Soccer Dad

Terror and politics

Richard Cohen isn't reassured by the administration's approach to terror.

Bit by bit, circumstances are forcing President Obama and his aides to come to grips with reality. The original plan to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the so-called Sept. 11 mastermind, in New York City has apparently been aborted. It finally occurred to the Justice Department that cordoning off much of Lower Manhattan and placing a security perimeter around the financial district not only would cost something like $200 million a year but also would destroy the economy of the area. A trial there would give KSM, as he is called, a second shot at devastating downtown New York.

It is amazing that no one thought this through. Published reports say that the Justice Department informed Mayor Michael Bloomberg of its plan just about the time it was announced. This alacrity was clearly the product of some excitement down at Justice -- yet another chance to show the world that George W. Bush was gone and with him the odious attempts to treat terrorists as if they were, well, terrorists. A civilian trial! Right in the heart of Manhattan! Obama ought to ask his friend Attorney General Eric Holder what in the world he was thinking -- just as we might ask Obama why he has such faith in Holder's judgment.

In a similar example of poor judgment, an undoubtedly delighted Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was told he had something called Miranda rights and could, if he so chose, cease talking about allegedly attempting to blow up a jetliner as it approached Detroit on Christmas Day. Abdulmutallab was Mirandized after just 50 minutes of interrogation and he, having probably seen more than his share of "Law & Order" episodes, promptly shut up.

Despite some gratuitious slaps at Bush and Cheney, Cohen's column stands a significant critique of the administration's anti-terror policies.

Furthermore as Charles Krauthammer recently observed:

After 50 minutes of questioning him, the Obama administration chose, reflexively and mindlessly, to give the chatty terrorist the right to remain silent. Which he immediately did, undoubtedly denying us crucial information about al-Qaeda in Yemen, which had trained, armed and dispatched him.

We have since learned that the decision to Mirandize Abdulmutallab had been made without the knowledge of or consultation with (1) the secretary of defense, (2) the secretary of homeland security, (3) the director of the FBI, (4) the director of the National Counterterrorism Center or (5) the director of national intelligence (DNI).

The Justice Department acted not just unilaterally but unaccountably. Obama's own DNI said that Abdulmutallab should have been interrogated by the HIG, the administration's new High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group.

Krauthammer goes on to observe that the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG) wasn't even available for interrogating Abdulmutallab.

David Rivkin and Marc Thiessen write about A tale of two terrorists:

On Dec. 18, 2009, days before the Christmas attack, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Preet Bharara, made a secret filing in federal district court that was aimed at saving the prosecution of Ahmed Ghailani, another al Qaeda terrorist. Ghailani is facing charges for helping al Qaeda bomb U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Ghailani argues that those charges should be dropped because lengthy CIA interrogations have denied him his constitutional right to a speedy trial.

.Mr. Bharara, on behalf of the Justice Department, filed a memorandum with the court stating that Ghailani's claims are dangerous and off the mark. Interrogating terrorists must come before criminal prosecution, he wrote in language so strong that even a redacted version of his filing (which we have obtained) serves as a searing indictment of the administration's mishandling of Abdulmutallab.

"The United States was, and still is, at war with al Qaeda," Mr. Bharara argued. "And because the group does not control territory as a sovereign nation does, the war effort relies less on deterrence than on disruption--on preventing attacks before they can occur. At the core of such disruption efforts is obtaining accurate intelligence about al Qaeda's plans, leaders and capabilities."

In other words, in Ghailani case the Justice Department took the correct approach. Granted the case was already in the system, but what justification did the administration have for treating Abdulmutallab differently? Was it simply Attorney General Holder's interest in demonstrating how different the Obama administration is from its predecessor? Or did he not give the matter any thought and just reacted without thinking?