When Talking Terrorists Just Aren't Good Enough
by Sudhama Ranganathan Friday, Feb. 05, 2010 at 11:54 AM
uconnharassment@gmail.comI

When the failed Christmas bomber was caught and brought in for questioning there was a long list of things to criticize our government for. The system of National Security, set up by former Vice President Dick Cheney and former President Bush, proved not to be the seamless, interconnected, updated, close to impenetrable system so often bragged about. For instance there were holdover employees at the CIA who withheld information which would have prevented the Christmas bomber from flying to the US. A nation had been lied to about holes in the system never repaired since the practically identical airline bombing attempt on December 22, 2001.

silence_2.jpg, image/jpeg, 550x658

Cracks which were supposed to be filled were not. A system supposedly fullproof turned out to be seriously flawed. The truth was we were living on borrowed time and the system was full of terrorist sized holes. Upon being wheeled from the stage after President Obama's inauguration Dick Cheney's last words must have been, "whew!"

The Christmas bomber was brought in for questioning and after some cooperation he stopped talking and was mirandized. Although the Obama administration was criticized for this, it was more interrogation than in the shoe bomber case as he was mirandized within five minutes of his arrest. (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/02/xmas-day-bomber-now-talking-gop-criticism-withers.html) Where were Republican harangues then? Where was criticism of the previous administration from the right for doing the exact same thing?

Nonetheless Republicans from politicians to shoot from the hip talk show hosts were quick to pounce as if when given the opportunity they behaved differently. There was an opportunity to attack holes in the system when they first appeared, instead they sat back and went along with the program they blame Obama for. Of course, he wasn't even in office when it was set up.

Next they criticize the current administration for prosecuting the Christmas bomber in civilian criminal court. Claims are this is unsafe and we cannot secure prosecutions or information from terrorists this way. They reject what they once lauded as if American National Security had a party flag attached to it. The assertions are this shows a lack of understanding of the brevity of the situation, and the current administration are novices regarding terrorism.

Yet, why did they not say the same things about their party's administration regarding the same decisions. The shoe bomber, Richard "Reid, was also sent on his suicide mission by an Al Qaeda affiliate using explosives concealed in his clothing... Reid even used pentaerythritol, the same explosive material as Abdulmutallab. He is currently serving a life sentence at the Supermax penitentiary in Florence, Colorado." (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/01/criminal_courts_terrorists.html) He was tried in civilian court.

As such there is legal precedence stemming from an identical case set by the last administration when they chose to prosecute in civilian courts. The shoe bomber isn't the only case. "The Bush administration used the criminal-justice system to convict more than 300 terrorists." (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/02/xmas-day-bomber-now-talking-gop-criticism-withers.html) Where were Republicans complaining of an unsafe nation during any those 300 trials? Which Republican lawmakers called Dick Cheney and amateur for doing the same thing? What was different then?

Here we have a terrorist set undergo the process their party instituted which already successfully prosecuted someone in criminal court. Where were complaints then? What were make it up as you go talk show hosts bloviating about then? What was so different?

During that ordeal there was even civility and respect shown for the system and the president by the other side. Sadly that is not the case now. On January 30, "Maine's Susan Collins said Umar Farouq Abdulmuttalab, who tried to blow up a bomb during a flight to Detroit, was questioned by the FBI for only 50 minutes before he was informed he had the right to remain silent. It was a terrible mistake, she said in the Republican response to President Obama's weekly address, to 'treat a foreign a terrorist who had tried to murder hundreds of people as if he were a common criminal.' " No mention of the 300 trials under the previous president who happened to be of the same party. (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/02/xmas-day-bomber-now-talking-gop-criticism-withers.html)

During the Reid incident Democrats were more restrained and civil. On December 23, 2001 on Face the Nation then Senator Joe Biden said, "the ability for al Qaeda to coordinate and plan and focus on and carry out long-term devastating attacks in the United States has been badly crippled -- not ended, but badly crippled. So we're a lot better off than we were four months ago, although we're still going to have this possibility." (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/28/820016/-Remember-Bushs-response-to-2001-Shoe-Bomber-Attack)

He could have used it as an opportunity to grandstand and stoop to low levels of attack politics, but he didn't. The current administration was lambasted for purportedly dropping the ball on interrogating a terrorist. Throngs of supposedly connected "experts" were paraded on television claiming no evidence was being gathered as if they somehow knew.

We now know while these people were attacking the current administration FBI agents arranged for members of the Christmas bomber's family to come here and convince him to talk. In truth none of those so called "experts" berating the current American President on any of the shows even knew what was going on. He was talking for a good chunk of that time. Those "experts" knew nothing of it. In truth they were never that connected and had no clue what was happening.

Truth be told the administration was successful at getting the Christmas bomber to reveal information. In two months this is farther than the previous administration ever got with the shoe bomber in the many years he's been in captivity.

Yet now blowhards paint this too as a bad thing. (http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/02/plane.bomb.suspect/index.html) Success against terrorists is apparently awful. But for who? When he was not talking not enough was being done. Now that he is apparently he's talking too much? Should we now quiet him down to appease them? What exactly are their interests - the safety of the US or getting elected no matter the cost?

Where are decent conservatives supportive of law enforcement and our intelligence apparatus no matter what? To what place has the civility of conservatives retreated? Where has demand for support for an American President in times of threats to National Security recessed?

Have patriotic paradidles proven to be tunes played only for their party. Are Americans only that when right wing? What is it specifically about this president that inspires such vitriol? Why isn't a terrorist giving up information a good thing? What is it about Obama that makes them feel inspired to spread such biased visceral hatred?

To read about my inspiration for this article go to www.lawsuitagainstuconn.com.

www.lawsuitagainstuconn.com

add your comments