..is such a huge mistake. Josh Marshall is taken to school along the way.
Like Andy McCarthy, I’m amused by Obama defenders who defend him by saying that Bush did it, too. I thought that Obama was supposed to be the UnBush. And I’m not sure why I should find this a persuasive argument, unless the arguer is stupid enough to think that I worship George Bush. He made a lot of screwups, and I complained about them pretty much continually. The fact that I often defended him against insane criticisms doesn’t mean that I found nothing to criticize.
[Update just before 2010 Eastern Time]
Cliff May has more thoughts:
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab has reportedly told investigators:
There are more just like me who will strike soon.
If he knows that, he may also be in possession of information that would help investigators locate these individuals before they strike. Indeed, it is likely that UFA attended suicide-bomber school with some of them in Yemen between August and September.
But because UFA is being treated as a criminal suspect to be tried in a regular American court, he has been told he has a “right to remain silent.” And his attorney, presumably, has told him to exercise that right until such time as it is possible to determine how much leniency his cooperation may be worth.
In the meantime, one of these terrorists may succeed in his mission. That will be the price we pay for treating UFA as criminal suspect rather than an unlawful combatant.
This would seem to be a case where the precautionary principle would make sense.
None of the arguments McCarthy makes could not also be made about drug dealers, kidnappers and organized crime figures. Intelligence gathering in order to prevent future attacks/crimes is not the only goal of our anti-terror efforts; protecting the rights of the accused is a vital goal as well (a goal that goes completely unmentioned by McCarthy).
I’m amused by Obama defenders who defend him by saying that Bush did it, too
That isn’t a defense of Obama, it’s merely a way of illustrating that GOP criticism is purely political.
The fundamental piece that’s missing is a concrete way of separating “Enemy Combatants” and “just a murdering thug.” Our current batches appear willing to declare their allegiances openly – which should simply be the end of the matter.
Barring an open declaration of allegiance, the one any only question that should ever be put before the civilian court is: “Is this person a member a US Citizen – or are they instead a member of an organization that is at war with the US?”
If you’re a US citizen that is at war with the US, you’ve renounced your citizenship.
Proving membership – or at least close association with – the group should be a much easier case for the government. Yet it shouldn’t be something that there’s any real danger of mass vanishings or the like.
The course the government is on certainly appears to require far more proof than we’ve ever required before for an enemy. Cooks, quartermasters, bodyguards and mechanics caught on the battlefield aren’t tried for “conspiracy to commit XYZ”, but were instead simply incarcerated until the end of hostilities.
But if you go to the pure civilian court route, you’re going to get acquittals for even egregious examples of killing US servicemen. “We’re at war with you guys” is essentially self-defense-of-country. Should they just be executed in turn? No. But should it be a giant catch-and-release program? Hell no.
it’s merely a way of illustrating that GOP criticism is purely political.
Of course during the 8 year Reign of Error of Chimpy McBushilter and Darth Cheney, “dissent [was] the highest form of patriotism”. Now, during the Glorious Leadership of Our Community-Organizer-In-Chief, any criticism of Him and His Policies is “purely political’ when it isn’t outright racism. It’s all so simple…
This from the Left that thinks an accusation of hypocrisy is the ultimate rhetorical weapon for which there is no defense…
“I’m amused by Obama defenders who defend him by saying that Bush did it, too. I thought that Obama was supposed to be the UnBush. And I’m not sure why I should find this a persuasive argument, unless the arguer is stupid enough to think that I worship George Bush.”
You’re expecting logical consistency and a respect for facts from religionists. The conservative scholar Eric Voegelin traced modern “liberalism’s” roots to Gnosticism, a “heretical” Christian offshoot. Even if you don’t accept the Voegelin thesis, you see pretty much all the earmarks of religion (unproveable dogma, poor logic. etc.) in today’s “liberals” and Lefists. They don’t call it “the Cult of the State” for nothing.
Setting aside the politics, Jeffery Goldberg and Bruce Schneier are very good, here:
Goldberg: Do you think it’s only a matter of time before an airplane is blown up, or is this something that is still avoidable?
Schneier: The fact that we even ask this question illustrates something fundamentally wrong with how our society deals with risk. Of course 100% security is impossible; it has always been impossible and always will be. We’ll never get the murder, burglary, or terrorism rate down to zero; 42,000 people will die each year in car crashes in the U.S. for the foreseeable future; life itself will always include risk. But that’s okay. Despite fearful rhetoric to the contrary, terrorism is not a transcendent threat. A terrorist attack cannot possibly destroy our country’s way of life; it’s only our reaction to that attack that can do that kind of damage.
I want President Obama to get on national television and project indomitability. I want him to dial back the hyperbole, and remind us that our society can’t be terrorized. I want him to roll back all the fear-based post-9/11 security measures. We’d do much better by leveraging the inherent strengths of our modern democracies and the natural advantages we have over the terrorists: our adaptability and survivability, our international network of laws and law enforcement, and the freedoms and liberties that make our society so enviable. The way we live is open enough to make terrorists rare; we are observant enough to prevent most of the terrorist plots that exist, and indomitable enough to survive the even fewer terrorist plots that actually succeed. We don’t need to pretend otherwise.
http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/12/bruce_schneier_on_the.php
That isn’t a defense of Obama, it’s merely a way of illustrating that GOP criticism is purely political.
I don’t have a problem with saying the GOP is full of hypocrites, whining today about abuses they engaged in when they were in power, but I think this kind of thinking is one of the reasons government has gotten so out of hand. Instead of using “the other side did it” as justification for what your side is doing today, we should reject the abuses and the abusers wholesale, especially when it’s our fellow travelers doing the abusing.
If the first thing you say when someone asks you what you think of the political parties isn’t “A pox on both their houses”, you’re part of the problem. Both major parties have exhibited more than enough examples of lust for power, corruption, contempt for Constitutional limits, and flat out stupidity to be repudiated, not slavishly defended.
A Democrat is never wrong.
In reading what Bill White posted, I do think the government has done a horrible job at protecting the rights of everyone else that travelled by air along with Abdulmutallab during this holiday season. As has been pointed out in several posts on this blog and many other blogs, our TSA system failed to either prevent Abdulmutallab from succeeding in boarding a plane with a functional bomb or make changes after the fact that would have prevented someone else from doing the same.
What some people seem to be advocating, and I respect this argument, is that in denying Abdulmutallab his rights leads to the potential any lawful American might be denied their rights in a similar manner. I get that argument. The problem is that I’m seeing something abit more obvious. Abdulmutallab undoubtedly tried to carry out an attack, and if he had been successful, would have killed hundreds. For his effort, he’ll get proper medical care, a lawyer, and a jail cell where he can be bothered by US agents. Thousands of others are then required to undergo obtrusive searches of their possession, which is deemed not in violation of the 4th Amendment, because they chose to fly. Those same thousands can’t complain about the security precautions or procedures without risk of arrest, so forget 1st Amendment protections.
And there is a international framework of laws for dealing with Abdulmutallab and his ilk in a manner different and harsher than we deal with innocent travelling civilians. Treat Abdulmutallab as a combatant attempting to carry out an act of war on a civilian population. At that point, he’s treated as international laws proscribe. Such treatment doesn’t elevate Abdulmutallab, but rather strips him of the protections given to civilians, as he no longer deserves those protections once he decided to strap on the bomb for the purpose of attacking unknowing civilians.
To many of us, once he and his ilk are treated like the combatant’s they are, then the rest of us civilians can reclaim our protections and travel freely with our rights protected. The longer we continue to treat combatants as civilians, the longer civilians will all be treated as potential combatants.
And on the politics; yes, President Bush created the montrosity know as DHS. But right now, the current head of DHS seems to be even more disinterested in protecting the rights of traveling civilians. No hope and no positive change coming with her at the helm.
Sorry Jim, but it just doesn’t wash…
Many of us (GOP/conservatives/libertarians/etc.) opposed many of Bush’s policies (notably the creation of the DHS, among others) at the time they were proposed and implemented, and thus are entirely consistent in criticizing Obama, et. al. for their similar policies now. In point of fact, many of us who opposed such policies at the time did so with precisely this sort of scenario in mind. To pretend otherwise (which is what you are doing) is to try to spin serious questions about the best way to proceed in a war with terrorists into a political debate where we already agree regarding the best way to proceed (we do not)…
Much more to the point, however, Bush and Obama are different in a very significant way…Bush knew this was a war, fought it as a war, and (though I did disagree with many of his policies, though fewer than many others…) there could be little doubt as to his comittment to keep Americans safe. Obama can most charitably be described as incompetent, though deluded is probably more accurate. There is little emphasis whatsoever that Obama considers terrorism anything more significant than a distraction from his real priorities, remaking America in his own image.
So nice try Jim, but you have to do a lot better than that. On the positive side, you are certainly a welcome change from the fact-free rantings of Mark and the infantile bleats of Ethan, so keep up the deficient work!
The politics of DHS and TSA are like the politics of the “War on Drugs” — most everyone knows it is stupid ineffectual very expensive kabuki and yet no one in either party has the fortitude to say “No” because they know the other party would crucify them for it.
I blame Democrats and Republicans equally, here.
As for trying the guy in civilian or military courts, that decision will not alter the probability of future attacks. One way or the other. Nor will our future safety be affected, one way or another, by whether we use civilian courts or military courts.
After all, the guy expected to be dead by now.
And if Obama wasn’t criticized for this, he’d be criticized for something else. Film at 11.
But if you go to the pure civilian court route, you’re going to get acquittals for even egregious examples of killing US servicemen.
Examples?
This lack of confidence in the U.S. criminal justice system is staggering.
As for trying the guy in civilian or military courts, that decision will not alter the probability of future attacks.
Nonsense
After all, the guy expected to be dead by now.
But he’s not dead. We have him alive, and that means we can exploit the information he has in how he got his bomb, how operational planning was conducted, and how he was recruited. That is, if he didn’t have the right to remain silent. He has that right, because he is being given protections afforded US civilians. If you treat him as the combatant that he obviously is, then he can be held and questioned per international laws as agreed to by the US. The information gained from him can be used to stop future attacks.
Just think about your own reaction to this scenario, and picture your own feelings as an American, or as the villager:
An Afghani, in Afghanistan, near his home village, shoots a US Marine from ambush.
He’s captured on the battlefield, rifle still in hand, and the entire incident is videotaped by a Predator. Assume there’s completely overwhelming evidence that he did the deed.
Is he a combatant? Of course he is. He was participating in (what passes for) a declared war.
Ignoring the imperialistic and war crime aspects of trying him in American civilian courts, do you really think he’d be convicted of murder? Not one person in twelve is going to say “He’s an insurgent defending his homeland?” I’m conflicted myself about how I’d judge myself – specifically because I don’t think the civilian court has jurisdiction over the case in the first place.
If we were talking about shooting an American civilian (and a non-FBI/CIA/NSA/agent type), he’s guilty of murder. But it isn’t a war crime to fire a weapon in a war zone. It isn’t a war crime to shoot an enemy in a war zone.
I’m a libertarian, so I’m sympathetic to individual rights issues. That said, I’m not sure the criminal justice system is set up to handle this sort of situation very well. Due process is something that should be extended to everyone, even terrorists, but the nature of that due process can differ from what we would get for, say, kidnapping our neighbors.
In the Geneva Convention situation, the due process is truncated by recognizing that “guilt”–i.e., fighting for a country’s enemies–is easily established. Detention is indefinite, though, of course, tied to the duration of the war.
I think it might be a good idea to have a separate option for foreign terrorists, which might be a little more formal and courtlike than a POW scenario, but not full-blown access to the criminal justice system. After all, we have separate courts for our own military personnel, who have fewer rights in some cases than civilians. Why we need some greater form of due process, in my mind, is that some of the people captured are not, in fact, enemy combatants. With POWs, we don’t have that doubt. With people we’ve captured in Iraq and Afghanistan, we do.
The point raised earlier about interrogation is a good one, too. We need to be able to deal with enemy aliens as enemies and not strictly as defendants. Again, some due process is needed, and by interrogation, I don’t mean torture or even “torture.”
Then there’s the “Turnabout is fair play” approach.
Marine shoots armed Afghani. Is captured by villagers, tried for murder, found guilty (with all due process) and hung until dead.
I do not want us going down that path. That is fundamentally what the entire civilian court approach is. I don’t have the slightest problem with Afghanis treating Marines as captured POWs, and holding them until 1) prisoner swap, 2) peace talks, 3) cessation of hostilities.
But if we’re going to presume our rules are better than the heretofore established standards, we won’t have the moral high ground when the enemy does precisely the same thing.
The argument about taking somebody captured while fighting our troops overseas in front of a civilian court is irrelevant. This guy was on a civilian airplane and captured in Detroit. If we decide that Detroit is subject to the same set of rules as Afghanistan, we have ripped up the Constitution.
He wasn’t captured in Detroit. He was captured on a ship in transit.
I’d grant the difference in this instance, but the argument for the entire lawfare approach doesn’t make those distinctions either.
His fundamental goal was (to all appearances) an act of war. Determine if -that- is true in a civilian court.
It seems to me the intellectual fuse that’s blow in the heads of Jim, Chris, and a few others, is the one that makes possible the understanding that the machinery of law is a construct that only functions within a tribe, within a social contract. It has no meaning outside that arena. In particular, you cannot rationally apply the concepts of law to the arena of war, which is conflict between tribes — because there is no consensual social contract operating between tribes.
To apply law to issues of war is as pointless and silly as applying it to natural disasters. Would you attempt to try the Indian Ocean tsunami in a court of law? Or a rabid dog? Would you issue injunctions against hurricanes?
Of course not. Those things you use the most efficient means to ameliorate. You don’t stop to think about whether you are violating a rabid dog’s rights when you shoot it. The same applies to warfare. You do not instruct soldiers at the front to shoot only at those enemy soldiers who are volunteers and who have shot first. In warfare, you take the most expeditious route to victory. If that means shooting a young draftee enemy soldier who hasn’t fired his weapon yet — who is actually a pacifist, or secretly on your side! — who has dropped his weapon and is cowering behind a tree! — then that’s what you do.
Is this dark and savage? Oh yes. But the struggle for survival is by nature dark and savage. Lions do not hold trials before they kill hyenas, or eat gazelles. We do these things not because we like them, or because they are ethically superior: we do them because the alternative is extinction.
We’re not lions, of course. We’re better than that. So we invent morality, and we agree to such things as trials and whatnot — if you are a member of the tribe, if you generally agree, either explicitly or by failing to emigrate, that you agree with the general social contract, the one that simultaneously prohibits bad behaviour and gives you rights and protections when you’re accused of it. If you are a member of the tribe — of the nation — a citizen — then we know we can deal with you without risking our survival, and we can afford to give you all kinds of rights. if you are not, and in particular if you represent an ideology and movement that threatens our survival, then we go back to natural “dockyard” rules of combat, which is to say no rules at all.
Post-Script: I can already hear Jim objecting: But this ISN’T an existential struggle! It’s just one guy with a bomb in his pants! Ludicrous!
To which I reply by analogy: is a handful of HIV viruses or a single tetanus bacterium a threat to your life? Would you inject them into your blood? Would you avoid nasty chemotherapy or dangerous radiation if a doctor discovered a malignant cancer in your body, if it was only 1mm across?
You must judge existential threats not only in terms of the sheer numbers involved now, but also in terms of its capacity for metastasis and multiplication. The reason you exploit, dehumanize and destroy a man with a bomb on an airplane in the most savage and uncivilized way possible is to prune the phenomenon in the bud. You serve notice: this, gentlemen our ideological opponents, is so far beyond the pale that we will not react like civilized men. We will revert to primitive savagery and hack you and your whole family and your pet dog besides to death with dull blades. Do not do this. Find some other way to oppose us, because this means calling down insane hellfire on your heads.
This guy was on a civilian airplane and captured in Detroit.
The Geneva Convention covers that scenario.
@ Carl Pham
I return to these passages from the Goldberg link above:
Despite fearful rhetoric to the contrary, terrorism is not a transcendent threat. A terrorist attack cannot possibly destroy our country’s way of life; it’s only our reaction to that attack that can do that kind of damage.
and
The way we live is open enough to make terrorists rare; we are observant enough to prevent most of the terrorist plots that exist, and indomitable enough to survive the even fewer terrorist plots that actually succeed. We don’t need to pretend otherwise.
Underwear bombers are not an existential threat to our civilization. This guy wishes he was an existential threat, but he isn’t.
PS – – I believe this is the very best route we have to cause more people to become terrorists:
The reason you exploit, dehumanize and destroy a man with a bomb on an airplane in the most savage and uncivilized way possible is to prune the phenomenon in the bud.
Osama bin Laden himself became a terrorist due to rage at the perceived humiliation of his religion.
Auto-immune disorders are a useful analogy, here.
This guy was on a civilian airplane and captured in Detroit. If we decide that Detroit is subject to the same set of rules as Afghanistan, we have ripped up the Constitution.
Until he clears US Customs and Immigration, he is not subject to the laws of Detroit. I don’t know even how much of the US Constitution comes into play either. Do you think upon disembarking into US from overseas and prior to clearing immigration that you have the rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment? 4th Amendment? Trying claiming the 5th Amendment when asked if you have anything to declare. See what happens.
Yeah, Bill, I understand the argument. Crystal clear. But I don’t believe it. And I suggest that every relevant fact from the behaviour of animals, the way you successfully rear children or run a firm, plus the history of the world over the last 10,000 years says you’re utterly delusional.
As an empiricst, I treat mere hypothetical arguments and rhetorical cute phrases like violence only begets more violence with contempt. You just go ahead and show me a violent gang subdued by lovin’ kindness, or a vicious enemy constrained by talk-talk and appeals to his better nature. Anywhere in history. And then explain away the hundreds — thousands and millions — of examples where bad people have been suppressed and the liberty of good people defended by controlled and rational violence. Good luck with that.
I’m also damned if understand why you take Osama bin Laden at his word about why he became a terrorist. When your teenager says he disobeyed you, texted while driving, and totalled the car all because you wouldn’t take him to see Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles for his 5th birthday — what, you believe him? When your neighborhood drug dealer shoots his way out of a bad business deal, and then claims he turned to drugs and murder because of the way black men are portrayed in the media — you believe that?
Maybe try on the hypothesis that if a man is willing to murder innocents, he’s probably willing to lie about his motivations for doing so. It certainly suits bin Laden’s purposes to have you believe he wants to blow up planes because America is overly violent to people who want to blow up planes. Hey, if he could get you to believe he’s a terrorist because he hasn’t been supplied with a HDTV and the complete Sex and the City on Blu-Ray, at American taxpayer expense, then he would.
If Abdul thought the battlefield was restricted to Afghanistan, he’s apparently just as incompetent at identifying the legitimate war zone.
We didn’t (in the main) throw British, French, Spanish, Mexican, or Japanese troops though the civilian courts when they fired weapons on American soil. So “where the weapon was fired” isn’t the operative issue.
I am not opposed to using violence, if used wisely.
I am also not opposed to some version of “terrorist court” being created for cases such as these since neither civilian criminal law nor traditional courts martial offer a good fit. However, I am not sure it much matters, in the long run, what court we use for this guy.
Our being calmer and less fearful, however, will reduce the effectiveness of terror as a weapon and as a tactic. We need to be vigilant however getting terrorism to zero likely is not attainable.
When we get our own knickers in a twist and start yelling that one guy with an underwear bomb is an existential threat, we empower our enemies. Our society is resilient enough to handle this guy without all the hyperbole.
PS — We do need courts, however, given the example of that second Nigerian who locked himself in a different airliner lavatory a few hours after the underwear bomber episode.
Fearing a second attack, the stewardess folks broke down the door.
Turns out the poor guy just had the runs.
Flight crew did nothing wrong but that 2nd Nigerian guy did nothing wrong either. Courts exist to make sure that guy isn’t branded as a terrorist as well.
Our being calmer and less fearful, however, will reduce the effectiveness of terror as a weapon and as a tactic.
What the hell? Who’s rattled and fearful, Bill? When I look in the mirror, or at the folks around me — or when I read what the folks on Flight 253 or their predecessors on Flight 93 did — I don’t see rattled and fearful. I see calm and angry. I see a people getting ready to beat the hell out of some stupid bestial subhumans who think we’re the type to “get our panties in a twist” at the threat of a bomb.
I don’t think we’re getting our panties in a twist, Bill. I think we’re thoughtfully checking each cartridge as we slot it into our weapon. I think we’re telling the furrowed-brow lawyers and judges in their black robes thanks for the offer, guys — but we’ll be handling this one a little more directly.
Instead of using “the other side did it” as justification for what your side is doing today, we should reject the abuses and the abusers wholesale
Note: in this case we aren’t talking about an abuse; we’re talking about trying terrorists in civilian court. And no one is arguing that it’s a good idea because Bush did it. They are arguing that it’s a good idea because that’s what courts are for, and that critics are hypocrites for only objecting when a Democrat does it.
Who’s rattled and fearful, Bill?
A country that has non-stop sky-is-falling news coverage about a terrorist attack that was stopped before it could hurt anyone.
I don’t think we’re getting our panties in a twist, Bill. I think we’re thoughtfully checking each cartridge as we slot it into our weapon.
You must be quite proud of your manliness.
You must judge existential threats not only in terms of the sheer numbers involved now, but also in terms of its capacity for metastasis and multiplication.
And Muslim terrorists have a magic ability to multiply and metastasize? Why haven’t they done so to date?
For a historical comparison, look at turn-of-the-20th-centry anarchism. That was a global ideology that succeeded in assassinating the leaders of Russia, Greece, Spain, France, Serbia and the United States, not to mention thousands of lesser officials and civilians. Al Qaeda can only dream of being as threatening. And yet, when we look back, it is clear that the worst effects of violent anarchism stemmed from government over-reaction (e.g. the creation of the tsarist police state).
Osama bin Laden himself became a terrorist due to rage at the perceived humiliation of his religion.
Osama bin Laden has a religion with a hair-trigger for “humiliation.”
When we get our own knickers in a twist and start yelling that one guy with an underwear bomb is an existential threat, we empower our enemies.
When did that happen?
And no one is arguing that it’s a good idea because Bush did it.
Except Josh Marshall. And a lot of others.
critics are hypocrites for only objecting when a Democrat does it.
Which critics are those? Why would you indulge in yet another fantasy that we didn’t object when Bush did it? You have a very rich fantasy life.
A country that has non-stop sky-is-falling news coverage about a terrorist attack that was stopped before it could hurt anyone.
Oh spare me, Jim. I’m supposed to believe that the attitude of blow-dried news anchors accurately reflects the attitude of regular folks? Next you’ll be telling me Oprah Winfrey and the tabloids are the real pulse of the nation. Get a clue.
You must be quite proud of your manliness.
Feeling threatened, Jim? Odd that you folks on the left trot out these weird sexuality attacks so often. I wouldn’t venture to guess what that says about yourselves.
And Muslim terrorists have a magic ability to multiply and metastasize?
Uh…Jim, it’s called the spreading of ideas. This may be an unfamiliar concept to you, but here are people out there whose thoughts are not completely impervious to change — who can be influenced by others, and what happens in the world.
Why haven’t they done so to date?
Good argument, Jim! Let’s try it in another context, shall we? Y’all say rising CO2 levels will lead to environmental catastrophe. Well, why hasn’t it done so to date? Ha! This is fun!
And yet, when we look back, it is clear that the worst effects of violent anarchism stemmed from government over-reaction (e.g. the creation of the tsarist police state).
Only you would think of drawing an analogy between a religious jihad out to impose a world Caliphate and anarchists. Sure, I can see the parallels! All those anarchists marching under the banner World Nongovernment Now! Organize Against Organization!
You might at least have chosen a better argument about repression, such as the repercussion of the Haymarket riots, Pinkertons, the repressive measures of the early 20th century in the US (although they were the result of a Democratic President’s wish to organize the country in support of national war aims, alas). But Tsarist Russia? You think the looong history of Imperial Russian autocracy, going right back to Peter the Great, is connected with 1880s bomb-throwers? Good grief.
Anyway, you’re wrong. Repression has its origin in a disconnect between populace and leadership. When you’ve got a leadership out of touch with what regular folks want and need — Islamic Iran, 1790s France, the Brits just before the Boer War, and, yeah, Tsarist Russia — then your stage is set for repression.
If you want to make that argument about the present United States, you go right ahead. But you are going to have a hard time convincing anyone rational that the government is disconnected from the people — because the people are wanting to go a lot softer on terrorism. No, no! Free those poor souls in Gitmo! Get down my rifle, Ma — it’s time for action, damn it.
Yes, let’s not be rattled by and fearful as a result of non-stop sky-is-falling news about a terrorist attack that nearly really killed a bunch of people. Let’s be rattled by and fearful as a result of non-stop sky-is-falling news fantasies about AGW…
You want information? Do what the best interrogators from WW2 did.
“We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture,” said Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler’s deputy, Rudolf Hess.
It sounds like this guy wants to brag. “There are many more like me”
Okay then, encourage that. Make him want to talk, and not by hot lights or a rubber hose.
Tell him he isn’t being questioned and that he has a right to remain silent then chat with him and ask questions anyway.
Maybe the guy’s father would be the best possible avenue for getting accurate intelligence.
If dad will cooperate, fly him here, put them in a room together, bug the room and let his father do the questioning.
Do what the best interrogators from WW2 did.
My esteem for Henry (who I have known for decades) knows no bounds, but on what basis is your claim that he is one of “the best interrogators in WW2”? And what does he know about how other people got information?
Okay then, encourage that. Make him want to talk, and not by hot lights or a rubber hose.
Who said anything about hot lights or a rubber hose? The point is that since he’s a criminal defendant, he’s been lawyered up, mirandized and advised by his lawyer not to talk. Why is this so hard for you people to understand? Why was this a good idea?
If dad will cooperate, fly him here, put them in a room together, bug the room and let his father do the questioning.
Sure, Bill. I’ll bet that his lawyer will be totally down with that.
“You people” ??
Heh!
Happy New Year!
In this particular case, the perp could be coerced by the threat NOT to do something. This scumbag has self-inflicted third degree burns and probably a traumatic amputation.
“You’ll get your morphine if and only if you tell us what we want to know.”
“our TSA system failed to either prevent Abdulmutallab from succeeding in boarding a plane with a functional bomb….”
I think an important question is: did Abdulmutallab have the bomb with him, or did somebody, airport staff?, provide the bomb after Abdulmutallab passed security?
A few notes:
Note: in this case we aren’t talking about an abuse; we’re talking about trying terrorists in civilian court.
Actually, what you are talking about is giving the rights reserved for US citizens to a foreign national, who tried to kill hundreds of Americans. The foreign national should have no expectations of receiving such rights, but you want to give him this status because he what? Tried to kill Americans in the USA. For that reason, he deserves extraordinary rights?
Who’s rattled and fearful, Bill?
Exactly. Between the TSA making civilians sit in their seats for an hour and the desire to extend rights to a foreign national because they don’t know what else to do; the only people rattled seems to be the left. The passengers handled the situation better than the government. So the governments now putting restrictions on the other passengers and elevating the protections of the terrorist. This is the part that has people angry. Well that, and the combination of Department of State and DHS asleep at 3am, when the phone is ringing.
You want information? Do what the best interrogators from WW2 did.
Yeah I want information, but because a foreign national terrorist is being treated as a innocent until proven guilty citizen; it doesn’t matter what the best interrogation techniques are. They aren’t allowed. This is what has people upset. Why is the perpetrator given more rights than innocent civilians boarding a plane?
Carl Pham Says:
December 31st, 2009 at 8:09 pm
“Organize Against Organization!”
LOL!
Except Josh Marshall. And a lot of others.
Show me a Josh Marshall quote that says we should try the panty bomber in civilian courts because Bush thought it was a good idea.
Why would you indulge in yet another fantasy that we didn’t object when Bush did it?
Okay, show me a contemporaneous Rand Simberg (or Victor Hanson, or Rush Limbaugh, or Michelle Malkin) quote on how Bush was endangering U.S. security by trying Reid in a civilian court.
Maybe the guy’s father would be the best possible avenue for getting accurate intelligence.
Would the father have ever tipped us off if he thought his son was going to end up in an interrogation room? Do we want the next father to think that?
it’s called the spreading of ideas
By this standard any group of 1,000 fanatics represents an existential threat to the U.S., because their ideas could catch on and motivate millions more to take up arms against us.
Back in reality, there is no precedent for a small group of fanatics turning into a world power based on its ability to secretly plot bombings.
Okay, show me a contemporaneous Rand Simberg (or Victor Hanson, or Rush Limbaugh, or Michelle Malkin) quote on how Bush was endangering U.S. security by trying Reid in a civilian court.
Why is the burden of proof on me? You’re the one claiming that we’re hypocrites.
Would the father have ever tipped us off if he thought his son was going to end up in an interrogation room?
I don’t know. What do you fantasize the father thought would happen?
Rand – would you inform on a loved one if you thought they’d be waterboarded and held forever without trial? Maybe you would – but the harsher the expected treatment, the less likely friends and family are to inform.
Carl Pham – here’s the issue: How do we distinguish between “enemy combatants” and “crooks?” If the decision is solely left to the Executive branch, there is nothing to stop Obama from asking ACORN for a list of “enemy combatants” that might happen to have your name on it. So, until we create such a mechanism, certain cases, such as a person on a civilian airliner, are going to have to default to “crooks” with the rights that pertain to them.