Comments on: How not to treat a terrorist: on the Abdulmutallab interrogation

By: Rathtyen

Rathtyen — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 02:06:05 +0000

Possibly the most interesting aspect of this is:

“That’s shocking, but it doesn’t really absolve them of responsibility. I don’t know the protocol, but since the Christmas bomber incident almost instantaneously made the news, might not at least one of them have weighed in at some early point to offer an opinion on the subject to the authorities….”

Under different circumstances, these people could probably be relied upon to close ranks and say the matter was handled appropriately. Instead, they are distancing themselves.

This is a symptom of a very dysfunctional anti-terrorism establishment. The agencies involved will benefit from a successful terrorist strike in the USA: it will finish off Obama, Holder and Napolitano, and get them off the Intelligence etc Community’s back.

That is a scary conflict of interest.

By: Bob From Virginia

Bob From Virginia — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 01:11:23 +0000

If I were sicker than I am I would start a pool in which other sickos besides myself would make bets on how many lives Obama’s worldview will cost.
I figure one or two airplanes and Manhatten once the Mullahs get the bomb.

Regrettably we should brace ourselves for this type of bad news most of us saw coming during the campaign. Recall that Prime Minister Howard of Australia warned that Obama’s election would signal a victory for terrorism.
Bets anyone?

By: grackle

grackle — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:04:36 +0000

… might not at least one of them have weighed in at some early point to offer an opinion on the subject to the authorities–such as to find out what was happening regarding interrogation, and to request that the civilian justice system not take over just yet? Neo, your question assumes that Napolitano, Leiter, Mueller and Blair disapprove of treating terrorism as a criminal act. Why interfere in a process that meets with your approval? The anti-Bush, anti-neocon, anti-war folks NEVER take any action that could possibly be construed as a belief that there is such a thing as a War on Terror. They believe these terrorists are pitiful, misguided individuals who are understandably driven to terrorism by the policies of the evil Bush/Cheney/Neocons and the evilness of America itself — although they cannot admit this publicly. Their lack of action speaks volumes.

By: JD in Oslo

JD in Oslo — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 23:51:50 +0000

And here is another writeup: http://article.nationalreview.com/422833/obfuscation-after-obfuscation/bill-burck–dana-perino

By: expat

expat — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 23:39:46 +0000

What’s really funny is that Obama was going use this approach to raise our standing in the world. We were going to get more cooperation in solving world problems. Today, Germany announced its contribution to Afghanistan: 500 extra troops with a reserve contingent of 350. And the US will send 5,000 troops to the north to do the dirty work. How things have changed now that the world likes us!

Obama and Holder are so stuck in the 60s and so convinced that their parochial world view is correct that they didn’t bother to try to learn anything new after 9/11. According to Claudia Rosett over at PJM, Susan Rice works half time at the UN using foie gras diplomacy. The bubble they live in must be double walled with a thick layer of sound-proof insulation in the middle.

By: NeoConScum

NeoConScum — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 21:27:28 +0000

Per The Bamma…The Putz Bomber, al Qaeda operative, was a “Nigerian student.”

Osama bin Laden disagrees. The Sheik says the Winky Bomber was al Qaeda. I’ll take Osama at his word on this one. No offense to mere Nigerian students everywhere.

By: huxley

huxley — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 21:19:23 +0000

But the fun doesn’t really really start until the KSM trial begins!

By: JKB

JKB — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 20:55:25 +0000

…might not at least one of them have weighed in at some early point to offer an opinion on the subject to the authorities…

It was a holiday just what do you expect of these e-lite high officials?

The problem isn’t that they Mirandized him. The problem is that the choice was made to proceed criminally rather than as an unlawful combatant. The agents, absent direction from higher authority, conducted a criminal investigation which is their job.

It is a simple matter for the right official to change his status rendering Miranda moot.

By: gcotharn

gcotharn — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 20:37:09 +0000

Didn’t Palin say Obama would be reading terrorists their Miranda Rights? Palin is such an ignorant extremist liar.

By: Old Rebel

Old Rebel — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:57:24 +0000

I disagree. I am much more concerned about a socialist president wielding the power to bypass the Constitution at will. We've already been informed the Obama regime will continue violating the 4th Amendment's prohibition against unlawful searches. What's to stop him from arresting political opponents as "enemy combatants"? Nothing but his good intentions. A central government that can ignore the Bill of Rights is a greater threat to our security than the UndieBomber.