Antiterrorism and Failed Attacks Discussion

[The Stig]

FWIW, my last post was proposing a system, not describing what the Administration is actually doing.

As an aside, this case is a good example of why enhanced interrogations don't necessarily work too well: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8671577.stm

Now imagine if we'd been deploying our limited counterterrorism resources based on "intel" gleaned from that guy.

[Boz]

Much too early and completely unconfirmed at this point, but if this pans out, it should be news big enough to even wipe even a SCOTUS nomination off the front pages.

biggovernment.com/bthor/2010/05/10/exclusive-mullah-omar-captured/

And it would be a big victory for the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton...one I will not begrudge them the tiniest little bit.

Let's hope it's true.

[TBird41]

May 10, 2010 22:37:49 GMT -5 Boz said:

Much too early and completely unconfirmed at this point, but if this pans out, it should be news big enough to even wipe even a SCOTUS nomination off the front pages.

biggovernment.com/bthor/2010/05/10/exclusive-mullah-omar-captured/

And it would be a big victory for the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton...one I will not begrudge them the tiniest little bit.

Let's hope it's true.

That'd be huge. Hope they got him.

[The Stig]

Whoa! Let's hope this is true, it would be absolutely terrific if it is.

While it would obviously be a real boost to Obama/Hillary if it ends up being true, the real credit should go to the Pakistanis (although I'm sure there will be plenty of people who won't be happy that they took so long to tell us).

[Boz]

May 10, 2010 23:33:07 GMT -5 The Stig said:

Whoa! Let's hope this is true, it would be absolutely terrific if it is.

While it would obviously be a real boost to Obama/Hillary if it ends up being true, the real credit should go to the Pakistanis (although I'm sure there will be plenty of people who won't be happy that they took so long to tell us).

You can count Hillary as one of those people. This will be a really big victory for her* because she basically just called them out (the Pakistanis, that is), and now if this is true, there will be a direct correlation, whether it is justified or not.

(* Yes, yes. A victory for all of us. I agree, I was just taking that as a given and moving on to the political considerations).

[Bando]

Hmm. I haven't seen anything more, but I can see them keeping this quiet for as long as possible for intelligence reasons. Hopefully we get confirmation sometime in the near future.

[jerseyhoya34]

Senior officials dumped some water on it according to the Atlantic. Hope Atlantic is wrong. It may take a while to figure out if we've captured him simply because nobody really knows much about him.

[Boz]

I have no problem if they want to keep this one under wraps and just part of the tubular rumor mill for a little while. I can think of any number of reasons why a little official misinformation on this topic could be invaluable over a period of weeks or even months. (they probably couldn't hide it for months though, if true; maybe, but I doubt it).

Or, it could be bogus. Hope not though.

[kchoya]

May 9, 2010 17:53:18 GMT -5 SirSaxa said:

May 8, 2010 21:48:35 GMT -5 The Stig said:

It's also interesting that they brought in a "clean team" on Abdulmutallab after he'd gotten his Miranda warning. I think that having split interrogations like that might be a good idea in the future.

Two teams: Dirty Team and Clean Team. As soon as the suspect is arrested, Dirty Team interrogates him for national security intel. After they're done, Clean Team comes in, Mirandizes him, and interrogates him for the purpose of gathering evidence for his trial. Evidence gathered by Clean Team is admissible at trial, evidence gathered by Dirty Team cannot be used. Clean Team can talk to Dirty Team (for example, if they stumble across something related to national security), but Dirty Team cannot talk to Clean Team. Dirty Team is allowed to interrogate the suspect again after he's been Mirandized, but any info gathered then still cannot be used in court. Neither team is allowed to torture the suspect.

Thoughts?

It seems to me the Administration is working to find ways -- within the law -- to achieve its goals of gleaning as much useful intel in as timely a fashion as possible, yet still be able to prosecute these terrorists in a way that is consistent with the Constitution and established US Law.

However, I am not sure your point about being unable to use info in a trail that was gleaned by the "dirty team" is necessarily accurate:

Excerpt from Article Ambassador Linked:
...the Supreme Court, which recognized the public safety exception in the 1984 Quarles case...

In the Quarles case ... a woman told officers she had been raped and the assailant fled with a gun to a grocery store. One officer caught the man in the store, and, after noticing an empty holster, asked him where the gun was before reading him the Miranda warning. The suspect said he had hidden the weapon behind some empty cartons. The use of that statement at trial was challenged, but it was ultimately allowed by the Supreme Court.

[/b][/blockquote]

I do believe it is important -- very important -- for the USA to live up to our standards, our principles and our Constitution. We claim to be the world's leader, and we claim to follow domestic and international law, unlike the countries, terrorist organizations and individuals with whom we clash. If we do not live up to our own standards, how are we different from them?

Your posts about Civil Rights for arrested Americans have been absolutely spot on.
Here's a question, was Timothy McVeigh's citizenship revoked? If not, did anyone raise a fuss about that issue? Or is this simply a case of racial/ethnic/religious profiling?

Now if the Times Sq. bomber is convicted, as we fully expect he will be, it would be entirely appropriate and legitimate to strip of his US Citizenship due to treason (writing as a non-lawyer).


[/quote]

Krauthammer column discussing expansion of the public safety exception and Holder's position:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/13/AR2010051303555.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[The Stig]

While I agree with Krauthammer's overall position (Holder's use of the public safety exception is good), I disagree with his view that we should still treat these people as enemy combatants, not criminals. The problem with designating these people as enemy combatants is that Al Qaeda members want to be enemy combatants. Terrorists are criminals, but enemy combatants are warriors.

The Al Qaeda rhetoric says that they are at war with the United States, thus justifying their otherwise un-Islamic attacks on America. They see themselves as warriors in a global war against America. By giving them enemy combatant status and calling our fight against them a "War on Terror" we unwittingly played directly into their rhetoric and made them warriors instead of the criminals they are.

As these last couple of arrests have proven, you can still get a lot of intelligence out of these people even if you treat them as criminals and don't strip them of their rights. I think Holder's use of the public safety exception is an effective and Constitutional way to get intelligence while still remaining true to our principles that we have to live by even in dangerous times.

[EasyEd]

Holder's use of the public safety exception is a charade so he can interrogate without reading the Miranda rights while still pretending he is giving them full rights.

And who gives a s___ if our enemies consider themselves to be warriors. That's what they are.

Also, what's "un-Islamic" in the attacks on America?

[Deleted]

A Muslim has been crowned Miss USA. I guess the infiltration is complete - it's only a matter of time before she uses the power of her throne to tear this country apart from the inside with her anti-American religion:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/17/AR2010051700431.html?hpid=topnews

[Boz]

How long until she receives death threats for wearing a bikini, let alone having an education or speaking?

[The Stig]

May 14, 2010 13:37:50 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Holder's use of the public safety exception is a charade so he can interrogate without reading the Miranda rights while still pretending he is giving them full rights.

And who gives a s___ if our enemies consider themselves to be warriors. That's what they are.

Also, what's "un-Islamic" in the attacks on America?

What's un-Islamic about it? The whole attacking unarmed innocent civilian things, for starters.

The much-ballyhooed "sword verses" in the Koran are for the conduct of DEFENSIVE war, not a way to carry out criminal activity against an unarmed enemy. The only way to accept the 9/11 attacks as within Islam is if you accept the premise that the United States is actively at war with Islam. Calling our struggle against Al Qaeda a "War on Terror" and making Al Qaeda members "enemy combatants" feeds into that premise. A lot of moderate Muslims believe that the War on Terror was a War on Islam, which makes them a much more fertile recruiting ground for Al Qaeda.

Most terrorist organizations aren't defeated by simply killing/arresting all the members. Most of them fail because they overplay their hand, become too violent, and alienate the moderates who previously tolerated or even supported them. Once the moderates turn, the terrorist organization loses its recruiting base and its protection. One of the best examples is the Irish Catholic population turning against the IRA after Enniskillen attack, or the Iraqi Sunnis turning against Al Qaeda in Iraq (with help from Petraeus) because AQ in Iraq killed too many Iraqi civilians.