Archive for the ‘Radical Islam’ Category
As usually happens when Michele Bachmann speaks uncomfortable truths, the DC pantywaits can’t wait to criticize her. That was certainly the case when Michele joined with other conservatives in calling for an investigation into Huma Abedin’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist organization.
Thankfully, Andrew McCarthy, the man who led the prosecution of the Blind Sheikh, has written this brilliant article highlighting the connections between Huma Abedin’s family and the radical elements of the Muslim Brotherhood:
Ms. Abedin’s father, the late Syed Z. Abedin, was an Indian-born Islamic academic who founded the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs in Saudi Arabia. That institute was backed by the Muslim World League. As the Hudson Institute’s Zeyno Baran relates, the MWL was started by the Saudi government in 1962 “with Brotherhood members in key leadership positions.”
It has served as the principal vehicle for the propagation of Islamic supremacism by the Saudis and the Brotherhood. That ideology fuels the “Islamic extremism” that, only a year ago, had McCain so worried that he thought allowing the Brotherhood into the Egyptian-government mix “would be a mistake of historic proportions.”
Considering this administration’s drift from ally to Israel to meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood, it’s perfectly justified to ask what, if any, influence Ms. Abedin has had. It’s certainly worth noting this information:
MWL promotes Wahhabism, the extremist form of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia. In the 1980s, the League’s Pakistan office was run by Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood and brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden. Khalifa was the co-founder of the Benevolence International Foundation and he helped to finance Operation Bojinka, a foiled 1995 plot that would have simultaneously detonated bombs aboard eleven U.S.-bound airliners, blowing them up in mid-flight over the Pacific Ocean and the South China Sea.
It’s impossible to think that the Muslim World League, which promotes Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia and helped finance Operation Bojinka, is anything but a terrorist organization.
At minimum, there’s justification to look into Ms. Abedin’s connection to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is what Michele Bachmann, Lynn Westmoreland, Louie Gohmert, Trent Franks and Tom Rooney asked the IG to do:
McCain blasted Representative Bachmann and the others, falsely accusing them of doing to his friend Huma what he had actually done to ElBaradei, namely, implicating her as “part of a nefarious conspiracy.”
To the contrary, the House members have drawn no such conclusions. Instead, they have pointed out the State Department’s dramatic, Brotherhood-friendly policy shifts during Ms. Abedin’s tenure as a top adviser to the State Department’s boss.
Sen. McCain’s temper might’ve clouded his judgment. That wouldn’t be the first time that’s happened. There’s much more to Ms. Abedin’s family:
And it is here that we get to Huma Abedin’s mother, the Pakistani-born academic Dr. Saleha Abedin.
Dr. Abedin, too, has been a member of the Muslim Sisterhood, “which is essentially nothing more than the female version of the Brotherhood,” according to Walid Shoebat, a former Brotherhood member who has renounced the organization.
One thing is inescapable: Michele Bachmann had more than ample justification for calling on the IGs to study these connections. While it’s true that she ruffled some feathers in saying what she said, it’s equally true that she said what the PC Establishment didn’t have the cajones to say.
Here’s a glimpse into what Dr. Abedin’s organization believes:
D / Sheikh Abdul Fattah
Confirmed that he personally rejected these amendments fully, especially the item on the rhythm of punishment including his daughter circumcised, either the father or the mother or the doctor; may not be criminalized or prohibition of origin is permissible in Islam.
International Islamic Committee for Women and Children
The criminalization of female genital mutilation (FGM), clashed and completely incompatible with Islamic law, which did not provide for the prohibition, as Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi is one of the drafters of the Charter, where he says:
“Juristic evidence and consensus on the inevitability of medical male circumcision only, while scholars differed in the female genital mutilation did not collect the mustahabb but they differed between being a duty or honor or desirable)
Apparently, Huma Abedin’s mother approves of practices associated with neanderthal living during the Stone Age. These aren’t the beliefs of people living in the 21st Century.
Rep. Bachmann’s statements have a substantive basis. The group’s request that the five departments’ IGs look into their request is more than reasonable. Meanwhile, Sen. McCain’s diatribe seems like one of his infamous temper tantrums, not the statement of an elder statesman.
Today marks the 10th anniversary of the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon. It also marks the 10th anniversary of what President Bush rightly calls “the first counteroffensive in the war on terror.”
Ten years ago today is the day that terrorists interrupted a gorgeous autumn morning with the despicable acts of terrorists whose goal it was to destroy those who disagreed with them. Fear reigned as the sun set that night, with Americans horrified and fearing that more attacks were coming.
Nine days later, however, President George W. Bush delivered a stirring, emotional speech that set the course for our nation for the rest of his administration. That speech, in my opinion, is the greatest presidential speech in many generations, certainly the greatest presidential speech of my lifetime. Here are the most noteworthy parts of President Bush’s speech delivered Sept. 20, 2001, starting with a strong opening:
Mr. Speaker, Mr. President Pro Tempore, members of Congress, and fellow Americans, in the normal course of events, presidents come to this chamber to report on the state of the union. Tonight, no such report is needed; it has already been delivered by the American people.
We have seen it in the courage of passengers who rushed terrorists to save others on the ground. Passengers like an exceptional man named Todd Beamer. And would you please help me welcome his wife Lisa Beamer here tonight.
Continuing with the theme that ordinary Americans had done heroic things under the most unthinkable conditions, President Bush continued:
We have seen the state of our union in the endurance of rescuers working past exhaustion.
We’ve seen the unfurling of flags, the lighting of candles, the giving of blood, the saying of prayers in English, Hebrew and Arabic.
We have seen the decency of a loving and giving people who have made. My fellow citizens, for the last nine days, the entire world has seen for itself the state of our union, and it is strong.
I can’t forget the thought of workers at Ground Zero attempting to rescue people trapped inside the rubble of the collapsed trade towers. None of us will forget President Bush’s iconic, brief speech standing atop a pile of rubble with now-retired firefighter Bob Beckwith.
That memory is forever etched into our nation’s memory. This is another part of President Bush’s speech on Sept. 20,2001 that won’t be forgotten:
America has no truer friend than Great Britain. (APPLAUSE) Once again, we are joined together in a great cause.
I’m so honored the British prime minister has crossed an ocean to show his unity with America. Thank you for coming, friend.
That night, the nation saw the first chapter in the strong friendship and partnership between President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Between them, they represented a powerful force fighting for worldwide liberty.
Thanks to their partnership and persistence, 50,000,000 people were freed from the tyrannical rule of Islamic extremists.
This was the most powerful part of the speech:
These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us because we stand in their way.
We’re not deceived by their pretenses to piety.
We have seen their kind before. They’re the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends in history’s unmarked grave of discarded lies.
This was the clarion call of the speech. This defined our mission. It stated that we would be resilient until the last jihadist was killed on the battlefield or was executed in a military prison.
It’s important that we remember the heinous, despicable acts of 9/11. It’s the day we learned that the terrorists had been waging war on us for a generation.
As important as it is to remember the horrific acts of violence of 9/11, it’s equally important that we remember that a great speech on Sept. 20, 2001 restored our confidence and our determination to end the war on terror on our terms.
When the world is shaken, it’s important to remember the basics. That’s what President Bush supplied in this passage:
I ask your continued participation and confidence in the American economy. Terrorists attacked a symbol of American prosperity; they did not touch its source.
America is successful because of the hard work and creativity and enterprise of our people. These were the true strengths of our economy before September 11, and they are our strengths today.
As we commemorate the horrific attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, let us never forget those who paid the ultimate price to save others. Let us never forget the resolve we felt shortly after those horrific attacks.
Most importantly, let’s forever remember how we rallied to carry the fight to the jihadists.
That fighting spirit, not the physical symbols of the Twin Towers or even the Pentagon, is what truly makes America great.
Let me preface this post by saying that I’d be ok with Ron Paul being president if the president wasn’t also commander-in-chief. I agree with Ron Paul’s agenda of limited government that lives within the constraints of the U.S. Constitution.
He wouldn’t be my first choice but I’d be ok with him.
The thing that eliminates him from being a top tier presidential candidate is his perspective on who caused 9/11. This is typical Ron Paul thinking:
At a campaign stop on Saturday in Winterset, one man asked Paul how terrorist groups would react if the U.S. removed its military presence in Middle Eastern nations, a move the candidate advocates.
“Which enemy are you worried that will attack our national security?” Paul asked.
“If you’re looking for specifics, I’m talking about Islam. Radical Islam,” the man answered.
“I don’t see Islam as our enemy,” Paul said. “I see that motivation is occupation and those who hate us and would like to kill us, they are motivated by our invasion of their land, the support of their dictators that they hate.”
Anyone that thinks that the strain of radical Islam isn’t motivated by their thirst for ushering in a worldwide caliphate hasn’t done their homework. Fortunately, Patrick Poole did his. Read this and tell me if Ron Paul’s theory is solid thinking or insanity:
What Western intelligence authorities know about The Project begins with the raid of a luxurious villa in Campione, Switzerland on November 7, 2001. The target of the raid was Youssef Nada, director of the Al-Taqwa Bank of Lugano, who has had active association with the Muslim Brotherhood for more than 50 years and who admitted to being one of the organization’s international leaders. The Muslim Brotherhood, regarded as the oldest and one of the most important Islamist movements in the world, was founded by Hasan al-Banna in 1928 and dedicated to the credo, “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”
The raid was conducted by Swiss law enforcement at the request of the White House in the initial crackdown on terrorist finances in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. US and Swiss investigators had been looking at Al- Aqwa’s involvement in money laundering and funding a wide range of Islamic terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda, HAMAS (the Palestinian affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood), the Algerian GIA, and the Tunisian Ennahdah.
Included in the documents seized during the raid of Nada’s Swiss villa was a 14-page plan written in Arabic and dated December 1, 1982, which outlines a 12-point strategy to “establish an Islamic government on earth”, identified as The Project. According to testimony given to Swiss authorities by Nada, the unsigned document was prepared by “Islamic researchers” associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Ron Paul’s theory is that al-Qa’ida plotted 9/11 as a response to the U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia. Those with a willingness to accept verifiable truth, though, are forced to admit that 9/11 had everything to do with a “12-point strategy to ‘establish an Islamic government on earth’, identified as The Project.”
It’s time for Ron Paul to admit he’s been badly wrong about the jihadists for a very long time. If he won’t accept these planning documents as proof that the Muslim Brotherhood is determined to create a worldwide caliphate, then Ron Paul isn’t qualified to be commander-in-chief. PERIOD.
The documents don’t talk about U.S. interventionism in the Middle East. The only thing they talk about is a steely determination to establish a Muslim caliphate that will rule the world.
It’s time for Ron Paul to pull his head out of his ass and accept the truth about the Muslim Brotherhood’s version of radical Islam. If he isn’t willing to admit the truth, then his political career should come to a crashing halt this winter.
We don’t need an ill-informed idiot as commander-in-chief.
Reactions by foreign officials to bin Laden’s death run an interesting gamut:
In Yemen, a member of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula described bin Laden’s death as a “catastrophe,” Agence-France Presse reported.
“At first we did not believe it, but we got in touch with our brothers in Pakistan who have confirmed it,” the member said.
I’d totally agree with that opinion. It’s an unmitigated catastrophe for terrorists.
In Yemen one official, who declined to be named, welcomed the announcement and described it to to CNN as “a truly historic moment,” adding: “We welcome the news…millions of people will sleep in peace tonight.”
Those statements provide a stark contrast between the terrorists’ perspectives and those who’ve been oppressed by the jihadists. I can’t find a halfway point between those opinions.
In Kenya, families of victims of the al Qaeda attack on the U.S. embassy in Nairobi in 1998 were quietly celebrating, said CNN’s David McKenzie. Charles Muriuki, who was 15 when his mother was killed by the blast, told McKenzie: “Finally the day has come, justice will always prevail.”
It’s important that we not forget that there were hundreds of victims of terrorism long before 9/11. Mr. Muriuki’s reaction is an apt reminder of that.
In Israel, the news dominated television and radio coverage on Holocaust Memorial Day, an occasion normally devoted to somber programming that reflects on the deaths of millions of Jews. CNN’s Phil Black, reporting from Jerusalem, said Israelis there had expressed a sense of satisfaction that bin Laden had finally been captured.
“The reaction from Israel is: ‘It’s about time. This has taken far too long,'” Black said. He added that Israeli leaders would be monitoring reaction from the Palestinian territories to bin Laden’s death.
That’s a sobering perspective from Israel. It isn’t difficult to forget that they deal daily with the possibility of another terrorist attack. Each day is marked with reminders that this might be their last day on Earth.
Benjamin Netanyahu’s reaction is quite appropriate:
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu celebrated the killing of Osama bin Laden by U.S. forces on Sunday as a triumph for Washington and its allies in their “war on terror”.
“This is a resounding triumph for justice, freedom and the values shared by all democratic nations fighting shoulder to shoulder in determination against terrorism,” Netanyahu said in a statement early on Monday.
Shimon Peres’ reaction is captivating:
President Shimon Peres, Israel’s elder statesman and a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, said Bin Laden had “met his end at the gallows”. Peres described the death as a lesson about the self-destructiveness of violent extremism.
“Look at all of the murderers, all of those dictators and terrorists. They end up murdering themselves, the real verdict of history, which to my regret takes a lot a time and exacts a lot of victims,” he told Israel Radio.
I’ll put this succinctly: Good riddance. I just wish I could’ve been the one pulling the trigger.
For years, Democrats have said that torture didn’t give intelligence officials actionable intelligence. These same Democrats classified waterboarding as torture. This Strib article actually proves that waterboarding works in getting actionable intelligence:
Current and former U.S. officials say that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, provided the nom de guerre of one of bin Laden’s most trusted aides. The CIA got similar information from Mohammed’s successor, Abu Faraj al-Libi. Both were subjected to harsh interrogation tactics inside CIA prisons in Poland and Romania.
This isn’t my attempt to ridicule Democrats. Rather, it’s my attempt to persuade them into re-thinking their position on torture as part of the United States’ intelligence-gathering operation.
When it comes to dismantling the terrorists’ networks, there isn’t room for partisanship. There’s only room for doing the things that quickly dismantle the terrorists’ networks. After all, we’re talking about an existential struggle, possibly even the difference between life and death of innocents.
President George W. Bush weighed in with this statement after being told of bin Laden’s death by President Obama:
Earlier this evening, President Obama called to inform me that American forces killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of the al-Qaida network that attacked America on September 11, 2001. I congratulated him and the men and women of our military and intelligence communities who devoted their lives to this mission. They have our everlasting gratitude.
This momentous achievement marks a victory for America, for people who seek peace around the world, and for all those who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001. The fight against terror goes on, but tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done.
President Bush’s gracious congratulations to President Obama and to the American forces that ended UBL’s reign of terrorism is typical of him and his family. It’s also welcomed.
It’s also time for people from across the political spectrum to thank President Bush for his commitment to protecting America while preventing another terrorist attack after 9-1-1. By no means does President Obama have it easy protecting this nation. Still, he’s better off because many of the policies and procedures that President Bush put in place have made President Obama’s job easier.
After 9/11, President Bush was operating in uncharted territory against an enemy unlike any other we’d dealt with before. An enemy that wasn’t restricted by national boundaries. An enemy that didn’t hesitate in using children in destroying innocent human lives. An enemy so technically well-trained that they carried out attacks with deadly precision.
President Obama deserves the praise tonight for acting on the intelligence the CIA had put together. President Bush deserves praise for keeping this nation safe for 7+ years while navigating totally uncharted waters.
Most importantly, our intelligence community and our military deserve credit for gathering the intel and for killing OBL respectively. Without them at the tip of the spear, OBL would still be alive.
Tonight, there’s plenty of praise to be spread around. Let’s momentarily enjoy the moment. Then let’s return to vigilence.
CBS news is reporting that Osama bin Laden’s dead body is in U.S. hands. Here’s what CBS is reporting:
The founder and spiritual figurehead for al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, is dead.
Several officials confirmed the report to CBS News, and say that his body is currently in U.S. hands.
CBS News correspondent David Martin reports that bin Laden was killed by forces in Afghanistan.
The long-lost terrorist mastermind had eluded an aggressive hunt by U.S. authorities for nearly ten years since the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. on Sept. 11, 2001.
Former State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said on Twitter: “#BinLaden’s death does not eliminate the threat from #alQaeda, but it is hard to see anyone playing the same organizational role he did.”
Congratulations to the CIA for first gathering actionable intelligence, then acting on that intelligence. Congratulations to President Obama for approving the military mission that led to bin Laden’s death.
Now is a time to celebrate the death of the world’s most cold-hearted terrorist. Congratulations to everyone involved.
UPDATE: Jim at Gatewaypundit has some explosive news on bin Laden’s compound:
Osama’s compound was across the street from a police station and a Pakistani government graduate college.
Osama bin Laden’s compound was 8 times as big as any structure in the area. It stuck out like a sore thumb.
This removes all doubt on whether local Pakistanis were committed to bin Laden or to the Pakistani government.
If there’s anything that Keith Ellison is good at, it’s spin. This week, Ellison’s spin machine is working overtime. In fact, he’s using his spin in a fundraising appeal:
This Thursday, Congressional Republicans, led by Rep. Peter King, will hold a congressional hearing on radicalization in America.
Make no mistake about it. Radicalization is a challenge that we must confront as a nation. It is an issue that requires the utmost attention and due diligence with an eye towards keeping all Americans safe.
Unfortunately, these Republicans are pandering to the agenda of the most extreme elements of their party to single out a religious minority. Casting suspicion on an individual community is wrong. It violates the core values of inclusion and fairness that make our country great. Even worse, treating radicalization as a problem from a particular community can undermine our security–not make America safer.
How are Rep. King’s hearings “casting suspicion on an individual community”? I’ve listened to Chairman King talk about the radicalization subject before. There’s no question that he consistently differentiates between radical imams and the people attending those mosques.
Rep. Ellison’s hypocrisy is exposed by his comments after Gabby Giffords’ assassination attempt:
“The political rhetoric has grown increasingly toxic, and making allusions (to) guns and reloading, and armed and dangerous, certainly contributes to a toxic political environment, and does have consequences,” he told MPR.
Here’s the rhetoric Rep. Ellison was referring to:
“I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us ‘having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,’ and the people, we the people, are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country.
“I’m a foreign correspondent on enemy lines and I try to let everyone back here in Minnesota know exactly the nefarious activities that are taking place in Washington.”
Let’s remember Ellison’s incendiary rhetoric prior to his election to Congress:
In 2000 he spoke at a fundraiser for longtime fugitive Kathleen Soliah, aka Sara Jane Olson. The text of his speech was posted on a website, www.soliah.com, by Minneapolis resident Greg Lang.
Ellison praised Soliah for “fighting for freedom.” At the time, she faced charges of planting pipe bombs under two Los Angeles police cars as a member of the Symbionese Liberation Army, a paramilitary organization whose slogan was “Death to the fascist insect that preys on the life of the people.” Soliah pleaded guilty in 2001. In 2002 she also pleaded guilty to the murder of Myrna Opsahl, a bank customer shot by another SLA member during a holdup. She’s now serving a long prison sentence.
But Ellison’s call to the crowd was broader than a plea to aid Soliah. “We need to come together and free “all the Saras,” he proclaimed.
Ellison called for the freeing of a woman pled guilty for killing LAPD police officers while she was part of a radical paramilitary organization. That’s the personification of a divisive political agenda. Listen to the radical paramilitary organization’s slogan:
“Death to the fascist insect that preys on the life of the people.”
That slogan, coupled with his plea to free “all the Saras”, aka murderers, is as divisive as divisive gets. Still, it gets worse:
As a criminal defense attorney, Ellison told the crowd, he saw “startling similarities” between Soliah and the gang members he represents: Bloods, Vice Lords, Gangster Disciples. He portrayed gang members as misunderstood victims, ordinary folks whose parents “scrimp, save, maybe sell plates of BBQ chicken so Junior can get an attorney.” Gangs are “stigmatized” and “vilified,” he explained, just as Soliah’s Symbionese Liberation Army was. “Nobody ever knows what it means to BE a Blood,” he maintained, “because they’ve already said this is “just evil.”
In fact, in Ellison’s view, young black men in prison seemed almost to morph into civil rights advocates. “The people who govern this society,” he suggested, are “incarcerating all these young black men” in some kind of retribution for the victories of “60s civil rights activists, and those who campaigned to “free Nelson Mandela.” For the powerful, he said, the “very idea of black people having civil rights has got to be obliterated with [obviously] the criminal justice system and incarceration.”
This is a vicious man now talking peace, love and brotherhood after making his reputation as a divisive, incendiary figure, as a race hustler and as a terrorist apologist.
Now he’s lecturing us about divisive agendas? Now he’s warning against stigmatizing an entire (religious) group of people?
Rep. Ellison is a spinmeister, a person with a history of standing up for the worst criminals imaginable. Ignore Rep. Ellison’s spin. Stand with the people who’ve been victimized or criticized by this charlatan.
He isn’t worthy of the title of U.S. Congressman. His election to the U.S. House of Representatives shows how far that prestigious legislative body has fallen.
Republicans must’ve gotten under President Obama’s skin with their questioning of the non-interrogation of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. I suspect this because John Brennan’s op-ed in USA Today has a rather defensive tone to it. Here’s what I’m talking about:
Immediately after the failed Christmas Day attack, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was thoroughly interrogated and provided important information. Senior counterterrorism officials from the White House, the intelligence community and the military were all actively discussing this case before he was Mirandized and supported the decision to charge him in criminal court.
The most important breakthrough occurred after Abdulmutallab was read his rights, which the FBI made standard policy under Michael Mukasey, President Bush’s attorney general. The critics who want the FBI to ignore this long-established practice also ignore the lessons we have learned in waging this war: Terrorists such as Jose Padilla and Saleh al-Mari did not cooperate when transferred to military custody, which can harden one’s determination to resist cooperation.
It’s naive to think that transferring Abdulmutallab to military custody would have caused an outpouring of information. There is little difference between military and civilian custody, other than an interrogator with a uniform. The suspect gets access to a lawyer, and interrogation rules are nearly identical.
This is such a compilation of Barbra Streisand. Brennan is insulting our intelligence by saying that they conducted a thorough interrogation. What Mr. Brennan isn’t admitting is that it’s impossible to conduct a thorough interrogation in less than an hour, during which time the captured terrorist was in extreme pain and not consistently coherent.
Second, it wasn’t “standard procedure” to Mirandize terrorists. Prior to this administration, it’s been standard policy to make that type of decision on a case-by-case basis.
Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda. Terrorists are not 100-feet tall. Nor do they deserve the abject fear they seek to instill. They will, however, be dismantled and destroyed, by our military, our intelligence services and our law enforcement community.
Mr. Brennan, why should be think that terrorists will be “dismantled and destroyed by our military” when DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano admitted in a recent press coference that she was surprised that al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula was so well organized? It’s next to impossible to destroy things that you don’t know exist, isn’t it?
I almost feel sorry for Mr. Brennan. Clearly, he was the Obama administration’s sacrificial lamb on this, sent out to spew the administration’s talking points, talking points that were incredibly easy to discredit.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
This weekend, Sen. Susan Collins utterly demolished the Obama administration’s handling of Nigerian terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Here’s the transcript of Sen. Collins delivering the GOP’s weekly radio address:
Less than one hour. Thatâ€™s right, less than one hour. In fact, just fifty minutes. Thatâ€™s the amount of time that the FBI spent questioning Abdulmutallab, the foreign terrorist who tried to blow up a plane on Christmas Day. Then, he was given a Miranda warning and a lawyer, and, not surprisingly, he stopped talking.
How did we get to this point? How did the Obama administration decide to treat a foreign terrorist, who had tried to murder hundreds of people, as if he were a common criminal?
On Christmas Day, the skies above Detroit became a battleground in the War on Terrorism.
That day the bomb being carried by Abdulmutallab failed to detonate. Thanks to the courageous action of the passengers and crew, nearly 300 lives were saved on the plane and more lives were spared on the ground.
The governmentâ€™s security system, a front line in the war against terrorists, failed long before Abdulmutallab boarded his flight to the United States. It failed when his visa wasnâ€™t revoked, even though his father had warned our embassy in Nigeria about his sonâ€™s ties to Islamic extremists. It failed when the intelligence community was unable to connect the dots that would have placed Abdulmutallab on the terrorist watchlist. It failed when this terrorist stepped on to the plane in Amsterdam with the same explosive used by the â€˜Shoe Bomber,â€™ Richard Reid, more than 8 years ago.
But, today, I want to discuss another failure, a failure that occurred after Abdulmutallab had already been detained by authorities in Detroit, an error that undoubtedly prevented the collection of valuable intelligence about future terrorist threats to our country.
This failure occurred when the Obama Justice Department unilaterally decided to treat this foreign terrorist as an ordinary criminal.
Abdulmutallab was questioned for less than one hour before the Justice Department advised him that he could remain silent and offered him an attorney at our expense.
Once afforded the protection our Constitution guarantees American citizens, this foreign terrorist â€˜lawyered upâ€™ and stopped talking.
When the Obama administration decided to treat Abdulmutallab as an ordinary criminal, it did so without the input of our nationâ€™s top intelligence officials. The Director of National Intelligence was not consulted. The Secretary of Defense was not consulted. The Secretary of Homeland Security was not consulted. The Director of the National Counterterrorism Center was not consulted.
They would have explained the importance of gathering all possible intelligence about Yemen, where there is a serious threat from terrorists whose sights are trained on this nation. They would have explained the critical nature of learning all we could from Abdulmutallab. But they were never asked.
Sen. Collins isn’t the only critic of the Obama administration’s interrogation of Abdulmutallab. Gen. Michael Hayden wrote an op-ed criticizing the Obama administration:
In the 50 minutes the FBI had to question him, agents reportedly got actionable intelligence. Good. But were there any experts on al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in the room (other than Abdulmutallab)? Was there anyone intimately familiar with any National Security Agency raw traffic to, from or about the captured terrorist? Did they have a list or photos of suspected recruits?
When questioning its detainees, the CIA routinely turns the information provided over to its experts for verification and recommendations for follow-up. The responses of these experts, “Press him more on this, he knows the details” or “First time we’ve heard that”, helps set up more detailed questioning.
None of that happened in Detroit. In fact, we ensured that it wouldn’t. After the first session, the FBI Mirandized Abdulmutallab and, to preserve a potential prosecution, sent in a “clean team” of agents who could have no knowledge of what Abdulmutallab had provided before he was given his constitutional warnings. As has been widely reported, Abdulmutallab then exercised his right to remain silent.
The first priority of any administration, as demanded by the presidential oath of office, is to protect its citizens. If this administration was serious about preventing future terrorist attacks, the first step it would take is gather as much information as possible as quickly as possible from captured terrorists. It’s best to think of a terrorist’s information like a jar of unrefrigerated mayonnaise: it’ll be useless relatively quickly so it’s best to make as much use of it ASAP.
The Obama administration didn’t maximize the intel opportunity given by Abdulmutallab’s capture. Instead of interrogating him after getting him treated in the hospital, the Obama administration gave him the option of shutting up. This shouldn’t have been an option. PERIOD.
Gen. Hayden’s op-ed indicates that it’s Obama administration policy to tie the CIA’s hands:
Two days after his inauguration, President Obama issued an executive order that limited all interrogations by the U.S. government to the techniques authorized in the Army Field Manual. The CIA had not seen the final draft of the order, let alone been allowed to comment, before it was issued. I thought that odd since the order was less a legal document; there was no claim that the manual exhausted the universe of lawful techniques; than a policy one: These particular lawful techniques would be all that the country would need, at least for now.
This administration hasn’t proven that it’ll do everything possible to gather the information needed to prevent terrorist attacks. The Bush administration’s first priority was preventing the next terrorist attack. This administration’s first priority apparently is to prove to the world that we’re good global citizens.
Sen. Collins isn’t a right wing ideologue. She wasn’t the Bush administration’s shill. Her points, along with Gen. Hayden’s op-ed, offer an important opposing viewpoint on the Obama administration’s mishandling of the Abdulmutallab interrogation opportunity.
It’s time that this administration stopped ‘admitting’ that “the system failed” and started admitting that their policies aren’t maximizing our intel gathering opportunities.
Cross-posted at California Conservative