[...] Sorry That We In Al Qaeda Are Cowards And Kill Lots Of Muslims” Flopping Aces: More CYA From The Obama White House…Christmas Day Bomber Now Talking Because Of Family And so it goes in Shreveport: Eric Holder Defends His Decision to Bring KSM to New York City Stop [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

[...] Sorry That We In Al Qaeda Are Cowards And Kill Lots Of Muslims” Flopping Aces: More CYA From The Obama White House…Christmas Day Bomber Now Talking Because Of Family And so it goes in Shreveport: Eric Holder Defends His Decision to Bring KSM to New York City Stop [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

does anyone know about that man who jump on the terrorist and by his action prevented all the people to explode with the plane?if i would be in the plane i realy would like to know that hero and i would demand that the company gives him free pass in his future travel ,thank you

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Missy and @Mike’s America: here’s the link to Holder’s five page letter/response to Mitch McConnell and other GOP Congress members, demanding an explanation of the choice to Mirandize and prosecute the underwear bomber in US federal courts.

Holder specifically notes that discussions with Obama, face to face, were held:

In the days following December 25 – including during a meeting with the President and other senior members of his national security team on January 5 – high-level discussions ensued within the Administration in which the possibility of detaining Mr. Abdulmutallab under the law of war was explicitly discussed. No agency supported the use of law of war detention for Abdulmutallab, and no agency has since advised the Department of Justice that an alternative course of action should have been, or should now be, pursued.

Interesting that Napoplitano, Blair and Brennen claim ignorance. Are they not considered “…other senior members of his national security team”?

Obama, himself, cannot escape his culpability… condemned by Holder’s own documentation of discussions on a specific date.

The intra-departmental communication deficiencies led to the fiasco of the underwear bomber… redeemed and rendered impotent by both inept terrorist bomb making skills and an alert citizenry. What is also obvious is that the WH national security appointees do not retain their lessons well, since their communications did not improve in the weeks following (INRE who knew what about interrogation, mirandizing and prosecution via law of war).

It’s truly a fine line for the venue for justice since those arrested on US soil traditionally are afforded trials in our courts. Our current laws are not set up to accommodate for dealing with non-State affiliated enemy combatants who have declared war on the US. This was the reason for the DTA/MCA combo. However SCOTUS has rendered portions of that legislation vague. Instead of clarification, it becomes even more difficult to determine what can, and cannot be done.

It may be that particular crimes of war, involving jihad or any other upstart that decides to declare war on the US in the future, should be exempted from automatic federal trials. The nature of acts of war differs so completely from normal criminal activity (i.e. murders, financial crimes, etc). This, however, proves difficult for an administration that tends to view the attempt by a jihad activist to blow an airliner out of the sky as attempted mass murder, and not an act of war.

This makes motivation the prime reason for choosing a venue for justice. ala differentiating between some wacko nutjob who just wants 15 minutes of infamy for heinous acts (VA Tech shooter, i.e.), and one who is committing the act in the name of jihad. (Ft. Hood shooter, i.e.) Both committed mass murders, but with very different motivation. One was a crime, and the other an act of war, aiding quasi-organized enemy combatant groups outside the country.

Therefore establishing the motivation prior to choosing a venue seems appropriate. This would involve interrogations prior to mirandizing. However then the problem arises that, if the motivation were not deemed an act of war, there is danger of inadmissible evidence during the trial, obtained pre’Miranda.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Missy: Thanks for that link to the Weekly Standard which also had a link to Holder’s letter in PDF. At least Holder finally responded to Sen. Mitch McConnell even though the response was filled with the typical excuses and phony justifications.

Holder also admits using plea bargaining (with a terrorist who willingly would have sacrificed his won life in the attack) as a “lever” to get him to cooperate. How stupid is that?

He totally ducks the issue of lost opportunity to gain time sensitive actionable intelligence.

Holder closed with this:

“The criminal justice system has proven to be one of the most effective weapons available to our government for both incapacitating terrorists and collecting intelligence from them.”

Is there a better example of how the Obama Administration treats this war as a criminal matter? It’s such a glaring September 10th mindset!

P.S. I love your “C&P” additions to these threads. Don’t ever stop!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Thomas Joscelyn included a portion of Holder’s letter in a post he did at Weekly Standard. It’s odd that Holder includes this statement because those on the Senate committee investigating this have been told by Dennis Blair, Janet Napalitano and Brennen, in their testimony, that they were not informed of Holder’s decision to mirandize the terrorist. Either the heads of our Homeland Security and intel departments are irrelevant or someone is lying?

This quote/admission is from the letter written by Eric Holder:

“I made the decision to charge Mr. Abdulmutallab with federal crimes, and to seek his detention in connection with those charges, with the knowledge of, and with no objection from, all other relevant departments of the government. On the evening of December 25 and again on the morning of December 26, the FBI informed its partners in the Intelligence Community that Abdulmutallab would be charged criminally, and no agency objected to this course of action.”

Joscelyn writes:

(1) While those other departments were informed, according to Holder, this evidently doesn’t include the senior-most members of those departments — per their congressional testimony. Senior officials including DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano have testified that they were not informed of the decision. If they were informed, which is unlikely, then they lied before Congress. If they weren’t informed, which is likely, then this means those departments have serious communication problems because such an important decision was never communicated up the chain. In other words, assuming Holder is right, then why weren’t the senior-most officials in those departments informed?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/holder-admits-he-made-decision-charge-abdulmutallab-criminal-defendent

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Now if we can get Bin Ladens Mom and Dad to smack him around a little bit and get him straightened out, all our problems will be solved.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Just like the second post today, no lobbyists in this administration. Right….
These guys lie and lie and lie and wonder why Scott Brown was elected. Keep talking
bitch………..

Like or Dislike: 0  0

When Richard Reed was arrested, there was NO Guantanamo. This makes this issue ‘moot’.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Vice President Cheney undersood the first few days after capture of a terrorist… get information quickly, keep the terrorist isolated and alone, make it clear the terrorist is in no position to negotiate.

“Team Obama’s policy in dealing with terrorists is to read them their Miranda Rights, give them a lawyer and when they cry for their Mommy rush off and negotiate with and bring their family over.

What could go wrong ?

Like or Dislike: 0  0