Note: Charles Krauthammer, on "Special Report" ( Fox TV, perhaps the best news analysis show on the tube ), said that it was irresponsible in extremis to treat the Detroit airplane would-be bomber ( aka "the underwear bomber" ) as a civil criminal defendant. What happened was that Abdulmutallab had started to inform on those who he co-operated with in plans for his thwarted attempt to kill hundreds of airplane passengers in the name of Islam. Then the WH stepped in, in the form of the DoJ, and stopped the interrogations. This completely ended all timely intelligence gathering on the part of the FBI / CIA. As far as Krauthammer was concerned, a view that seems self evidently true to me, this was malfeasance of authority of the worst imaginable kind and speaks clearly about values afoot in the Administration which are a disservice to the country and the safety of its citizens. Billy ======================================================== from : Powerline _The dove that dare not speak its name _ (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/01/025303.php) (http://twitter.com/home?status=Reading:%20The dove that dare not speak its name%20at%20Power%20Line%20http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/01/025303.php) January 3, 2010 Posted by Scott at 8:28 AM Chris Wallace interviewed Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan on FOX News Sunday this morning. The interview transcript will be posted on _RealClearPolitics_ (http://realclearpolitics.com/) this afternoon. At the moment I'm writing from memory. In the middle of the interview Wallace asked Brennan why the administration was treating Nigerian terrorist bomber Umar Abdulmutallab as a criminal defendant rather than an enemy combatant. Wallace referred to the fact that Abdulmuttalab had reportedly been cooperating with authorities until he obtained a lawyer. Brennan declined to challenge the premise of the question, but he talked a bit around the question. He stated that Abdulmutallab was apprehended in Detroit. He referred to the treatment of Richard Reid and others by the Bush administration as criminal defendants. He asserted that Abdulmutallab might start talking at a later date when it may serve his interest in the criminal process. He emphasized that the determination regarding Abdulmutallab's treatment was made by the Department of Justice. Eureka! The DoJ determination takes us back to the administration's treatment of Khalid Sheik Mohammed as a criminal defendant. No reason of law or justice, history or tradition, supports the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed et al. in federal court. Indeed, as Thomas Sowell observed, it is something of _an obscenity_ (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/17/bowing_to_world_opinion__99181.html) . Cloaking Khalid Sheikh Mohammed et al. with the constitutional protections afforded American citizens comes at a steep price. In the case of Omar Abdulmutallab the cost is foregone intelligence regarding the planning of future attacks on American citizens. Why is the Obama administration paying the price? In his interview with Wallace, Brennan simply stated and reiterated the conclusion. Missing is any statement of the rationale that supports the conclusion. The Obama administration is stalwart in its refusal to articulate the rationale supporting the treatment of particular perpetrators as criminal defendants rather than enemy combatants. Attorney General Holder's announcement of the _"forum decisions for 10 Guantanamo Bay detainees"_ (http://blogs.usdoj.gov/blog/archives/348) likewise lacked the statement of a rationale. Addressing KSM et al., here is what Holder said: I am confident in the ability of our courts to provide these defendants a fair trial, just as they have for over 200 years. The alleged 9/11 conspirators will stand trial in our justice system before an impartial jury under long-established rules and procedures.... [M]y decision as to whether to proceed in federal courts or military commissions was based on a protocol that the Departments of Justice and Defense developed and that was announced in July. Because many cases could be prosecuted in either federal courts or military commissions, that protocol sets forth a number of factors - including the nature of the offense, the location in which the offense occurred, the identity of the victims, and the manner in which the case was investigated - that must be considered. In consultation with the Secretary of Defense, I looked at all the relevant factors and made case by case decisions for each detainee. In his announcement Holder never got around to articulating the rationale or applying it to the cases. He left the rationale unstated. It is, you might say, the dove that dare not speak its name. At the conclusion of his announcement Holder stated: "For over two hundred years, our nation has relied on a faithful adherence to the rule of law to bring criminals to justice and provide accountability to victims." But the United States has never tried enemy leaders responsible for acts of war in civilian courts. Never before in American history has the United States brought its martial enemies to trial in a civilian court and cloaked them with the protections of the United States Constitution. Someone in a position to do so really ought to question responsible administration officials such as Holder and Brennan in a forum designed to secure a full statement of reasons accounting for the administration's actions.
_______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
