[GSgCGxsF]

Anyone wish to reasonably discuss some of the issues in the article ( please read the entire article if so). The point, a larger one being the prez. oversees the small stuff but commands the bigger picture ala mechanics of prevention in the larger sense.

The lack of intel or usefulness of intel gleaned before he lawyered up?

Should he have been able to, no, let me say allowed to lawyer up?



What Does the Detroit Bomber Know?
The president's job is not detecting bombs at the airport but neutralizing terrorists before they get there.

By MICHAEL B. MUKASEY

There was much to celebrate in the providential combination of an incompetent terrorist and surpassingly brave passengers and crew who saved 288 people aboard Northwest Airlines flight 253 on Christmas Day. There is a lot less to applaud in the official reaction.

Well-deserved mockery has already been heaped on the move-along-folks-nothing-to-see-here tone of the administration's initial pronouncements—from Janet Napolitano's "the system worked," to President Obama's statement that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was an "isolated extremist." This week brought little improvement.

The president acknowledged that the plot had been hatched in Yemen, but not without adding the misleading statement that Yemen faces "crushing poverty and deadly insurgencies." That Yemenis have to cope with "crushing poverty" is irrelevant here. Abdulmutallab is the son of a wealthy Nigerian banker. Other jihadists, including the physician who blew himself up and killed seven CIA agents in Afghanistan last week, and indeed the millionaire Osama bin Laden, prove that poverty does not beget terrorists. "Deadly insurgencies" is a half-truth, which omits the fact that the Yemeni government itself has supported al Qaeda and continues to harbor at least two people—Jamal Ahmed Mohammed Ali al-Badawi and Fahad Mohammed Ahmed al-Quso—involved in the bombing of the USS Cole.

Then, too, there was the unfortunate metaphor chosen by a senior intelligence adviser to account for why a conspiracy helped along by at least two Guantanamo alumni had not been discovered before Abdulmutallab boarded the plane. There was, he said, "no smoking gun"—a clue one would expect to find after disaster strikes, not before. There were, as it happens, many smokeless but redolent clues lying about before the plane took off. These included Abdulmutallab's father's warning to the State Department that his son was being radicalized and had gone to Yemen; the one-way ticket purchased for cash; no luggage; and intercepted communication referring to a plot involving "the Nigerian" in Yemen.

But it is not so much these gaffes as what they appear to reflect that gives serious cause for concern. Even as the initial spin was in progress, Abdulmutallab was chattering like a magpie to his FBI captors about having been trained by al Qaeda and about there being more where he came from.

Braggadocio aside, he was certainly aware of who had prepared the potentially deadly mix that was sewn in his underwear, who had trained him, where the training had taken place, whether there was in fact a South Asian man described by two other passengers who helped him talk his way on to the plane, and a good deal more. Such facts are valuable but evanescent intelligence. The location of people—and with it our ability to find and neutralize them—is subject to rapid change.


The REST of the article at;

Michael B. Mukasey: What Does the Detroit Bomber Know? - WSJ.com

[SteantyjetMaw]

Yes, he should be allowed to "lawyer up."

[Anteneprorid]

Anyone wish to reasonably discuss some of the issues in the article ( please read the entire article if so). The point, a larger one being the prez. oversees the small stuff but commands the bigger picture ala mechanics of prevention in the larger sense.

The lack of intel or usefulness of intel gleaned before he lawyered up?

Should he have been able to, no, let me say allowed to lawyer up?



What Does the Detroit Bomber Know?
The president's job is not detecting bombs at the airport but neutralizing terrorists before they get there.

By MICHAEL B. MUKASEY

There was much to celebrate in the providential combination of an incompetent terrorist and surpassingly brave passengers and crew who saved 288 people aboard Northwest Airlines flight 253 on Christmas Day. There is a lot less to applaud in the official reaction.

Well-deserved mockery has already been heaped on the move-along-folks-nothing-to-see-here tone of the administration's initial pronouncements—from Janet Napolitano's "the system worked," to President Obama's statement that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was an "isolated extremist." This week brought little improvement.

The president acknowledged that the plot had been hatched in Yemen, but not without adding the misleading statement that Yemen faces "crushing poverty and deadly insurgencies." That Yemenis have to cope with "crushing poverty" is irrelevant here. Abdulmutallab is the son of a wealthy Nigerian banker. Other jihadists, including the physician who blew himself up and killed seven CIA agents in Afghanistan last week, and indeed the millionaire Osama bin Laden, prove that poverty does not beget terrorists. "Deadly insurgencies" is a half-truth, which omits the fact that the Yemeni government itself has supported al Qaeda and continues to harbor at least two people—Jamal Ahmed Mohammed Ali al-Badawi and Fahad Mohammed Ahmed al-Quso—involved in the bombing of the USS Cole.

Then, too, there was the unfortunate metaphor chosen by a senior intelligence adviser to account for why a conspiracy helped along by at least two Guantanamo alumni had not been discovered before Abdulmutallab boarded the plane. There was, he said, "no smoking gun"—a clue one would expect to find after disaster strikes, not before. There were, as it happens, many smokeless but redolent clues lying about before the plane took off. These included Abdulmutallab's father's warning to the State Department that his son was being radicalized and had gone to Yemen; the one-way ticket purchased for cash; no luggage; and intercepted communication referring to a plot involving "the Nigerian" in Yemen.

But it is not so much these gaffes as what they appear to reflect that gives serious cause for concern. Even as the initial spin was in progress, Abdulmutallab was chattering like a magpie to his FBI captors about having been trained by al Qaeda and about there being more where he came from.

Braggadocio aside, he was certainly aware of who had prepared the potentially deadly mix that was sewn in his underwear, who had trained him, where the training had taken place, whether there was in fact a South Asian man described by two other passengers who helped him talk his way on to the plane, and a good deal more. Such facts are valuable but evanescent intelligence. The location of people—and with it our ability to find and neutralize them—is subject to rapid change.


The REST of the article at;

Michael B. Mukasey: What Does the Detroit Bomber Know? - WSJ.com

He knows what a BBQ'd taint feels like.

[f6HLLFcw]

Yes, he should be allowed to "lawyer up."

Immediately or after professional interrogation? we could have held him according to the law, for such a time as to do so....

[peveballery]

He knows what a BBQ'd taint feels like.

and this has what to do with the article?

[RadcliffXX]

Immediately or after professional interrogation? we could have held him according to the law, for such a time as to do so....

IMHO, he should have been Mirandized, and if he requested a lawyer at that time he should be given one.

I know that there are many who will disagree with me.

[Kilaoksrsa]

Immediately or after professional interrogation? we could have held him according to the law, for such a time as to do so....

Immediately. He's a criminal, and should be treated as one.

[affozyBoomi]

He should have been interrogated first. He's not just a criminal, he is an enemy soldier.

[DavidQD]

He should have been interrogated first. He's not just a criminal, he is an enemy soldier.

Based on what criteria?

[ovenco]

Based on what criteria?

Based on the fact he was working for Al Qaeda.

[andreas]

Based on the fact he was working for Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda isn't an army.

[DumbNelmcrece]

Al Qaeda isn't an army.

Times have changed. They may not look like a traditional army, but they are an army, they have declared war and attacked, and they continue to attack.
Lets not pretend that these guys are just ordinary criminals.

[QwOpHGyZ]

Times have changed. They may not look like a traditional army, but they are an army, they have declared war and attacked, and they continue to attack.
Lets not pretend that these guys are just ordinary criminals.

They are not an army. Just because you want to think so, doesn't make it so.

[Xodvbooj]

They are not an army. Just because you want to think so, doesn't make it so.

Call them whatever you like, an army, a terrorist organization, whatever, they are the enemy in a war and must be treated as such.

[Lypepuddyu]

Al Qaeda isn't an army.

I don’t think that matters as to the question. I watched meet the depressed Sunday and the guy they had on, brennan(?)Assistant to the President for homeland security and counterterrorism yada yada Obama’s CT advisor admitted yes he could have been held for /by and interrogated by the fbi and cia as a enemy combatant....but they decided not to.

My question is , why?

The article speaks to this as well.

[inilbowly]

The article speaks to this as well.

What article?

[TamreuddyRada]

I don’t think that matters as to the question. I watched meet the depressed Sunday and the guy they had on, brennan(?)Assistant to the President for homeland security and counterterrorism yada yada Obama’s CT advisor admitted yes he could have been held for /by and interrogated by the fbi and cia as a enemy combatant....but they decided not to.

My question is , why?

The article speaks to this as well.

Well, from my perspective it behooves us to err towards following the Constitution. There are several reasons I can think of. Perhaps the best one is that it'd be a damn shame for the SCOTUS to throw out the case because the individual wasn't given due process. Also, if we're seen to be following the highest standard possible, it gives less fuel to the fires that feed recruitment for those who would do us harm.

[nonDosearrany]

He was arrested on a US common carrier vehicle, bound for the US. This makes him subject to US law - and also means the government is bound by the Constitution to provide access to counsel, due process, etc.

To do otherwise is to head down a very slippery path.

[MiniBoy]

He was arrested on a US common carrier vehicle, bound for the US. This makes him subject to US law - and also means the government is bound by the Constitution to provide access to counsel, due process, etc.

To do otherwise is to head down a very slippery path.

See? When Matt and I agree on something, we must both be correct, or one of us must be very intoxicated.

[allvideO]

He was arrested on a US common carrier vehicle, bound for the US. This makes him subject to US law - and also means the government is bound by the Constitution to provide access to counsel, due process, etc.

To do otherwise is to head down a very slippery path.

Indeed, it does.

It's always, well, make that 'never', surprising to me how certain cons hold due process in such disdain, treat the USC as an afterthought, etc...

Oh, and I don't mean you by this.