Christmas Day Bomber Only Talked to FBI for 50 Minutes!

Wordsmith says: 1

There is one reason that White House should be thrilled about the Massachusetts Senate race. It crowded out news that came out of the stunning testimony of Obama administration officials Wednesday on the Christmas Day terrorist attack.

Four top counterterrorism officials testified before a congressional committee that they were not consulted about how to handle the interrogation of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the al Qaeda operative who attempted to blow up Flight 253 on Dec. 25, 2009.

That group included all three senior Obama administration officials who testified before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Wednesday: Janet Napolitano, secretary of Homeland Security; Michael Leiter, chairman of the National Counterterrorism Center; and Dennis Blair, the director of National Intelligence. It also included FBI Director Robert Mueller.

With surprising candor, Blair, the nation’s top intelligence official, explained that these officials were not deliberately excluded from the decision-making process in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Rather, he told the Senate Homeland Security Committee, there was no process at all.

“I’ve been a part of the discussions which established this high-value interrogation unit, [HIG] which we started as part of the executive order after the decision to close Guantanamo. That unit was created for exactly this purpose — to make a decision on whether a certain person who’s detained should be treated as a case for federal prosecution or for some of the other means. We did not invoke the HIG in this case,” he said. “We should have.”

That’s quite an admission. Blair wasn’t finished. “Frankly, we were thinking more of overseas people and, duh!, we didn’t put it then. That’s what we will do now. And so we need to make those decisions more carefully. I was not consulted and the decision was made on the scene. It seemed logical to the people there but it should have been taken using this HIG format at a higher level.”

When Blair said “Duh,” he literally gave himself a slap on the forehead, as if to say, “I cannot believe we were that stupid.” It was an appropriate gesture.

Blair said that Abdulmutallab was not interrogated for intelligence purposes because the Obama administration had not considered using the newly created elite interrogation unit on terrorists in the United States.

If Blair considered the handling of Abdulmutallab a mistake, FBI Director Mueller, testifying at the same time before the Senate Judiciary Committee, did not.

Mueller, like Blair, acknowledged that the crucial decision about how to treat Abdulmutallab was made by local FBI agents. But unlike Blair, he vigorously defended it.

“The decision to arrest [Abdulmutallab] and put him in criminal courts, the decision was made by the agents on the ground, the ones that took him from the plane and then followed up on the arrest in the hospital,” Mueller told the committee. He also said: “In this particular case, in fast-moving events, decisions were made — appropriately, I believe, very appropriately — given the situation.”

“The decision to arrest [Abdulmutallab] and put him in criminal courts, the decision was made by the agents on the ground, the ones that took him from the plane and then followed up on the arrest in the hospital,” Mueller told the committee. He also said: “In this particular case, in fast-moving events, decisions were made — appropriately, I believe, very appropriately — given the situation.”

Again, stunning. The FBI director believes it is appropriate — very appropriate — that four of the nation’s top counterterrorism officials were never consulted about how to handle an al Qaeda terrorist who very nearly blew up an airplane with almost 300 passengers aboard.

Mueller testified that those FBI agents interviewed Abdulmutallab about “ongoing and other threats.” What the FBI director did not mention was that his agents interviewed the terrorist without any input from the National Counterterrorism Center — the institution we now know was sitting on top of a small mountain of not-yet-correlated information about the bomber.

The administration’s embarrassing performance continued even after the hearings had been adjourned. Blair’s office released a statement intended to clarify his earlier remarks about the high-value detainee interrogation group — HIG.

“My remarks today before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs have been misconstrued. The FBI interrogated Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab when they took him into custody. They received important intelligence at that time, drawing on the FBI’s expertise in interrogation that will be available in the HIG once it is fully operational.”

The problem was not so much that Blair had not contemplated using the HIG on terrorists captured on U.S. soil — Duh! — but that it is not yet fully operational. And this is better?

As Blair testified himself, the HIG was “started as part of the executive order after the decision to close Guantanamo.” That was a year ago tomorrow.

So the elite interrogation unit that was to have been keeping us safe after the administration banned enhanced interrogation and vowed to shut down Guantanamo Bay — it doesn’t actually exist yet.

Barack Obama should call Scott Brown again — not to congratulate him, but to thank him for guaranteeing that this extraordinary incompetence does not get the coverage it deserves.

On a related note, a good interview with Marc Thiessen on the Medved Show:

I picked up his book today.

Marc Thiessen:

The public view of interrogations had been shaped by the fictional Bauer, who captures a terrorist and proceeds to torture him — holding down his head in a bathtub full of water, using a Taser to shock him, lopping off his fingers with a cigar cutter — while screaming questions until the terrorist finally breaks and gives up the location of the nuclear bomb that is about to go off.

For some critics of U.S. interrogation policy, this is not fiction, but a depiction of reality. In Newsweek, Dahlia Lithwick has written that “high-ranking lawyers in the Bush administration erected an entire torture policy around the fictional edifice of Jack Bauer.” And Philippe Sands, author of the book Torture Team, has written that the show has been the “midwife” for torture’s “actual use on real, living human beings.” None of this is true.

Unlike these critics, I have had the chance to actually meet the real Jack Bauers — the CIA officials who questioned Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other senior terrorist leaders and got them to reveal their plans for new terrorist attacks. They explained to my why their approach has nothing in common with the methods used by Bauer on the fictional 24.

On July 31, 2006, I walked up the winding stairs of the Eisenhower Building to a secure conference room in the offices of the National Security Council’s intelligence directorate. I had been assigned to write a speech for President Bush acknowledging the existence of what was then the most highly classified program in the war on terror: the CIA program to detain and question captured terrorists. To write this speech, I was given access to some of the most sensitive intelligence our country possessed on the interrogation of senior al-Qaeda terrorists, as well as to intelligence officers who could explain to me how the program worked and why it had been successful in stopping new terrorist attacks.

Sitting across the table from me were several CIA officials, including two men I will call Harry and Sam (not their real names), I didn’t know anything about the individuals before me except that they were with the CIA and knowledgeable about the interrogation program.

As we began our discussion, I told them I believed the key to the success of the speech was to demonstrate the effectiveness of CIA interrogations with real, concrete examples of how the program saved lives. If Americans knew that CIA interrogations were effective, most would have no problem with the techniques the agency had employed. Some might even be shocked at how restrained they had been. Many Americans, I said, imagined that what went on at the CIA “black sites” mirrored what they saw on 24.

They began by clarifying precisely how the program actually worked. While 24 depicts violent scenes where interrogators inflict severe pain to get time-sensitive intelligence on terrorist dangers, in the real world, they told me, this is not how interrogations take place.

They explained, for example, that there is a difference between “interrogation” and “de-briefing.” Interrogation is not how we got information from the terrorists; it is the process by which we overcome the terrorists’ resistance and secure their cooperation — sometimes with the help of enhanced interrogation techniques.

Once the terrorist agreed to cooperate, I was told, the interrogation stopped and “de-briefing” began, as the terrorists were questioned by CIA analysts, using non-aggressive techniques to extract information that could help disrupt attacks.

The interrogation process was usually brief, they said. According to declassified documents, on average “the actual use of interrogation techniques covers a period of three to seven days, but can vary upwards to 15 days based on the resilience” of the terrorist in custody.

Most detainees, they told me, did not undergo it at all. Two-thirds of those brought into the CIA program did not require the use of any enhanced interrogation techniques. Just the experience of being brought into CIA custody — the “capture shock,” arrival at a sterile location, the isolation, the fact that they did not know where they were, and that no one else knew they were there — was enough to convince most of them to cooperate.

Others, like KSM, demonstrated extraordinary resistance. But even KSM’s interrogation did not take long before he moved into debriefing. He had been captured in early March, they said, and before the end of the month he had already provided information on a plot to fly airplanes into London’s Heathrow airport.

As they described the information the CIA had gotten from KSM and others, I slowly realized that these men were not simply describing what others in the agency had done; I was sitting face to face with the individuals who had actually questioned terrorists at the CIA’s black sites and gotten the information they were describing to me themselves.

Harry, it turned out, had interrogated KSM. He explained that interrogations involved strict oversight. There was no freelancing allowed — every technique had to be approved in advance by headquarters, and any deviation from the meticulously developed interrogation plan would lead to the immediate removal of the interrogator.

Harry said the average age of CIA interrogators was 43 and that each interrogator received 250 hours of training before being allowed to come in contact with a terrorist. And even after that, he said, they had to complete another 20 hours working together with an experienced interrogator before they could lead an interrogation on their own. Contrary to the claims later made by some critics, such as FBI agent Ali Soufan, the CIA did not send a bunch of inexperienced people to question high-value detainees.

Harry explained that the interrogations were not violent, as some imagined. He said that the interrogators’ credo was to use “the least coercive method necessary” and that “each of us is put through the measures so we can feel it.” He added: “It is very respectful. The detainee knows that we are not there to gratuitously inflict pain. He knows what he needs to do to stop. We see each other as professional adversaries in war.” (Indeed, Mike Hayden told me years later that KSM referred to Harry as “emir” — a title of great respect in the jihadist ranks.)

Critics have charged that enhanced interrogation techniques are not effective because those undergoing them will say anything to get them to stop. Soufan, the FBI agent and CIA critic, has written: “When they are in pain, people will say anything to get the pain to stop. Most of the time, they will lie, make up anything to make you stop hurting them. . . . That means the information you’re getting is useless.”

What this statement reveals is that Soufan knows nothing about how the CIA actually employed enhanced interrogation techniques. In an interview for my book, former national-security adviser Steve Hadley explained to me, “The interrogation techniques were not to elicit information. So the whole argument that people tell you lies under torture misses the point.” Hadley said the purpose of the techniques was to “bring them to the point where they are willing to cooperate, and once they are willing to cooperate, then the techniques stop and you do all the things the FBI agents say you ought to do to build trust and all the rest.”

Former CIA director Mike Hayden explained to me that, as enhanced techniques are applied, CIA interrogators like Harry would ask detainees questions to which the interrogators already know the answers — allowing them to judge whether the detainees were being truthful and determine when the terrorists had reached a level of compliance. Hayden said, “They are designed to create a state of cooperation, not to get specific truthful answers to a specific question.”

Indeed, the first terrorist to be subjected to enhanced techniques, Zubaydah, told his interrogators something stunning. According to the Justice Department memos released by the Obama administration, Zubaydah explained that “brothers who are captured and interrogated are permitted by Allah to provide information when they believe they have reached the limit of their ability to withhold it in the face of psychological and physical hardship.” In other words, the terrorists are called by their religious ideology to resist as far as they can — and once they have done so, they are free to tell everything they know.

Several senior officials told me that, after undergoing waterboarding, Zubaydah actually thanked his interrogators and said, “You must do this for all the brothers.” The enhanced interrogation techniques were a relief for Zubaydah, they said, because they lifted a moral burden from his shoulders — the responsibility to continue resisting.

The importance of this revelation cannot be overstated: Zubaydah had given the CIA the secret code for breaking al-Qaeda detainees. CIA officials now understood that the job of the interrogator was to give the captured terrorist something to resist, so he could do his duty to Allah and then feel liberated to speak. So they developed techniques that would allow terrorists to resist safely, without any lasting harm. Indeed, they specifically designed techniques to give the terrorists the false perception that what they were enduring was far worse than what was actually taking place.

Once interrogators like Harry had secured a detainee’s cooperation, the enhanced techniques stopped, and the de-briefers entered the picture. Sam was a de-briefer — a subject matter expert with years of experience studying and tracking al-Qaeda members. His expertise had contributed to the capture of the terrorists he was now questioning — and now he put that expertise to work to find out what they knew.

Like the interrogators, de-briefers were carefully selected and trained before coming into contact with a detainee. They knew each detainee’s personal history, and what information they should know — allowing them to hone in on key details, maintain a fast pace of questions, and verify the truthfulness of the terrorists’ responses.

Sam had spent countless hours with KSM and the other terrorists held by the agency. When he elicited new information, he and the other de-briefers did not simply take the terrorists at their word. They checked their statements against other forms of intelligence and information from other captured terrorists — and confronted the detainees with evidence when they were holding information back or trying to mislead them.

Indeed, one reason the program was so effective, Sam told me, is that the de-briefers had 24/7 access to the detainees, many of whom were held in the same location. This allowed de-briefers to play one terrorist against the other. If KSM told them something about another terrorist in their custody, they could immediately confront the other terrorist with KSM’s revelations and get him to provide more details — and then go back with that information to get more from KSM.

They did this to great effect — confronting KSM and others with the statements of other terrorists in CIA custody, and getting information that helped them unravel planned attacks. Harry and Sam walked me through specific examples of how the interrogations had helped disrupt a series of terrorist plots in this way, showing me how information from a particular terrorist custody had led to the capture of other specific individuals, who in turn led us to other individuals, until the plots had been disrupted. These disrupted plots are detailed in Courting Disaster.

For example, information from detainees in CIA custody led to the arrest of an al-Qaeda terrorist named Jose Padilla, who was sent to America on a mission to blow up high-rise apartment buildings in the United States.

Information from detainees in CIA custody led to the capture of a cell of Southeast Asian terrorists which had been tasked by KSM to hijack a passenger jet and fly it into the Library Tower in Los Angeles.

Information from detainees in CIA custody led to the capture of Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, KSM’s right-hand-man in the 9/11 attacks, just as he was finalizing plans for a plot to hijack airplanes in Europe and fly them into Heathrow airport and buildings in downtown London.

Information from detainees in CIA custody led to the capture of Ammar al-Baluchi and Walid bin Attash, just as they were completing plans to replicate the destruction of our embassies in East Africa by blowing up the U.S. consulate and Western residences in Karachi, Pakistan.

Information from detainees in CIA custody led to the disruption of an al-Qaeda plot to blow up the U.S. Marine camp in Djibouti, in an attack that could have rivaled the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.

Information from detainees in CIA custody helped break up an al-Qaeda cell that was developing anthrax for terrorist attacks inside the United States.

In addition to helping break up these specific terrorist cells and plots, CIA questioning provided our intelligence community with an unparalleled body of information about al-Qaeda — giving U.S. officials a picture of the terrorist organization as seen from the inside, at a time when we knew almost nothing about the enemy who had attacked us on 9/11.

In addition, CIA detainees helped identify some 86 individuals whom al-Qaeda deemed suitable for Western operations — most of whom we had never heard of before. According to the intelligence community, about half of these individuals were subsequently tracked down and taken off the battlefield. Without CIA questioning, many of these terrorists could still be unknown to us and at large — and may well have carried out attacks against the West by now.

Until the program was temporarily suspended in 2006, well over half of the information our government had about al-Qaeda — how it operates, how it moves money, how it communicates, how it recruits operatives, how it picks targets, how it plans and carries out attacks — came from the interrogation of terrorists in CIA custody.

Another reason the program was so effective, Harry and Sam explained, was that because the terrorists were in a secure location, CIA officials could also expose sensitive information to them — asking them to explain the meaning of materials captured in terrorist raids, and to indentify phone numbers, e-mail addresses, and voices in recordings of intercepted communications. This could never be done if the terrorists were being held in a facility where they had regular contact with the outside world. The danger of this information getting out would have been far too great.

Harry and Sam told me that the agency believed without the program the terrorists would have succeeded in striking our country again.

Harry put it bluntly: “It is the reason we have not had another 9/11.”

Their work was vital, but it was not easy. They took great care to stay within the confines of the law and to ensure the safety of those in their custody. For their efforts, they have been vilified as torturers by critics who know next to nothing about what went on at the “black sites” where they worked. In 2005, CIA director Porter Goss tapped two outside officials to conduct a review of the effectiveness of the CIA interrogation program: Gardner Peckham, the former national-security adviser to House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and John Hamre, former deputy secretary of defense in the Clinton administration. Both spent several months at CIA headquarters studying the program and meeting with officials involved.

Peckham recalls having a long conversation late one night with one of the interrogators when he was conducting his review. This was “a very dedicated, capable guy who told me that he had been in with KSM one day, and KSM had basically said to him matter-of-factly, ‘If I ever get out of this hole, I’m going to kill you and your entire family.’ We were sitting there at nine o’clock at night or something, and he said to me, ‘You know, I work long days; this is hard. When I get down about it, I just think back to the film footage of the two people standing on the window of the World Trade Center on the 90-something floor, grasping each other by the hand and stepping out into space.’ He said, ‘I think of those two people, and I just go back to work.’”

Peckham says, “That really got to me. That level of dedication. These guys knew they were, in a lot of ways, limiting their futures by doing this kind of work, I think.They were risking something. But they knew a lot of other people were risking things too. And they knew it was important work, and I just have an enormous amount of respect for the people who are in this program. And I have such profound disrespect for those who ran for the tall grass when it started to become exposed, and even less regard for those who now seek to take political advantage of it.”

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 24, 2010 at 6:43 pm

Aye Chihuahua says: 2

Word,

On the topic of Thiessen, he destroyed Amanpour in this CNN interview last week:

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 24, 2010 at 6:59 pm

Wordsmith says: 3

It was great. I just saw that earlier today at Amy Proctor’s blog.

Loving the Thiessen article from National Review. It’s a long piece, and well worth the read.

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 24, 2010 at 7:12 pm

Mike's America says: 4

@Wordsmith:
@Aye Chihuahua:

Thanks for the info from Thiessen. I saw that interview with the hapless twit Amanpour on CNN and couldn’t believe what an ignorant leftie she is.

Thiessen knows what he is talking about and only a fool would argue with him.

It is stunning to think that decisions effecting the national security of the United States, including the interrogation of a suspect whose information might prevent the next attack would be left to a handful of local FBI agents.

The White House claims that Attorney General Holder made the decision regarding the disposition of Abdul whatever, but as yet, I have not heard him admit to it.

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 24, 2010 at 8:02 pm

Skookum says: 5

Thiessen can handle himself well! I bet Odumbo wishes he had a speech writer like that young man. Well done, well done indeed!

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 24, 2010 at 8:16 pm

Skookum says: 6

That woman could drive a starving bulldog out of a butcher shop.

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 24, 2010 at 8:20 pm

Taqiyyotomist says: 7

OT: dig this – Obama, Tax Man

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 24, 2010 at 9:17 pm

Taqiyyotomist says: 8

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=15900

Tried to use an embed code from youtube, did not work.

[courtesy embed by Mike's America]

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 24, 2010 at 9:18 pm

Mike's America says: 9

@Taqiyyotomist: Good one!

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 24, 2010 at 9:38 pm

yippie21 says: 10

TAX MAN! aahhhh! Excellent! Good for a smile after this very sobering post.

I fear we will be hit again and soon and it will handled very poorly. May the Lord be with and comfort the citizens of this country that will lose their lives or loved ones because of our dear leader and leftists in charge in Washington.

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 25, 2010 at 8:28 am

Mike's America says: 11

In case any of our lefty friends are lurking out there and are too embarrassed by Obama’s incompetence to comment, here’s further food for thought:

http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/2009/01/monument-to-bush-presidency.html

It lists the number of attacks which were foiled during the Bush years due to enhanced interrogation of high value suspects as well as the other actions Bush undertook to keep us safe.

Thousands of Americans are alive today because President Bush put safety of American citizens above giving constitutional rights to terrorists.

As Scott Brown said in Massachusetts of all places: “Let us spend money on weapons to stop them and not on lawyers to defend them!”

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 25, 2010 at 8:51 am

Old Trooper 2 says: 12

On interrogation, the extraction of useful strategic info takes weeks and months. Actionable tactical info takes days. Holder is blissfully ignorant of both the process and procedures as well as International Law ie; the Geneva and Hague Conventions and the “rights” allowed combatants not wearing uniforms or identifiable members of enemy armed forces. Nowhere in either Treaty is the mention of extracurricular Constitutional Rights to be granted by any Nation
or Miranda Rights upon capture. That is an Eric Holder misconception and a travesty.

That being said, it is only a question of when, not if we are successfully attacked on US soil. The Holder “Doctrine” and the ineptitude and incompetence of those advising him is both dangerous and hopelessly detrimental to National Security. DHS is headed by a hack politician that has zero qualifications for her position and lacks the ability to function in that role.

The current head of the CIA is also a politician lacking in experience and tradecraft. Intelligence collection is not something that can be outsourced to non US agencies as is the current practice in most cases.

We are fortunate enough to have outstanding employees in the CIA, however the analysis of info from questionable non vetted sources yields sub standard results. With the window of opportunity left open for crafty terrorist organizations and relatively naive folks making policy we are vulnerable.

I hope that without detail of a classified nature it is understood that our opposition can wait until they choose a target in their own good time while pretenders posture and pontificate on what a great job they are doing. The bad guys only need to get lucky once for their success and No it will not be a man made disaster. It will be a planned strike and tragically preventable.

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 25, 2010 at 9:17 am

Cary says: 13

@Mike’s America:

But wouldn’t more current info still be classified? How can we make a comparison? And is this a spectator sport in which we keep score?

In my mind, what better way to foil those who hate our Democracy than to apply it faithfully to them and show them, first hand, that our justice system works?!

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 25, 2010 at 9:20 am

Cary says: 14

@Mike’s America:

Although, I do have to agree that less than an hour of questioning doesn’t sound like much, even for a criminal investigation. Perhaps Curt could enlighten us on that.

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 25, 2010 at 9:24 am

Wordsmith says: 15

I do have to agree that less than an hour of questioning doesn’t sound like much, even for a criminal investigation.

Cary,

the need to interrogate him immediately and voraciously, isn’t for the sake of prosecution but for the sake of gathering intelligence. When they gave the underwear bomber the right to remain silent and gave him a lawyer, every minute that is lost interrogating him is valuable intelligence lost as al Qaeda (who was expecting him to be dead) works swiftly to erase any trails that could potentially lead us to uncovering other operatives and plans, disrupting training centers, etc.

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 25, 2010 at 10:30 am

Mike's America says: 16

@Cary: The terrorists are laughing at us. They couldn’t care less how fair our justice system is. They use it against us. Why do you think that the first thing KSM said when he was captured was “take me to New York and get me a lawyer” (paraphrased)???

We don’t know what the underwear bomber did say. But it’s so unlikely that he gave detailed descriptions of his trainers in Yemen, their base and mode of operations in FIFTY MINUTES!

Read the Washington Post story linked in the post for a description of the process that we went through with KSM. It took months to get all the info out of him. In the end, he started giving seminars on Al Queda to his interrogators.

None of this happened with the underwear bomber. Read again the excerpt of Andy McCarthy if you want to know more.

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 25, 2010 at 11:37 am

Wordsmith says: 17

First minute:

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 25, 2010 at 11:46 am

ilovebeeswarzone says: 18

is the law to deal with crimes commited by americans is apply the same for terrorist who come from another country commit an act of war?

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 25, 2010 at 12:01 pm

Mike's America says: 19

@Cary: I hope you listen to the audio Wordsmith posted above.

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 25, 2010 at 12:03 pm

Old Trooper 2 says: 20

* Keeping Score is a foolish notion and not relevant.
* Time lost immediately after capture fooling around with “Rights” or Privileges is not productive.
* Allowing terrorists to Lawyer up makes You an accomplice in that you gave them sanctuary.
* Time is of the essence when you do not know how many cohorts are out there on similar “missions”.
*Terrorists are involved in an Act of War, not subject to US Criminal Law.
* Information is and should remain classified otherwise you tip your hand.
* In criminal courts “classified information” is compromised and leaked.
* Our Justice System is NOT the Venue. Geneva Convention tribunals ARE.
*These folks are not bank robbers, car thieves, shoplifters or folks that failed to pay child support.
They are weapons that were “made” in training camps and ticking bombs. They are NOT common criminals.
*Our Criminal Justice System is a Safe Haven for them and they know it.

Information acquired prevents future attacks. They are Networked, believe it.

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 25, 2010 at 12:16 pm

ilovebeeswarzone says: 21

Old trooper you wrote some thing that is quite important about not knowing if the attacker is with others who can folow on more attack while the first one get pick up time was very much precious to get the first one to talk the fail attack is like a not fail attack acording to law of war,thank you.

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 25, 2010 at 12:36 pm

Cary says: 22

@Old Trooper 2:

Our Justice System is NOT the Venue. Geneva Convention tribunals ARE.

I agree with you here, but it seems that many on your side do not.. I can’t count how many times I heard that the Geneva Convention does not apply to certain individuals. But if we can decide that they don’t apply to a particular person for any reason, what’s to check us from deciding as such about anyone?

Am am not suggesting that a suspected terrorist be tried in civil court. In fact, I believe it’s pretty much impossible to find a totally impartial jury in NYC for a 9/11 plotter, where the memory is still pretty fresh among most of us, and imparted to our younger friends who had not yet moved here. Thus, such a trial would belie our system. But we do have to prove someone’s guilt before punishment, not just because we say so. If that is achieved outside our own system, it still supports what we believe in. Putting away someone indefinitely with no trial of any kind does not.

My point about keeping score is that we cannot make a comparison, since info is classified, and would not serve us in any way other than to score political points. This should not be about politics.

@Mike’s America:

We don’t know what the underwear bomber did say. But it’s so unlikely that he gave detailed descriptions of his trainers in Yemen, their base and mode of operations in FIFTY MINUTES!

Again, I agree with you. This is nowhere near enough. When he landed on American soil, he was subject to and protected by our laws. But I’m sure it didn’t take long to charge him, and they certainly should have spent much more than just an hour with him. So, please understand that while we not be entirely on the same page, we are agreeing more than we are disagreeing.

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 25, 2010 at 12:58 pm

Cary says: 23

I think i’m in the filter

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 25, 2010 at 12:59 pm

Old Trooper 2 says: 24

Now another perspective that you may find interesting.
Some rather rough language but I think you will get the point.

http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=16945

” It was Holder who made the decision to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a criminal trial in New York. It is Holder who has expressed his desire to grant full American constitutional rights to foreign terrorists. It is Holder who is leading the administration’s sputtering effort to move some Guantanamo inmates to the United States. And it is Holder who is apparently cutting other parts of the government out of crucial terrorism decisions like the treatment of Abdulmutallab. …

That was the message of Wednesday’s testimony from Blair, Leiter, Napolitano, and Mueller, all of whom were out of the loop on the Adbulmutallab decision. Their accounts left a number of Republican senators shaken; as the GOP lawmakers see it, the decision to read Abdulmutallab Miranda rights was a dreadful mistake, one that could have serious consequences down the line. There should be some accountability.

So on Thursday all seven Republicans on the Judiciary Committee sent a letter to Holder asking for a full explanation: Who made the decision and why, and whether the administration now has “a protocol or policy in place for handling al Qaeda terrorists captured in the United States.”

Republicans were troubled by the decision even before Wednesday’s testimony showed that major administration figures knew nothing about it. Now, the lawmakers want to know what happened, and they believe the only person who can tell them is Holder.

Here’s how this should play out.

The President needs to get serious on this whole terrorism thing before a bunch of Americans are killed and this needs to happen right now.

Eric Holder needs to be fired. Some would argue that he needs to have his balls set on fire and then unceremoniously dismissed but you know me, the kinder-gentler kind of guy that I am.”
******************************************
Give it a read and draw your own conclusions. I did not write it so don’t go off on me.
The fellow that did is a Retired Army Officer that has his own sources and presents his case
without the kid gloves on.

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 25, 2010 at 3:15 pm

Aye Chihuahua says: 25

Just to be clear here regarding the panty bomber.

This guy could have, and should have, been declared an enemy combatant. He could have, and should have, been on the very next available flight to Gitmo for questioning and interrogation.

He is specifically excluded from Geneva Convention protections because of two very distinct things: 1) He was not wearing a uniform while fighting, 2) He was targeting civilians.

In addition to that, prior to getting on board the airplane he was hiding among civilian populations while planning and plotting his murderous exploits.

Those actions alone entitle him to a trial (by military tribunal) and, upon conviction, summary execution.

His presence on US soil does not confer upon him the automatic protection of US law (see Ex Parte Quirin and the Operation Pastorius case.)

In that case, the US Supreme Court ruled that eight German saboteurs, including two US citizens, could be tried by a military tribunal. That tribunal was conducted in Washington, DC. All eight were convicted. Six were executed. The remaining two were given life sentences which were later commuted and they were expelled from the US.

Detaining people for long periods of time is clearly established as being appropriate as well. In fact, Obie’s Justice Dept recommended last week that about 50 detainees be held indefinitely.

There is clear precedent for how these issues should be handled.

There is no gray area or ambiguity in the Geneva Conventions or the Laws of Land Warfare when it comes to these types of apprehensions.

The problem here is the mindset. We, the American People don’t seem willing to recognize and face the fact that these monsters want to kill us. They are not redeemable. They cannot be reasoned with. The only thing they recognize or respect is blunt, sheer, brutality. Creatures like the panty bomber need to be treated under the precise, exacting guidelines of the Geneva Conventions. They should be tried, and upon conviction, they should be shot.

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 25, 2010 at 4:00 pm

Old Trooper 2 says: 26

At issue here is the mindset of Holder and the Obama DOJ, meddling in things that they either do not understand or are unwilling to follow in the template that is found within the Geneva Conventions.

They just don’t get it. Aye, you are 100% accurate and the precedent is clear and well established.
This was not the within the bailiwick of DOJ, DHS or the FBI. It was a DOD issue pure and simple.
I do blame Bush for not pursuing Military Tribunals for the Club GITMO crowd when they had the goods on them. This is a cut and dried a Military Tribunal issue. The Geneva Convention provided legal resources for the suspects, ethical treatment and a Legal Process recognized as International Law.

Quite frankly it was a missed opportunity and offers sanctuary extra legal to terrorists.

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 25, 2010 at 4:17 pm

Old Trooper 2 says: 27

This just up.

http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Press.MajorityNews&ContentRecord_id=671f7d07-5056-8059-761b-982946e6f4dd

Contact: Leslie Phillips
(202) 224-2627
January 25, 2010
LIEBERMAN, COLLINS URGE ADMINISTRATION TO MOVE ABDULMUTALLAB INTO MILITARY CUSTODY

WASHINGTON – Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, ID-Conn., and Ranking Member Susan Collins, R-Me., urged the Administration Monday to move Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from civilian to military custody because he is an enemy combatant and should be detained, interrogated and ultimately charged as such. Abdulmutallab, who is charged with attempting to blow up a jetliner with over 250 people heading to Detroit on Christmas Day, was interrogated, charged, and is being held by civilian legal authorities, despite having been trained and directed by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Penninsula.

A copy of the letter follows:

January 25, 2010

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Attorney General of the United States

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

The Honorable John O. Brennan

Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW

Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Brennan:

We write to urge the Administration to immediately transfer Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a foreign terrorist, to the Department of Defense to be held as an unprivileged enemy belligerent (UEB) and questioned and charged accordingly.

The President has affirmed repeatedly that we are at war with al-Qaeda and, as you well know, Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian national, was trained and sent by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) to ruthlessly and mercilessly kill hundreds of innocent civilians, including the Americans on Flight 253 and many more on the ground. Osama Bin Laden also claimed yesterday that al-Qaeda was responsible for the attack.

Nevertheless, once Abdulmutallab was in custody, federal law enforcement officials on the ground in Detroit read the terrorist his Miranda rights. According to press reports, by the time the Miranda rights were read and Abdulmutallab went silent, he had been questioned for just under an hour, during which time he had been speaking openly about the attack and AQAP’s role. The decision to treat Abdulmutallab as a criminal rather than a UEB almost certainly prevented the military and the intelligence community from obtaining information that would have been critical to learning more about how our enemy operates and to preventing future attacks against our homeland and Americans and our allies throughout the world.

During a hearing before our Committee last week titled Intelligence Reform: The Lessons and Implications of the Christmas Day Attack, we were told that the Department of Justice did not consult with leadership in the intelligence community and the Department of Defense for their input on whether or not to treat Abdulmutallab as a criminal and read him his Miranda rights. In addition, in the aftermath of the hearing, we learned that the so-called High Value Detainee Interrogation Group, which the Department of Justice announced last August – more than four months ago – is not yet operational.

Though the President has said repeatedly that we are at war, it does not appear to us that the President’s words are reflected in the actions of some in the Executive branch, including some at the Department of Justice, responsible for fighting that war. The unilateral decision by the Department of Justice to treat Abdulmutallab – a belligerent fighting for and trained by an al-Qaeda franchised organization – as a criminal rather than a UEB and to forego information that may have been extremely helpful to winning this war demonstrates that very point.

The Administration can reverse this error, at least to some degree, by immediately transferring Abdulmutallab to the Department of Defense. The Department of Defense has the authority and capability to hold and interrogate Abdulmutallab and try him before a military commission. We urge you to take that course of action immediately and to ensure that the necessary steps are taken to avoid repeating such mistakes in the future.

Sincerely,

Joseph I. Lieberman Susan M. Collins

Chairman Ranking Member

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 25, 2010 at 4:25 pm

Aye Chihuahua says: 28

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 25, 2010 at 4:54 pm

ilovebeeswarzone says: 29

wow i was watching the movie 2012 and i think as i read the lieberman report things are moving here too now thank you good mr Lieberman

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 25, 2010 at 7:43 pm

Wordsmith says: 30

@Old Trooper 2:

I do blame Bush for not pursuing Military Tribunals for the Club GITMO crowd when they had the goods on them.

Wasn’t that derailed due to the Hamdan decision?

Cary,

The real purpose of Geneva is to protect civilians. Its broader reach aside from POW treatment is to protect innocent civilians by deterring violations of the rules of war. This is accomplished by offering certain protections to those who abide by the laws of war and deny it to those who violate them.

Giving terrorists protection under Geneva undermines it.

In 1977, Carter signed Protocol I (which would have granted terrorists Geneva protection) and submitted it to the Senate, pending review by DoD. In 1987, Reagan made the decision not to ratify Protocol I. Interestingly enough, even though Reagan’s decision was praised at the time, over the years many of our allies have since ratified Protocol I. Having done so, it’s no wonder that these nations have been critical of the Bush Administration for refusing to grant al Qaeda operatives the protective umbrella of Geneva.

The Bush Administration is the one that actually respects the Geneva Conventions. It is those who want to give terrorists the cover of Geneva that do not.

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 26, 2010 at 11:35 am

MataHarley says: 31

@Wordsmith: Not Hamdan, Word. Actually, there was the step lawsuits affecting the DTA (Detainee Treatment Act, 2005) and MCA (Military Commissions Act, 2006) that first started with Rasul v Bush, and Hamdi v Rumsfed (both in June 2004), followed by Hamdan (Oct 2005) and then to the last… and most sweeping damage and legal vaguary… Boumediene (June of 2008).

SCOTUS must love June, eh? LOL

The post I did on Boumediene’s opinion gives links and some of that background. The follow up post, The aftermath, notes that while Boumediene viewed the MCA as unConstitutional, it didn’t address the legality of military tribunals specifically for the Gitmo types as created with the DTA. Tribunals, in and of themselves, aren’t unConstitutional.

So you might say the Gitmo military tribunals were first derailed by the defense lawyers themselves, delaying the Gitmo detainees right to swift justice under the DTA (those who weren’t in the appeal process) and MCA. For every brief they filed, they postponed their appearance. It was not for lack of the Bush admin and military for trying.

The SCOTUS then further muddied the waters with Boumediene, which essentially reclassified Gitmo as US sovereign territory… a decision that somewhat reversed their 2004 decision in Rasul that Cuba was *not* sovereign, but “a creature of the Constitution.” According to them, as a “creature”, it still was under federal court jurisdiction because the base was US law unto itself, but not sovereign, and there was no SOFA with Cuba. It was after Rasul that Congress passed the DTA. The DTA granted validation and review of the CSRT (Combatant Status Review Tribunals) exclusively to the U.S. Court of Appeals, DC.

Hamdan was June 2006, and ruled that the DTA of 2005 didn’t apply to detainees already in the appeal process. So Congress came up with the MCA in 2006, denying habeas corpus to any detainees who were determined to be enemy combatants. Since SCOTUS reclassified Gitmo as US sovereign territory in Boumediene, they indicated they viewed the MCA as being unConstitutional without actually labeling it unConstitutional. Sort of an interesting oversight, don’t you think?

Now, under Obama, he continues with the same legal clusterf*#k the Bush admin had… using the DC Court of Appeals to determine status of the detainees. But, like Bush, anyone determined to be an enemy combatant then runs into the mess of Boumediene, and it’s foggy “undo” of the MCA. So it’s hard to say if the Obama AG can pursue tribunals for the cases they desire since any defense lawyer may go back to the SCOTUS and ask for clarification on the MCA Constitutional status.

Laws… clear as mud they are…

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 26, 2010 at 12:26 pm

MataHarley says: 32

@Cary: I can’t count how many times I heard that the Geneva Convention does not apply to certain individuals. But if we can decide that they don’t apply to a particular person for any reason, what’s to check us from deciding as such about anyone?

The GC and sundry revisions are quite clear on establishing who is a protected POW based on their methods of warfare, Cary. When you deliberately target civilians, you are not a protected GC class. Also questionable are those that are not part of a State military, which jihad is not. Nor is the global Islamic jihad movement a signatory to the GC.

I will agree with Wordsmith that the GC does focus on rules of warfare as they relate to civilians and innocents. But I will disagree that was the primary purpose. Treatment of POWs is quite high on the reasons for it’s creation.

However it must be noted that the only nation’s feet that are ever held to the fire on whether GC is followed to the letter of the int’l treaty agreement is the US.

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 26, 2010 at 12:33 pm

Wordsmith says: 33

@MataHarley: Thanks, Mata.

You should have your own FA comment category: Matapedia.

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 26, 2010 at 1:22 pm

Aye Chihuahua says: 34

@Wordsmith:

Matapedia.

Oh, that’s good.

That’s very, very good.

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 26, 2010 at 3:21 pm

Missy says: 35

She’s definately a drastic improvement for the “pedia’s” would be like a bomb going off over there.

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 26, 2010 at 4:02 pm

MataHarley says: 36

oieevaaay….. the thought of public “pedia” editing on my stuff would result in tear-my-hair-out frustration! LOL But oh so kind thought in intent! Thank you.

Reply

Like or Dislike:

0

January 26, 2010 at 4:09 pm

Christmas Day Bomber Only Talked to FBI for 50 Minutes!

40 Responses to Christmas Day Bomber Only Talked to FBI for 50 Minutes!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Advertisment

Advertisment

Recent Posts

Advertisment

Stats