point we would have a good case in which to debate the folly of the administration’s abandonment of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation program.
Via Stephen F. Hayes.
Stop and think about it.
To begin with, the “transparent” Obama administration missed FAR more warning signs of the terrorist attack than it acknowledged. Which already leads one to wonder just what kind of idiots are sitting in the White House?
But that’s nowhere even close to how bad this thing is. We have a terrorist bomber with al Qaeda connections attempt to attack the United States – and very nearly succeed. And how does the Obama administration react? Dumber than a box of rocks, that’s how. Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, immediately grabs bombing “suspect” Abdulmutallab without even bothering to so much as notify Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, or National Counterterrorism Center Director Michael Leiter.
They didn’t just carefully deliberate and then choose to do something stupid with our national defense; they blindly, unthinkingly and moronically chose to do something stupid with our national defense.
But it just keeps getting worse and worse. The Obama administration, which arrogantly, self-righteously, and incredibly naively and stupidly banned the Bush interrogation system NEVER BOTHERED TO PUT ANY OTHER SYSTEM TO INTERROGATE HIGH-LEVEL TERRORISTS IN PLACE.
So we basically no longer have the capacity to effectively interrogate a high-level terrorist even if we DON’T immediately protect him with Miranda rights first.
Dumb and Dumber are running our nation right now. And I’ve got bad news for you: “Dumber” is the one running the whole show.
If we suffer another terrorist attack, Barack Obama needs to be impeached. He has blindly, stupidly, and even WILLFULLY left us defenseless.
Start Thinking Right 