More questions. Like the foolish decision to try KSM in New York, it’s not too late to undo this mistake. But it would require a rethink of our approach to Islamic terrorism overall, which is unlikely coming from the current crew.
[Update late morning]
The Abdulmutallab travesty.
This is brazen self-sabotage. We are in a war of intelligence. People risk their lives every day to get the information to understand the terror networks arrayed against us and identify specific threats. Why would we pre-emptively silence a priceless source of timely intelligence?
It literally didn’t even occur to the administration to do otherwise. Top terrorism officials weren’t consulted. The director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the director of National Intelligence, the FBI director, and the secretary of Homeland Security were all out of the loop. Some as-yet-unidentified top Justice Department official, who probably is known around the office as “general,” made the call.
According to an Associated Press account, after Abdulmutallab chatted with customs officials about his plot, FBI agents showed up and talked to him for about 50 minutes. He told them he’d worked with al-Qaeda. The agents didn’t Mirandize him, relying on an exception in cases involving an imminent threat to public safety. Then, a new FBI team arrived with instructions from Washington to read Abdulmutallab his rights. It’s the last we’ve heard from him.
It’s almost like they want us to lose.
As the first commentor to the linked article noted, the article’s author has been against Miranda warnings since well before the War on Terror. It’s not surprising that he’s against them now.
As the 5th commentor noted, the Panty Bomber was arrested on US soil after in US airspace. Why wouldn’t he be Mirandized?
German saboteurs dropped off by submarines were captured in US territory during the war. Should they have been given civilian trials?
German saboteurs – no. But there the choice was POW camp or trial. Unless you are prepared to give Panty Bomber POW rights (which means no “enhanced interrogation”) then the saboteurs case is not really relevant.
More importantly, are you prepared to argue that US civil rights don’t apply on US civilian airplanes in US airspace?
But there the choice was POW camp or trial.
There was no choice of POW. They were out of uniform. The only choice was military trial, which is what they received, after which most were executed.
are you prepared to argue that US civil rights don’t apply on US civilian airplanes in US airspace?
Yes, they don’t apply to illegal enemy combatants, any more than they did with the German saboteurs.
German saboteurs were not “POWs”, they fell under ‘Spys and Saboteurs’.
The incessant obsession in practically every WWII movie about remaining in uniform – or at least not ever, getting caught out of it is a real reflection of some underlying truth. That being an enemy out of uniform behind enemy lines was extremely hazardous to one’s health.
Yes, half the movies or shows are inane. But they aren’t making this up out of whole cloth. Several documentaries also highlight precisely this issue.
The main question is: Were you trying to commit an act of war? Or: Are you a member of an organization with whom we are at war?
He’s (reportedly) freely admitted this. There is no way anyone who freely admits either point should go before a civilian trial. (Even an American citizen that stands up and admits “Yes, I’m a member of AQ” is fundamentally revoking their own citizenship. Serving in a foreign military similarly automatically revokes your US citizenship.)
Thank you! That point cannot be reiterated enough!
Apparently Chris doesn’t believe in the Geneva Conventions. And neither does the administration. Or they only believe in the parts they like (how to treat POWs).
One only has to follow the farce that is the Aafia Siddiqui trial to understand how clueless the Holder JD is. There is precedent and law for treating these psychos as enemy combatants. We do not harm our justice system by doing so. Just so Chris understands the crime occurred when he boarded the plane not when it entered US airspace. We are not required to Mirandize foreign nationals either.
The Geneva conventions of 1947 (note date) require that before you declare somebody an illegal combatant, you give them a “review before competent tribunal.”
And your point is…?
“review before competent tribunal.” doesn’t mean full civilian trial. It was intended to prevent individual officers from performing summary executions. “I decided he was a spy, so I shot him.”
The underlying premise of the Left on this topic is: The military is incompetent, and thus unable to meet the criteria.
If we’re treating them as POWs, a civilian trial happens to be a war crime under the same conventions.
So after a ‘competent tribunal’ we put a bullet in their head and toss them outside the city gates for the dogs, yes? Although I’d consider individual officers performing summary executions to be a ‘competent tribunal’, but that’s just me.
This is one dumbest approaches to terrorism I’ve yet heard. It’s like a Monte Carlo search of the space of stupid – randomly groping around for idiotic ideas to apply to terrorists. There isn’t a legal or ethical issue here.
Miranda is to prevent people from incriminating themselves. Statements made before a Miranda warning are inadmissible in a prosecution. BUT WHO CARES? The goal is to find out things like:
Are more attacks coming? Where were you trained? Who trained you? Are these faces familiar? Are these names familiar? And so on…
The evidence against this guy was immense. Tens if not hundreds of witnesses, cooked underwear with associated burns. The only thing Miranda does is allow a confession be presented in court. What kind of moron gives a shit with all the evidence? What kind of moron gives a shit given the bigger issue of preventing more deaths?
There was no moral or legal reason for Mirandizing this guy.
The only reason to do it was if you are idiotic enough to imagine that blindly following a procedure commonly shown on cop shows is somehow ethical.
We need people who have the intelligence to understand laws be the ones enforcing them. People in the terrorism fight who think following procedures blindly are worthless. They’re not murderers but they are as close as one can possibly get through application of pure stupidity.
How is all of this different than how the Shoe Bomber was handled? Why wasn’t that a problem back then?
Dave, who says it wasn’t?
Well, Joe apparently does when he says: The only reason to do it was if you are idiotic enough to imagine that blindly following a procedure commonly shown on cop shows is somehow ethical.
Dave,
If it the shoe-bomber was talking and we advised him to shut up then, IT WAS A MORONIC THING TO DO.
Fighting terrorism is an adult activity. Simpering out excuses for following procedures that are not called for in law or ethics shows a lack of seriousness.
it is not surprising that Holder felt sorry for this terrorist…no sorry….I meant poor American-oppressed young adult from a poor country which is mistreated by infidels. He was just frustrated and angry that the infidels-USA- did not bow to the great Allah. Yep, no wonder MA went conservative.