Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Advisor John Brennan speaks to CNN about the ongoing problem in Yemen:
The Democrats and Republicans can now square off over terrorism and all that it embodies. As the US and Great Britain close their embassies in Yemen, here at home, the 2 primary parties squabble and finger point over who knew what when and who was toughest on terrorism.
At the heart of the matter is the closing of Gitmo. If one steps over that issue, one comes face to face with the fact that the Christmas Day underwear would be bomber is being detained in federal court. Up until recently, interrogators were gathering information. Now the defendant has a court appointed lawyer, he has ‘lawyered up’ and the information is not as free flowing.
Leading Republicans contend that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the underwear bomber, was trained and send on a mission by Al Qaeda, therefore he should be held as a military combatant, by the military. Interrogation could continue if he were being held as a military prisoner. According to the Washington Post:
Brennan’s tour of the talk shows — he also appeared on ABC’s “This Week” — came as the administration tried to counter, and move out in front of, widespread criticism of intelligence systems that did not identify Abdulmutallab as an al-Qaeda operative or detect the explosive he was allegedly carrying before he boarded Northwest Airlines Flight 253.
Much of the criticism Sunday, however, centered on the decision to try him in civilian court rather than hold him as a military prisoner. “If we had treated this Christmas Day bomber as a terrorist, he would have immediately been interrogated military-style, rather than given the rights of an American and lawyers,” Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said on CNN. “We probably lost valuable information.”
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman(I-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said it was a “very serious mistake” to send Abdulmutallab to federal court.
While Senator Lieberman is not a Republican, he often sides with them on matters of war and terrorism. Should Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the underwear bomber, be held by the military or in by civilian law enforcement? Does it really matter or is this commotion just a political ploy? Should our embassies in Yemen be closed? Should some Gitmo prisoners be returned to Yemen to be punished or set free?
It appears that sides are squaring off over all issues pertaining to terrorism. Rather than uniting us towards a common goal, it appears that it is politics and usual.
Political Opportunists. At every turn, they take an event, and try to figure out the most political gain they can have by the position they take. I am trying to find the DeMint and Lieberman take on the Shoe Bomber, but not having much luck. But, the same people that are complaining about the Undie Bomber being tried in Federal Court, did not say a word about the Shoe Bomber. They did not complain that it took Bush 6 days to make a comment. To me, it truly shows what hypocrites they really are – politicize anything to get a gain.
The Bush military tribunals have not fared very well with the results of several Supreme Court decisions. Funny, I just learned that we did not declare war on Iraq, Congress approved – Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 and previously – Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists.
It sure does all seem like a tangled web of deceipt to me.
I believe that the federal laws that exist to govern behavior on planes are federal…therefore he should be tried in a federal court. But what do I know? Nada.
Usually terrorism is a hot topic as is dem/republican bashing. Where are the regulars?
I think the real issue is whether we are in a war with Al Qada or having a law enforcement problem with them – as if they were the Mafia. That decision seems to me to have been made and approved by the Congress. To me, that drives the civilian court versus military tribunal issue –dosen’t it? Not every goof-ball on a plane is subject to terrorism charges. Terrorism is serious and its international in its nature.
From the New York Times, November 9, 2008:
“Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste,” Mr. Rahm Emanuel said in an interview on Sunday. “They are opportunities to do big things.”
He is one democrat, known for mouth flashing, Slow. Does he speak for all of them? How about Sen. Lieberman? Until the Iraq War, Lieberman was the ultimate Dem. Now? Not so much.
So what do you think about what Brennan said?
Blogette, you ask a good question. I am not sure if we know who Al Qada is enough to go to war with them. It is almost like shadow boxing. It also validates them way too much.
@Moon-howler
Yep, Moon, they’re all pretty much the same, Republican or Democrat. The Democratic Party, which is now under the complete control of it’s ultra-left “psych-ward” wing wants health care passed? It’s suddenly a “crisis”! Want to spend 800+ billion on your buddies? There’s a financial “crisis”! Want to destroy the nation’s economy through energy taxation? There’s a man-made global climate change “crisis”. Every last bit of it is 100% horse manure. I agree Republicans are good at opportunism too, but to think it’s just Republicans is, shall we say, the acme of ignorance.
I can’t stand either party. But that is well known. I direct that mainly at congress and how the political parties work.
What do you think of what Brennan said?
There is a health care crisis. Ask anyone out of a job and who suddenly finds themselves having to pay $1200 a month with no job or go without. I just don’t know that this bohemoth plan is the answer. Why? I have no clue what it really says between Republican bs and Democrat bs.
Should we have closed the embassies? Should Mr. Underpants be in the federal courts or in the military tribunals?
The media, especially the WaPo, has done a fine job of partisan-baiting in the last couple of weeks, with very little substantiation and a lot of anecdote.
That being said, terrorism that is sponsored by a foreign entity is an act of war and should be treated as such. Osama bin Laden said years ago that “we will use your laws against you,” and now we are going to see that come to pass as terrorists get to lawyer up, conduct courtroom circuses where they can trash our nation and our government and get plenty of media coverage, force declassifying of sensitive information and potentially out intelligence officers in their quest for American-style “justice.” I don’t even want to think about the grandstanding lawyers who will jump at the opportunity to take these high-profile cases.
And after all is said and done, we will be no safer than we were on September 10, 2001. And the terrorists will have made a mockery of our legal system.
One note, the Mafia wasn’t out to kill civilians, but if they were then I’d consider that terrorism. Any time a group is out to kill people in general, then I’d consider that terrorism. What exactly am I missing here? The underwear bomber was out to kill civilians, and was trained by a known terrorist group, so why would anyone not consider this a terrorist act? There wasn’t a problem defining terrorist acts until this administration decided to go completely PC for the bleeding heart liberals as if terrorism doesn’t exist. (No more ‘War on Terror’ as an example)
I am crestfallen and truly saddened by the behavior of key Congressional minority leaders in response to this attempted act of terrorism. There was a time when Americans banded together in the face of a common enemy. Now it seems the existence of a common enemy is just another convenient weapon to use in attacks against each other.
No terrorist, failed or successful, could have done this to America when we were at our best. We have done it to ourselves. I blame not terrorism, but our willingness to suffer the neocon’s panicked and peevish response to terrorism.
If Dick Cheney will not shut his mouth, cannot someone on the right make a speech or issue a statement to minimize the damage? Is there no one willing to stand up to the most discredited foreign policy theorist in our lifetime? No one?
Dick Cheney needs to retire as does Karl Rove. Both are doing the same thing Jimmy Carter has been vilified for doing. Both need to stop holding court.
SA, I don’t think you can really say that this administration doesn’t believe in terrorism. You are hanging on to one political sound bite about ‘war on terrorism,’ something to do with man-made events. That comment wasn’t made to down play terrorism. It was meant to include terrorism and things mankind does…like train wrecks, oil spills, hazardous waste accidents, nuclear facilities gone awry, etc etc.
As for the underwear terrorist, is someone denying he is a terrorist? I am willing to call most people who want to kill others because of political or religious thinking terrorists. I think the sniper was a terrorist as well as the Holocaust Museum shooter and also Dr. Tiller’s murderer.
So LBH, do you consider the latest response to the attempted destruction of a plane over a populated area as peevish also?
SA, I am not sure what you are asking. Which ‘latest response?’ I would need to be sure what I was being asked before I answered.
MH, this administration doesn’t consider this a war, otherwise we would consider those caught in the act as enemy combatants. Once again, am I missing something?
Latest response is all the tightened security at the airports.
BTW, LBH, there was no ‘neocon’ response occurring on Sep 10, 2001, and yet Sep 11 happened. So you’re suggesting we go back to the Sep 10th setting, and all will be fine. Wake up!
I don’t consider it a conventional war. Any war that has no boundaries would be a non conventional war to me.
I am not sure I consider Mr. Underpants an enemy combatant. I would consider him a terrorist operative. An enemy combatant would be serving as a soldier.
I actually don’t care how he is prosecuted. How was Reid the shoe bomber prosecuted? Was he tried by the military or the feds? Was he treated as an enemy combatant? Let me rephrase…I want them prosecuted where they get the worst punishment.
Airport security is just a pain. It seems to have always been knee jerk reaction rather than ‘thinking like a terrorist’ and relying on intel.
I am against closing Gitmo. However, others might know something I don’t. I wouldn’t use Gitmo as an example for saying this administration doesn’t sit up and take proper notice of terrorism. I don’t think they have to have a ‘bring it on’ attitude to take terrorism seriously.
SA, when you say the Mafia was not out to kill civilians, what do you mean by that? The Mafia will take out whoever they need to to get what they want, be it a Police Officer, a family member or granny who will not sell her home.
I think the administration is avoiding the use of the phrase War on Terror, because it was overused by the Bush administration and Fox News.
To answer your question Mr. Alamo, the neocons were more panicked than peevish when they were in power. Now that they are out of power, they are more peevish than panicked.
With regard to the recent attack, I don’t interpret their panic to be sincere. I think they are trying to induce panic among voters.
Cheney and his Congressional cronies know full well that measures taken during the Bush years have been continued since Obama took office. This includes bringing some terrorists before military tribunals and others in our civilian system of justice depending on the circumstances. It also includes the release of prisoners from Guantanamo Bay when there is no legal justification under international law for holding them. By the way, a few such former prisoners ended up in Yemen and apparently participated in the planning of the recent attack. Thus, if the panic were indeed sincere, at least some of the blame and criticism would be directed at Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush, rather than their successors.
Why does Cheney still think he is in office?
First of all, there has been strong disagreement over the prosecution of our nation’s wars from the Revolutionary War to present. For example, Lincoln was severely criticized by the press for the large number of casualties and poor prosecution of the Civil War.
Second, I believe the squabbles represent sincere, passionate disagreement over the best method to fight terrorism. Although Obama has been strong within the defined theaters of war (i.e. Afghanistan and Pakistan), he has not treated the struggle against Al Qaeda within the United States as a front in the war. If we are truly at war and a “foot soldier” (i.e. Al Quaeda terrorist) is captured, no legal justification is required to hold him for the duration of hostilities. The purpose of a trial is to determine whether the combatant is engaged in illegal activities that would make him an “illegal combatant.” But even if he is not found to be guilty, then the combatant should be held as a POW until he is no longer a threat to kill American citizens/soldiers.
Although Obama paid lip service to the idea that we are engaged in a war against jihadists, his actions for the most part have not matched his rhetoric. The Bush Administration made similar mistakes by releasing Guantanomo detainees who were deemed “no longer a threat.”As a a result, the United States has pursued a rather confused policy in its “war” against Al Qaeda.
We know that Gitmo detainees released by the Bush Administration have re-engaged in terrorist activities and killed American soldiers. Obama should learn from the mistakes of the past to avoid same error! If he does repeat these errors, then any and all criticism is deserved (a repeated life-and-death error is COMPLETELY unacceptable).
I listened to the President’s words today and I cannot believe that no one is getting fired for the Christmas Day incident. If anything, Janet Napolitano needs to go for her knee-jerk defensive, self-congratulatory and obfuscatory “The system worked” statement. If the President truly means what he says about the preventable errors and the need for accountability, he needs to own up to the fact that some of his appointees are less than stellar and let them go. Otherwise, it just makes him look partisan and weak, and full of nothing but words.
A couple of thoughts:
(1) Kelly3406 is right, in my opinion, in the first para of his #23. It is a hallmark of our American system that controversy can reign even in the midst of war. That our Revolution was fought with the support of only one-third of the populace and that American Tories sometimes took the field against us is a given. Have we forgotten Henry David Thoreau and those who opposed the Mexican War? Has the history of the Democratic Party “Copperheads” and their aggravation of Lincoln been forgotten already? Look back at World War I and the frst use of the military draft since the Civil War. Anyone remember hearing of that popular song entitled: “I Didn’t Raise My Boy to be a Soldier”? Little has to be said about either Korea or Vietnam. Probably one of the only times we were absolutely united was World War II in the wake of Pearl Harbor; but even that came after years of controversy involving the America First organization and other Americans determined that we should stay out of another European War. More recently, the First Gulf War and the conflict over Kosovo might also qualify. However, the former was fast and over before controversy could arise. The latter was largely fought from the air with almost no body bags being landed at Dover Air Force Base. They really don’t count.
It does seem to me that controversy over war and the conduct of war has simply become a part of the way we are. When I was among the warriors, I absolutely hated that; but I cannot escape the fact that the constitutional right to stir up controversy was the very reason why I wore the uniform. You may not like what Cheney is saying; but he is only doing things according to the rules that we set up for ourselves in 1787. Those rules are sometimes hard to live by for certain. However, they are a damn sight better than others I have seen in this big world. In my view, mistakes are made most frequently when you only listen to your own voice and shut out the opinions of dissent.
(2) In my opinion, Obama did make some mistakes at the outset. These were largely of rhetoric and tone at the very time when he was awakened to the classified details concerning this conflict with terrorists and, in effect, decided to continue many of the strategic and tactical methods set up during the Bush I years. One mistake was to leave too much in the hands of Eric Holder when Obama himself should have been the absolute and most visible spokesman. Mistakes of rhetoric and tone, however, can be reversed; and I suspect you may see such a reversal now that the Obama Administration has received two very stark wakeup calls at Fort Hood and Detroit. As I have said in other posts, I am very far from being an Obama guy. But, in my opinion, his opening shots after Detroit are the correct ones. The failure at Detroit was a lapse deep down in the professional ranks. Corrections need to be made immediately. Moreover, the renewed focus on Yemen is a good one in my estimation, so long as we can accomplish that without taking away from other battlefields such as Afghanistan-Pakistan, as well as other dangerous al-Qaeda offshoots such as Al-Qaeda in the Mahgreb; jihadism in the Indonesian archipelago; and a potentially large problem if all of Somalia falls under jihadist control. Rather than get into an internal fight with the likes of Cheney, I would think that Obama might benefit by listening and perhaps using some of the critiques to help find the path that will, indeed, bring us all together in this. If, in the end, he insists on putting his own stamp on the strategy and tactics, I’ve got no problem with that. I just want to win this thing.
(3) Gitmo. Yes, I know all the arguments for and against. Close Gitmo and the world will love us once again. Please. The Swedes may love us. The Spanish may love us. Even the Hottentots in South Africa may love us. Fact is that none of them are trying to kill us. I seriously doubt that the closure of Gitmo and the transfer of terrorist prisoners to a maximum security prison in Illinois is going to miraculously change the hearts and minds of jihadists and potential jihadists. They started this thing long before Gitmo, and I suspect it will go on long after Gitmo is closed. In my opinion, only one thing will stop it: we beat the crap out of them until they have no more will to fight. Given their stated view of how the world should be, I see no other option for us.
(4) Personally I am not so concerned about whether the so-called “underpants bomber” in Detroit goes to Federal court or military trial. In my estimation he is really low-level — a young fool who was duped and whose knowledge of critical information is probably limited. Terrorist organizations are not stupid. They can compartmentalize just like an intelligence service. He was not a key terrorist player. He was dispensable. What worries me much more is that much bigger trial up in New York. There you do have a real “player.” If we somehow botch this one by getting tripped up by all our wonderful and admirable rules of jurisprudence, we will have handed al-Qaeda a moral victory of utmost value. The al-Qaeda recruiters could then have a field day. Nothing attracts recruits like the perceived internal weaknesses of the foe and the smell of potential victory. It is my understanding from recent reporting that Obama was not initially in favor of having the trail in New York but that he declined to intervene and handed the final decision to Holder. To me that was a big potential mistake. I hope we do not have to pay for it.
These big business right wing sellouts are addicted to fear-mongering and hate-mongering. It’s because they have no other selling points other than to tell people to be hateful or afraid. Notice they didn’t use the Holocaust Museum terrorist act or the abortion doctor terrorist act for political gain? Why would that be? No political upside maybe? No racial fears to exploit, and least not in the right direction?
Face it the Republicans have been using the fear of terrorism as a weapon against American interests since Sept. 12, 2001. Before that it was the fear of Black people. The faithful are trained to be blind to this as you can see. But their numbers are dwindling even as their sheep braying becomes louder.
So, JustinT, are we to assume that you personally see no threat from terrorism?
Wolverine, I did feel personally afraid for a long time with the sniper and the anthrax and the images on TV of people cutting heads off. That’s all really terrifying. The hate they feel for us. After a while though, I came to accept the threat of terrorism as a fact of life, like the much more realistic threat that I’ll die in a car accident. In both cases I think it’s better to be rational and calm and make decisions and judgements that reduce the risk. So, I wear my seatbelt, I don’t drive drunk, and I get annoyed when politicians try to push the terror already being supplied by the terrorists to maximum degree to score political points. We had 8 years of that and got horrible results.
If you have to terrorize your own people to justify it, it’s probably not a good idea (Iraq, Bush’s second term, torture, etc.). I prefer that our leaders not try to terrorize us, but if the right wingers have to do it, I hope that doesn’t mean we’ll make the same kinds of catestrophic blunders made when the fear-mongers were in power.
Well, JustinT, I am not someone in big business or a politician looking to score points. I am just one of those chaps whose job it was to fight this type of bastard every day and, eventually, to lead a group of fighters. This enemy is real. You don’t have to run around biting your nails, but it would be wise to stay alert and demand that your protectors stay alert and keep you informed. In this situation, I would not be so ready to accuse others of fear mongering.
Knew of a fella once. He was told that, while we did not know if he himself was targeted, he was within our estimate of the generic targeting of a particular terorist group and ought to take certain precautions to protect himself. He didn’t. He is no longer with us. Really bad, that one was. That autopsy report was a terrible read. I’m just sayin’, JustinT, don’t dismiss all this as fear mongering.
Emma, how would firing any of the higher ups make anyone the least bit safer. A firing would just be for political and appearance sake. That helps no one. We always fire out people who hopefully have learned from systemic or personal mistakes. Starting over with a new person just makes the learning curve steep all over again.
Good history lesson, Wolverine.
What Wolverine said. I can’t improve on it.