Simple Criminal or (Unlawful) Combatant?

Even the Washington Post has come out in opposition in his ed (not the op-ed)to the Obama administration’s decision to treat the crotch-bomber (Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab) as nothing more than a common street criminal.

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.

…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.

I cannot belive in a lifetime how anyone could believe giving Miranda warnings to a terrorist is a good idea.
I know the left has many peaceniks who are more naive than a 6 year old but hey, Miranda warnings for a foreign terrorist suspect? He is not a US citizen and he was trained by and is a part of a non-state entity which has declared war on the US. He simply does not have the same protection afforded to a US citizen. He is an enemy (unlawful)combatant. No Miranda warnings are necessary.
The former federal prosecutor Bill Otis nails the Obama administration.

What the Post still fails to understand is that the administration’s “myopic, irresponsible and potentially dangerous” blunder in this case was less a result of one bureaucratic miscommunication than of the inherent confusion at the base of its thinking about terrorism and the law. As long as there is indecision about whether violent jihadists should be treated as standard criminals or as the illegal combatants they are, blunders like this are inevitable. The administration’s policy is not the nuanced approach the Post takes it to be. It is wishful thinking masquerading as a nuanced approach.

If you send the FBI agents to handle this case they reacted the way they have been trained and questioned the suspect and then Mirandized him. This would be normal procedure for a typical i.e bank robber . This admin is so far behind the curve of filling vacancies that they don’t have any of the HIG team in place. Plus, these bright lights at the FBI didn’t think to call in and ask if this bombing case might rise to a higher level. It’s really not the agents fault because they have been so brain washed about civil rights and sensitivity training that this is the results and it is the right result for criminals but not for (unlawful) combatants. That is bureaucracy at its worst and it is a lefty view of the war.
There is no war there are only criminals with bad mum and dad.

~ von auslaender2009 - Dienstag, 26. Januar 2010.

Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Abmelden / Ändern )


Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )


Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Google+ Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google+-Konto. Abmelden / Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s

%d Bloggern gefällt das: