I've not spoken much about this, because there's many arguments to be made for or against whether Umar Farouq Abdulmuttalab should be tried in criminal court or military court; whether he should have been read his rights soon after being taken into custody, or later, or not at all.
But I am struck by how terribly illogical the administration's defense of its actions has been. One official claimed they had to Mirandize him because the Constitution required it, which just isn't true, and there's precedent to prove it (and no caselaw to argue the contrary).
Joe Biden repeated the latest talking point the other day, that, well, the military tribunals have released two of the three people who were tried in them, so obviously, they don't work very well! The logical contortions behind this argument are astounding.
Biden's argument first asks us to believe that three is a reasonable statistical sampling from which to draw any conclusions, which on its face, is ridiculous. But if you look at who those three people are, it becomes even more ridiculous. All three were charged with, and covincted of, providing material support for terrorism. In addition, Salim Hamdan was charged with, and acquitted of, conspiracy. He, along with Australian David Hicks, were sentenced to 66 and 84 months in prison, respectively, because the crime is not as severe as actual terrorism.
The other person tried was Ali Hamza al-Bahlul, who was convicted for -- in addition to providing material support -- conspiracy and solicitation to commit murder. This is obviously a more servere crime, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
So if we actually follow Biden's argument here -- that we should look at the past results of the tribunals as indicators for what will happen in the future -- then, in fact, we should expect that someone like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who actively planned and participated in killing thousands of civilians, will be convicted and subjected to, at least, life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
How sad is it that when someone looks at your own argument, it actually disproves the point you were making?
Moreover, Biden clearly frames the administration as active in trying to prosecute and jail terrorists, but at the same time, he is framing the fact that two of the three people tried and convicted by the military tribunals as some sort of failure that he wants to avoid with civilian trials.
But if Salim Hamdan being sentenced to only 66 months in jail, and being free today, is such a failure, then shouldn't we at least ask the Obama administration why it hired Hamdan's lawyer, Neal Katyal, as the principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States?
Again, I am not saying we should not use civilian law enforcement methods for investigation and trial of these people. There's arguments for, and against. But it does make me question how strong Obama's case is when he keeps making such terrible arguments to support it.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at February 18, 2010 08:08 AM | Email ThisThe point of a civilian trial is not to convict KSM, but rather the Bush administration and CIA.
It's all quite perverted.
Posted by: Gary on February 18, 2010 08:52 AMSecond, one area you didn't touch upon that I wish you would post is what "miranda" rights actually mean. You always have presented yourself as a student of the Constitution and I am assume you are familiar with the pertinent court cases. Why not touch upon this subject? I have seen in the press two opposite viewpoints on the subject, so it is hard to determine w/o letting political bias enter into the equation who is more correct. On the one hand, you have Republican congressman stating that by reading someone their Miranda rights that they shut up (end of any interrogation). The other side of the argument is that Miranda only relates to evidence used in the court to determine their guilt. In the case of the Christmas Day bomber, the government has overwhelming evidence before even talking to the person of guilt (i.e., eyewitnesses on the plane). Therefore, the "interrogation" was not related to guilt in the court of law but to finding out information on the network and training he received in Yemen. In this case, Miranda helps because it can set up the stage for plea bargains (like no death penalty) in exchange for information. So, maybe you can provide more information on the two arguments and which, in your view is more correct. I am sure there are similar examples, like drug or mafia cases where the same issues have been raised on how to proceed (i.e., government's goal is to convict but also receive intelligence on the organization in question in order to bring it down).
Posted by: tc on February 18, 2010 09:10 AM
If they didn't have the right to remain silent, then what's the point of torturing to force them to talk (i.e., they would already be talking)? The question isn't silence versus talking. The question is the accuracy of information gained (again see the Dream's confession statement I made to Duffman covered in Grisham's The Innocent Man).
Posted by: tc on February 18, 2010 09:51 AMIt's a long subject, and I am busy. Briefly, though, the Constitution says nothing about reading anyone any rights, let alone specific rights, let alone in a specific form; further, and more importantly, there's precedent (going back to, for example, the German saboteur case in WWII) that such people who come to our soil to attack us don't have all those rights.
That's the real point here. Not that they are read their rights, but that they do not necessarily HAVE those rights.
Part of the problem many people are having here is the distinction between reading someone their rights, and WHY we read them their rights when we do. We read someone their rights, generally, when we are placing them under arrest. And (because of wrong Court decisions, but that's another discussion) we cannot use statements by them once they are under arrest, if they have not been read their rights. So reading someone their rights is a signal that they are now entering the civilian justice system as an arrestee.
So obviously, this guy already knew he was an arrestee. No question there. So we're just talking about putting him in the civilian system and reminding/informing him that he doesn't have to talk to us, instead of putting him in the military system and not telling him anything that might make him shut up. In my opinion -- because you're right, this is not about gaining information to convict him, which is a slam-dunk without his statements -- we had no reason to Mirandize him. The information we hoped to glean would likely not help convict him, and not having it would not hinder conviction. So why remind him he doesn't have to talk to us?
Maybe you're right that it can help with a plea bargain, but there's no reason to do that now, rather than later. If he enters the civilian system, he has all those rights whether he's read them or not, so there's no benefit to be had on that score by doing it up front.
I am not saying they were wrong, again: just saying I don't buy the argument. If anything, I think your argument helps the anti-Miranda case more, since as you say, they didn't need to Mirandize him to use the information they got from him, so if Mirandizing might hinder the information gathering, there's no reason to do it (in terms of information ... you can also argue that if he is not informed he has the right to an attorney, this violates his civil rights, but ... it's not like he'll be set free or anything because of that, so we're only then arguing what is morally/legally right to do, not what is beneficial to the case).
It is well documented that information gained from enhanced interrogation techniques is questionable and more can be gained by standard techniques
Yes and no. We must resist the temptation to assume that everyone will react similarly to the similar techniques. It is entirely possible that straight-up torture might be the best way to get the best information from a particular person. That doesn't make it right necessarily, but no amount of documentation can deny this fact. The conclusions of such documentation tell us about the average or usual cases.
We all want to believe the fiction on TV, but in real life, enhanced techniques are only good for propaganda
Not true. It is true that your confidence level of the information gathered is reduced through such techniques, but that's not the same as saying you can't get good information that way.
We all want to believe that torture doesn't work, because it is bad. But that's not entirely true (even if it is mostly true that torture tends to produce false confessions and is less effective over time).
Note that I never said that they handled Abdulmutallab incorrectly. In fact, I explicitly stated I was NOT saying that. I was simply criticizing their arguments supporting their position, which is a distinct issue.
You appear to be trying to make the case that a. just because Bush does it that makes it OK, or b. that I (or someone else here) is being a hypocrite by opposing Obama's handling but not opposing Bush's handling. Neither case applies to me, so not only are you not responding to my actual points, but you're making an argument that doesn't apply to me irrespective of my actual points.
So what was the point of your comment ... ?
I'd think on that one. The issue is waiver. A suspect in a "custodial interrogation" can waive his right to remain silent and say anything, including confess and incriminate someone else, and such statements CAN be used in court. But you can't waive a right you do not know you have, and that's the reason we require a suspect to be informed of his rights before asking questions in a custodial setting (where he may feel threatened, and therefore confess under duress) - and exclude any such confession (because it is inherently unreliable).
Note also that a confession or other incriminating statement made by a person BEFORE being placed in custody is voluntary and admissible, and that the police do not have to read Miranda rights to a person at the time of arrest and even after incarceration if they do not interrogate them (ie, if the prosecution believes it has enough evidence to convict without getting a statement from the suspect).
But that's an aside. I agree with your overall point - the issue is whether a foreign terrorist or military combatant HAS 5th Amendment rights, and I can't make any, nor have I heard any, reasonable arguments that they do.
Posted by: srogers on February 18, 2010 12:38 PMThe 14th Amendment also is pertinent. Note, it calls out two different "persons" (citizens versus any person) in Section 1.
The issue breaks down to what in the constitution applies to just citizens and what applies to anyone (within jurisdiction of US -- they obviously wouldn't apply outside our jurisdiction). The issue relating to terrorist breaks down differently between combatants captured on foreign soil and those capture on US soil. Unfortunately, some do not want to make that distinction and want to break down the argument between who is a bad guy and who is a really evil guy.
Posted by: tc on February 18, 2010 01:10 PMtc, should the Germans have been mirandized and tried in civilian court?
tc: yes, it says no person. But you would have to argue that NOT reading them their rights NECESSARILY violates due process, which is something I would deny, in the case of a foreigner coming here just to attack us.
This is not about whether it applies to citizens, or everyone, because I am not arguing -- nor is anyone else I see -- that anyone should be withheld any constitutional rights. Can you find a place in the Constitution that says anyone has a right to a CIVILIAN criminal trial; to be informed of their rights? It's not there.
Due process is there, habeas corpus, compulsory self-incrimination is there, etc., but military tribunals respect all of this.
tc: yes, it says no person. But you would have to argue that NOT reading them their rights NECESSARILY violates due process, which is something I would deny, in the case of a foreigner coming here just to attack us.
This is not about whether it applies to citizens, or everyone, because I am not arguing -- nor is anyone else I see -- that anyone should be withheld any constitutional rights. Can you find a place in the Constitution that says anyone has a right to a CIVILIAN criminal trial; to be informed of their rights? It's not there.
Due process is there, habeas corpus, compulsory self-incrimination is there, etc., but military tribunals respect all of this.
When you treat enemy soldiers like civilians, then you treat civilians like enemy soldiers.
Further, why is "terrorist" any different than say a foreign drug dealer caught on US soil. Stick to the subject, which isn't KSM. How about an IRA terrorist that blows up a bomb on US soil? There are plenty examples of both domestic and foreign terrorists where the criminal justice system was effective. Why are we in such a big woop-to-do about someone who was only smart enough to light his crotch on fire? If that is all "they" got, then we have nothing to fear. A much more fearful attack was the one on the CIA "headquarters?" in Afghanistan that happened about the same time. That attack showed cunning and degree of difficulty where Al Qaida was able to turn someone on the inside.
Posted by: tc on February 18, 2010 01:49 PMKSM is a high level enemy commander who brought war to us, and he was captured on a foreign battlefield.
He is being afforded the same rights as you and I.
Are you in favor of his trial in civilian court?
"Why are we in such a big woop-to-do about someone who was only smart enough to light his crotch on fire?"
I don't even know what to say, tc. He came very close to killing hundreds of Americans and you trivialize it.
Shaking my head here...
My argument with you on this is the elevation of the attack to a level that is out of proportion. Let's say he was IRA, or simply a random lunatic, would you still call for torture? Are we now classifying all acts against a group of individuals as "terrorism?" I am not trying to deflate the seriousness of the action. I am simply pointing out that you are over-elevating the action and giving more credit than is due. The terrorist only win when we are "terrorized" by their actions.
Further, if we really were serious about the war, we would fight it in all possible fashions, including calling Al Qaida out as who they really are, which is a cult whose intent is to destroy Islam and remake it in their own religion. If we really wanted to fight them, we would expose them as the charlatans and their betrayal to their own religion. I can't take credit for this thought. There is a book coming out from a anti-terrorism expert that discusses this theory.
Of course, in spite of the huffing and puffing about Miranda rights, the reality is we were able to get a lot of very valuable intelligence and have already acted upon it. Examples include: the Yemen government's actions taking out camps based on the intel we provided, the intercept of a list of 200 plus contacts and other network information about Al Qaida in Yemen. You can also add to this the recent efforts of intel sharing with Pakistan and the capture of several top Taliban leaders. Finally, after the current offensive in Afghanistan, the Taliban will not have any base of operations left. It is now a matter of months, not eternity, where the tide will have shifted. Cheer up Gary. We are actually winning right now.
Posted by: tc on February 18, 2010 02:47 PM-
Ask the President. This attack prompted him to say that we are at war with al Qaeda. When American presidents say "war", that means something.
Regardless of the fact his attempt failed, he attempted to blow up a plane with a highly explosive material. That's FAR different than someone who merely disrupts a flight because he's too drunk or whatever.
why is "terrorist" any different than say a foreign drug dealer caught on US soil.
The difference is that they don't belong to a network of individuals who want to destroy us, and are planning future attacks as we speak.
Examples include: the Yemen government's actions taking out camps based on the intel we provided, the intercept of a list of 200 plus contacts and other network information about Al Qaida in Yemen....
We got that from this guy in 50 minutes of interrogation? I call B.S. The reality is that they mirandized him, and he clammed up, then the spinmeisters tried to cover up their screw up later. Who knows what we could have gotten out of this guy had we interrogated him like we should have. With his own taxpayer funded lawyer now, we'll never know.
And I believe most people are starting to figure this out.
Posted by: Gary on February 18, 2010 03:29 PMHe came to this country just to kill Americans for a political, terrorist, purpose. That's pretty different than most people who disrupt a flight and endanger people on board.
if we really were serious about the war, we would fight it in all possible fashions, including calling Al Qaida out as who they really are, which is a cult whose intent is to destroy Islam and remake it in their own religion. If we really wanted to fight them, we would expose them as the charlatans and their betrayal to their own religion
Don't we already do that?
What utter hypocracy. The GOP has no decency, nor shame with their attempts to rewrite history.
Posted by: Proteus on February 18, 2010 05:50 PMYou're right. Obama should just keep doing what he's doing.
Posted by: Gary on February 18, 2010 05:56 PMStraw man. Show us where anyone here said it was okay.
So was Jose Padilla
Straw man. Padilla was of course, a US citizen. No one has argued that US citizens don't get miranda rights and rights to jury trials.
My reply to Joe @17 applies to you, too.
What utter hypocracy (sic).
You obviously don't know what the word means, and you should probably stop using it. Did you see anyone here defend Richard Reid's being Mirandized; or Bush/Cheney's handling of all things related to terrorism; or their handling of Jose Padilla and the "countless other" enemy combatants you referenced? Nope. And I know for a fact that many conservatives, including some of the people here, opposed the moving of some of them to civilian courts, but Bush was essentially forced to because of Supreme Court decisions.
So you have, as usual, no reasonable claim of "hypocrisy."
Good grief.
And of course the Bush Administration was pushed to NOT use military tribunals by the very people who are now shouting HYPOCRIT because "Abdulmuttalab was treated exactly the same way as Reid, the shoebomber". Now THAT is either an ignorant or a shameless statement since [1] this took place only about 3 months after 9/11; and [2] the Left did not recognize the right of Bush to have military tribunals without Congress' setting the guidelines. The Bush Administration and Congress spent years coming up with an agreed set of rules for tribunals that the Supreme Court signed off on, and that have only been in place now for a couple of years.
So people who claim hypocrisy and claim that Abdulmuttalab and Reid were treated the same way, either don't understand the differences and the intervening history [i.e. they are ignorant] or they do understand it and want to make the claim for crass partisan reasons [i.e. they are shameless]. Either way, I don't have much use for them.
Posted by: Bill H on February 19, 2010 07:53 AMNo, it's not. A terrorist attack against civilians on U.S. soil is much bigger. The CIA and military are in harm's way abroad TO PREVENT people from coming here to kill us.
How do you all not know that maybe Al Qaida didn't just set this guy up with a unworkable device just to cause all the hysteria?
I actually thought of that possibility on Christmas Day. But how is that relevant? He got it wrong, but mixing PETN with a chemical from a syringe to initiate an explosion is possible. The point is that he got PETN on a plane, and COULD HAVE blown it up, and TRIED TO blow it up. That it didn't work -- even if they knew it wouldn't work -- doesn't change the equation.
They win when we get afraid.
If we are NOT "afraid," then we don't take precautions and they kill more of us. Isn't that a win for them, too? And MORE of a loss for us? Don't be daft. When you have an enemy, you protect against that enemy. That's the main reason we have a government in the first place.
Do we have someone in custody from that attack? No? Then there's not much to discuss, is there? If we did, and Obama mirandized him too, we'd be discussing it.
not blowing it to make a bigger deal than it is.
No pun intended I'm sure. It is a big deal because he attempted to blow up an airplane full of civilians. Any attempted attack on civilians by someone belonging to a terrorist network is a big deal. If you don't think it was, you are decidedly in the minority.
Posted by: Palouse on February 19, 2010 08:02 AM
Apparently, the Christmas day bomber has broken his silence, now that Al Qaeda has had plenty of opportunity to cover his tracks. Read about it here.
Posted by: Palouse on February 19, 2010 08:50 AM2) The electronic "strip search", using backscatter x-ray or similar technology. The usual privacy fanatics will be against it.
Sorry, but AFAIK, these are the ONLY two ways to have good security. Both rely on giving up our "freedom" and "privacy".
I discount the third way, because its insane, even though it would appeal to the right-wing libertarians here. Let everyone carry a gun on board...
Posted by: Proteus on February 19, 2010 09:05 AMAlso, I am not saying we don't take precautions. I am talking about our reactions. Again planning for known attack scenarios is a matter of execution. As with computer security, it is the unknown and side-attacks that can be the scariest, especially if it was zero-day. We focus all this energy on protecting air travel, while our ports, and especially power grid are still vulnerable. If they can sneak into a secure CIA station, is it not likely they can sneak into a major power grid station? Planning for airline attacks is where "they" want us to focus because that is the past. We need to focus on the future.
Posted by: tc on February 19, 2010 09:12 AMWhere did you read that the mixture would not blow? I can't find anything that say's that.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on February 19, 2010 09:13 AMFalse.
How could we have stopped this guy from getting on a plane? There are only two ways.
False. You left out the most obvious method: as soon as his own, well-respected, father reported that he might be radicalized -- having explicitly cut ties to his family and moved to Yemen -- he should have been flagged, so that if he tried to fly to the U.S., he would be subjected to additional screening and questioning.
Very simple.
On the other hand, right-wing anti-government fanatics who don't believe in a national ID system would also be rabid.
We already have this: it's called a PASSPORT. You really think people fly to the U.S. without identification?
The electronic "strip search", using backscatter x-ray or similar technology. The usual privacy fanatics will be against it.
We could, obviously, use that against people we have a reason to suspect might need additional screening. Such as Abdulmutallab.
See, apparently, they just want us to think that.
I know, it's hard.
http://www.schneier.com/essay-303.html
Posted by: tc on February 19, 2010 09:34 AMa. You're entitled to your opinion.
b. You're wrong!
c. That it failed is really irrelevant, since -- again -- it could have succeeded, and next time, might.
One was hastily planned and simple in execution ...
... and on our own soil, against our civilians.
... the other showed traditional Al Qaida strengths involving detailed planning and coverting someone on an inside.
... and was against our troops in the field, who are explicitly putting themselves in harm's way to make sure that attacks against our civilians don't happen in the first place.
You are arguing, I think, something along the lines of that the attack against the CIA, our troops in the field, is somehow worse because it is harder to defend against or something. But that's beside the point. It's not as bad, because it was against our troops in the field.
If you are the CIA and attacked in the field, you have mostly failed yourself. If you are the CIA and the homeland is attacked, you have failed your entire nation.
Also, I am not saying we don't take precautions. I am talking about our reactions.
But those reactions you are criticizing are the taking of precautions.
We focus all this energy on protecting air travel, while our ports, and especially power grid are still vulnerable.
That is not a criticism of our efforts to protect air travel.
If they can sneak into a secure CIA station, is it not likely they can sneak into a major power grid station?
The two are, in fact, unrelated. There is no way to answer that question. Whether it is likely they can sneak into a major power station here is completely unrelated to whether they can sneak into a CIA station abroad.
Planning for airline attacks is where "they" want us to focus because that is the past. We need to focus on the future.
Christmas Day proves, beyond any reasonable doubt, that you're wrong. We WERE attacked on an airline with a system that COULD have killed hundreds of civilians. This is not "the past" as opposed to "the future": it was only less than two months ago.
That said, I don't see how he backs up what you're saying. What point are you making, that other people here have disagreed with, that he backs you up on?
They're just confused in general.
Schneier also points out that there is no possible way to screen for all attack scenarios and the fact that focusing on yesterday's attack is practically worthless to tomorrow's attack. The terrorists will adjust their methods, just like a computer hacker doesn't go after the strength of the system but its weakest point.
You seem to be caught up on differentiating attacks on our own soil versus attacks abroad. So, in your mind do you feel the Americans that died in the Cole attack or Somalia bombing, or the recent CIA station attack in Afghanistan are any less worthy of protection than citizens on our own soil? Did you not read Schneier's line about adjusting of tactics and the fact that we do not know what a "terrorist" looks like in the future. I read an article after the Christmas day bombing (can't find the source at this moment) about how Al Qaida is not focusing its recruiting efforts on white, non-Arabic males and extraordinarily (given their idology) on women.
My point was it was Schneier who talks about putting the Christmas day bombing in proper perspective (which I brought up). It is Schneier who covers what is "security theater" and what actually works (e.g., his often repeated quote that the only two things that have improved air travel is securing the cockpit doors and passengers realizing they can take matters into their own hands--e.g., the case with the Christmas Day bomber). Gary and Paulose have inferred/assumed that I stand for treating the Christmas Day bomber as "puffery" (to use the Domino's vs Papa John's commercial reference). No, my words were to put it in the proper perspective and not elevate it to something that is equivalent to 9/11, which is what they and the Republican critics have been trying to do. Schneier talks about this in some of his other articles, like people tendency towards over reaction (previously linked article) and cognitive bias (Full article).
Since I deal with computers and had worked in DoD, I recognize this discussion. It is the similar to the classic trade-off one makes in computer security system. If you truly want a secure system, don't turn it on, and don't even plug it into anything. Of course this is impractical, but it is like Schneier's answer after 9/11, when asked how can we stop another 9/11 from happening. His answer was ground all airplanes. The point is you will never fully stop a terrorist attack 100%, especially if you focus efforts on yesterday's scenario's and only on the US. The best way is oversea's intelligence gathering and ideally, like any military foe (or even computer foe), cut off their resources (supply line). You want to stop Al Qaida, cut off their recruiting (e.g., new book I mentioned in previous post), which also works on cutting off their funding, and then isolate them to a point where there is no where to go. The latter is something I do think Bush did start to work on by his Us vs them mentality on harboring terrorists. It is something that is finally working in Pakistan, now that we have finally convinced them that the Taliban are not their friends and want to overthrow them in addition to taking back Afghanistan. I can envision a scenario where Al Qaida leadership is trapped in the no-man mountains with no exit, and in Yemen and Somolia. Then, it is squeeze and cut off supplies. Yemen will be easier to isolate than Somolia because it has less border countries to have to work with. You have to start, however, in cutting off recruiting and the money. Then it is a battle of attrition.
Posted by: tc on February 19, 2010 10:56 AMI asked what YOUR point was.
You seem to be caught up on differentiating attacks on our own soil versus attacks abroad.
I am "caught up" in an obviously important distinction, yes.
So, in your mind do you feel the Americans that died in the Cole attack or Somalia bombing, or the recent CIA station attack in Afghanistan are any less worthy of protection than citizens on our own soil?
"Less worthy of protection"? No. I don't recognize such a distinction. But is it a much greater tragedy when a civilian dies of terrorism at home, rather than our troops abroad? Absolutely, because it means our missions abroad have failed.
Did you not read Schneier's line ...
I asked what YOUR point was.
My point was it was Schneier who talks about putting the Christmas day bombing in proper perspective
That's not a point. A point would be saying that someone here has an improper perspective, and then you'd back up that point by demonstrating how it is improper (perhaps by using Shneier's arguments as evidence in your favor). I have no idea what your actual point is: who you think you are arguing with, and what you are arguing for or against.
Gary and Paulose have inferred/assumed that I stand for treating the Christmas Day bomber as "puffery"
So your point is simply that ... you don't? Is that all?
my words were to ... not elevate it to something that is equivalent to 9/11, which is what they and the Republican critics have been trying to do
False. No one here did that, and I have heard no Republican doing that.
Since I deal with computers ...
I don't need analogies. I just want you to explain what point you are trying to make, who you are arguing with, and so on.
The point is you will never fully stop a terrorist attack 100%
And that point does not, in any way, argue against anyone's claims here.
You want to stop Al Qaida, cut off their recruiting (e.g., new book I mentioned in previous post), which also works on cutting off their funding, and then isolate them to a point where there is no where to go.
Side note: Joe Biden gave another whopper in the same interview I heard him give the B.S. about "two of three people tried in military tribunals." He said that one of the great victories of Obama's administration is cutting off funding ... which is (among other things Biden mentioned as successes) something Bush did, and had done for years. Indeed, it's the only unqualified succeess that the 9/11 Commission mentioned in its evaluation of our nation's progress against terrorism.
Getting back to your original post: I do think you were correct in calling out Biden, and I have not problem with your latest post where point out another fallacy. Sorry for the digression and my problem with what Gary and Palouse wrote.
Posted by: tc on February 19, 2010 12:03 PMYou could actually state what your point IS. In one sentence, no more than 20 words long.
You let Gary and Palouse make generalities that are not true
I don't "let" them do anything.
even when I get specific you say I didn't state something because my words were not in the exact order and sequence you desire
You did not actually state an actual point, unless it was the one point where I asked you whether it was your point -- Gary and Paulose have inferred/assumed that I stand for treating the Christmas Day bomber as "puffery" -- which was a really silly point to make a big deal out of, and you didn't actually back up that point anyway.
They were stating that I equated the Christmas Day Bomber with someone who disrupts the plane
You did do that. You asked, "how is he any different that any other passenger that may disrupt a flight and endanger the lives of those on board," and very clerly implied that they aren't different. You did so equate. Unequivocally.
That said ... is that your point? That you didn't do that? If so, then you should explain how you didn't mean to do what your words clearly do, rather than trying to reference some larger point about how to get real security that bears no relevance to whether you said what you said.
I think I understand what you're trying to do, but you're wrong. You're thinking, "no, I am not treating them the same, because here is how I come to my views, if you read Schneier. ..." But no one cares. All you need to do is quote yourself and try to explain how your words don't mean what they say (or just admit you were wrong to say them in that way).
If you are going to selectively apply your rules ...
I am not. I am selectively deciding who to engage in conversation. I am engaging YOU in conversation, and not them. I have limited resources.
Typical. He asks why we're making a big "woop-to-do" out of an attempted bombing of an airplane, equates the bomber with any other unruly passenger, and then wants pudge to not let us point out how foolish that is.
I will try to briefly answer your questions:
1. In Gary's post @23 states "What all of this also means is that the precedent is being set to treat actual citizens no better than enemy spies/terrorists."
2. In my post @24, I state: "How do you classify a "terrorist?" By your definition, was Timothy McVeigh a terrorist? Okay, he was a citizen, but so was Jose Padilla. Do you agree that Padilla should not have been tortured?" and "Further, why is "terrorist" any different than say a foreign drug dealer caught on US soil. Stick to the subject, which isn't KSM. How about an IRA terrorist that blows up a bomb on US soil?"
My question back to Gary was to seek how he is defining a terrorist. Gary was stating in @23 that terrorists/enemies are different than normal criminals. I was responding with examples of people we tried as normal criminals that were also classified by terrorists. I was attempting to seek you Gary's definition, which he never responded to.
3. What Gary does respond to is @24 was a satirical/joke line in my response @23. My line (which is not original, it is from late night comedy monologues) was about the Christmas Day bomber "lighting his crotch on fire." In fact, after the shoe bomber incident, Lewis Black made a joke almost exactly about this regarding what's next an underwear bomber and will we need to now remove our underwear in addition to our shoes. Yet, what is a common joke was responded to by Gary with this statement @25: "I don't even know what to say, tc. He came very close to killing hundreds of Americans and you trivialize it."
I wasn't trying to trivialize it one bit. I was repeating a common joke that is meant to deflate the incident and not blow it out of proportion. The inference is about proportionality of the event. Gary's response (my inference) was that this was a major deal (e.g., 9/11 proportion -- e.g., an attack by Al Qaida on American soil). What if this was an IRA bomber or just some lunitic w/o Al Qaida ties, which gets back to my question to Gary on what is is definition of a terrorist. Prime example is the guy who flew the plane into the IRS building in Houston yesterday. Does Gary think we need to use enhanced interrogation techniques and military tribunal on him? My point relates to level of response. I wasn't "trivializing" anything.
You will see that in my response to Gary @28, where I state "My argument with you on this is the elevation of the attack to a level that is out of proportion."
Yet Gary ridicules me @27 (while I am writing my response to his previous post). Then, Palouse chimes in @30. Finally, you chime in @32. You all missed what I wrote @28 about proportionality of the attack. You obviously don't equate it to 9/11, yet you don't state that in @32. You state "He came to this country just to kill Americans for a political, terrorist, purpose." How am I not to assume at that moment that you are in agreement with Gary and Palouse and the Republicans that were equating this to a major attack vice equating it to the most equivalent example (being Richard Reid the shoe bomber). You have stated in your recent posts that attack on American soil is significant (paraphrasing -- hopefully correctly). Well to me, it is the type and sophistication of the attack that determines proportionality of response. For example, a much more serious incident was the attempted London Subway bombings. They weren't on American soil, but are a lot more serious (9/11 level) than the traditional downing of an airplane. The London bombings were thwarted by good old fashioned intelligence work and a timely arrest in Afghanistan (or Pakistan). This is why the breach of the CIA station is a higher concern. What intel did the enemy gain that could be used for a high-level attack on the US? If they could corrupt one of the station employees (insider involved in the attack who we trusted), do they already have insiders here in the US? I feel you are downgrading the seriousness of the CIA Station attack, just like the Republican leaders who are so concentrated on the Christmas day bomber.
The following threads after that point is where I attempt to explain myself and failed. Hopefully, the above explains it better. In now way was my use of the common joke line meant to trivialize the attempt. I thought my response @28 said as such.
Posted by: tc on February 19, 2010 01:03 PM... has nothing to do with Schneier.
Yet, what is a common joke was responded to by Gary with this statement ...
But that is not what was later being referred to, which was you literally equating people causing disturances on a plane to someone trying to blow up the plane. And then you feign offense that people could think you were making such an equation as you literally made.
Gary's response (my inference) was that this was a major deal
It is a major deal.
(e.g., 9/11 proportion -- e.g., an attack by Al Qaida on American soil)
It is an al Qaeda attack on American soil. It's not of the severity of 9/11, but no one implied that it is.
What if this was an IRA bomber or just some lunitic w/o Al Qaida ties
Then it's still a terrorist attack and a big deal and should be treated as such.
Prime example is the guy who flew the plane into the IRS building in Houston yesterday. Does Gary think we need to use enhanced interrogation techniques and military tribunal on him?
He's dead. So I doubt it.
My point relates to level of response. I wasn't "trivializing" anything.
But referencing Schneier does not aid your point in any way: whether or not you are trivializing it is based on your own words which literally equated a terrorist attempting the murder of hundreds of civilians, to a someone causing a "disturbance."
You all missed what I wrote @28 about proportionality of the attack
It, and any reference to Schneier, bears no relevance to the fact that you literally equated a terrorist attempting the murder of hundreds of civilians, to a someone causing a "disturbance."
How am I not to assume at that moment that you are in agreement with Gary and Palouse and the Republicans that were equating this to a major attack vice equating it to the most equivalent example
Except, as already noted, NO ONE DID THIS. You're lying. Please stop lying.
You have stated in your recent posts that attack on American soil is significant
Only a stone-cold idiot would deny this.
Well to me, it is the type and sophistication of the attack that determines proportionality of response.
You're wrong. It is the level of threat that matters most, and a threat against the homeland is -- necessarily -- a higher level of threat than a threat against our forces abroad.
You are very, very, confused. You are conflating what we should do to prepare for future attacks with how seriously we should take an actual attack. They are not the same thing. No one here is talking about preparedness for future attacks except you, and you're acting like it's the main point, when it's not.
I feel you are downgrading the seriousness of the CIA Station attack
You're obviously wrong. I said nothing that could possibly, logically, be construed as such. You could think I am taking the Christmas Day attack too seriously; but even if that's true, that doesn't mean I am treating the CIA attack any less seriously than you are. This isn't a zero-sum game, where I have to decrease the seriousness of one matter in order to treat something else with extra seriousness. That's rubbish.
The following threads after that point is where I attempt to explain myself and failed.
Because you tried to explain something no one else was talking about, or cared about, instead of actually defending, explaining, or excusing your statement at issue, when you literally equated a terrorist attempting the murder of hundreds of civilians, to a someone causing a "disturbance."
Again, as I stated in @28, I was talking about proportionality of the attack. I did not say that the attack was trivial. It is Gary who started the "trivialization" topic. The line that both he, Palouse, and you are getting hung up on is satire. Do I need a "Satire" sign (Big Bang Theory reference)? It has been out in the public from the Late Night Hosts (can't remember if it was Lettermen, Leno, or Craig ?) since the attack. I take by yours and Gary's continued insistence to focus on it instead of my point on proportionality as hypocritical. There are examples (several) where both of you have used common satirical phrases to label the President or other Democrats. Am I to assume you actually, seriously believe each and every one of those caricatures? My inference from this is it is okay for those that agree with you to make a joke but not those who disagree with you. Correct?
Posted by: tc on February 19, 2010 01:37 PMThis is the line you are referring to as satire?
He came close to maybe lighting the plane on fire. From all reports, though, his setup had no way of actually detonating the PETN, and PETN by itself needs a "charge" in order to be an explosive. So, how is he any different that any other passenger that may disrupt a flight and endanger the lives of those on board.
Sorry, not buying it. It's not even a poor attempt at satire, because it's not an attempt at all. You are clearly comparing his attempt to blow up a plane with someone who merely disrupts a flight. That's trivializing the event. You may posit now that this is not what you meant, but it's clearly what you wrote.
Posted by: Palouse on February 19, 2010 01:50 PMIf you were not referring to that line in your comments, then I was mistaken in "lumping" you in with Gary.
However, you still miss my point @28 about proportionality, and my point in asking Gary definition of a terrorist. Gary is elevating this specific terrorist. My point in the line you quote is that the Christmas day bomber is not different than other terrorists, like the shoe bomber, Timothy McVeigh, etc., who were all handled in civilian court system (Pudge appears to disagree that the shoe bomber should have been handled there -- I assume. He can take that up with Ashcraft who made that decision). A "drunk" does not threaten the lives of all on board. They may disrupt the flight, but they don't (normally) bring it down. Do you feel that all people, no matter their association, who commit terrorist acts should be handled separately? Do you disagree with how the shoe bomber or other terrorist suspects throughout the years have been handled?
To me, there is a difference with the regard to proportionality of attack (see Schneier for several articles discussing the security attack scenarios and relative impact).
In the Christmas bomber case, the failure was allowing the bomber on the plane, not how we handled him after the fact. What should be of concern is cleaning up the process so this attack scenario doesn't happen again.
As far as the individual and intelligence gained from him, as you stated the initial interrogation was 50 minutes. What you missed however was that follow-on interrogation after his surgery, mirandizing, etc. This was not a recent event. This was within a week or so after (i.e., once the interrogators got his parents involved). The Obama administration should be criticized, however, for saying he was still talking. That is a valid criticism.
Posted by: tc on February 19, 2010 02:12 PMFor example, I ASKED what was your definition of a terrorist. Do you consider someone like Timothy McVeigh a terrorist? How about Richard Reid (the shoe bomber)? If so, should they have been treated the same way as what you are calling for what Obama should have done in this case? Why do you feel it was okay for the civilian court system to work fine in those cases, and not the current case?
Am I to assume that you either (a) think those others were not terrorists, or (b) that they should have been treated the way you state the Christmas Day bomber should have been treated?
What draws the line for you and why? There is a lot of "assumption" behind your statement that you leave unexplained.
Pudge, at least (I believe), has stated that he feels Richard Reed (shoe bomber) should have been treated differently. You should step up to the plate and put out what you actually believe instead of avoiding the response.
Posted by: tc on February 19, 2010 02:19 PMYou assume based on no evidence. I never stated or implied where anyone should be, or should have been, handled.
Pudge, at least (I believe), has stated that he feels Richard Reed (shoe bomber) should have been treated differently
No, I didn't.
So, do you have an opinion?
Do you agree or disagree that the Shoe Bomber and Christmas Day bomber cases are equivalent?
What do you say of the Republicans (like Cheney) who say they are different because Reed pled guilty (10-11 months after the fact and a month before his scheduled trial and not as Cheney infers before he had time to be transferred to the military system, which was in place within that 10-11 month period)?
Posted by: tc on February 19, 2010 02:41 PMThen why didn't you compare them in that sentence? Instead you compared them to someone who disrupts a flight. There's clearly a difference, and that is what Gary and I and pudge pointed out.
Do you feel that all people, no matter their association, who commit terrorist acts should be handled separately?
Every case is different, yes. When you're dealing with a citizen (McVeigh, Padilla), they get Constitutional rights, period. I disagreed with how Bush handled Padilla initially. But both of them deserved jury trials as citizens.
Foreign enemy combatants who are part of an organized terror network deserve no such treatment. The Christmas bomber should have been treated as a combatant immediately. In the case of Reid, the process of labeling terrorists as enemy combatants and using tribunals was not well established since it was so close to 9/11. If it was in place, he was a candidate to treat as such. We should have used every available interrogation technique to get information out of them immediately.
Posted by: Palouse on February 19, 2010 02:51 PMRegarding the second half of your response, I do view it differently. My line of distinction is where the act was committed, not who committed the act. We (the US) do not have jurisdiction in foreign country, other than whatever agreement we have with he country (e.g., extradition, or in the case of Afghanistan the government's okay to conduct the war there). An example of this is the recent arrests in Pakistan, where we allowed Pakistan to take the lead in regards to the Taliban. We do have jurisdiction and I believe our Constitution calls it out for acts committed on US Territory, which includes not only physical territory but also, I believe ships and in this case airplanes. In my mind, the act was committed on US territory, therefore, the 5th and 14th amendment apply. I do not agree with Palin and others that these rights apply to only citizens. In the 14th, it specifies two groups of people. The rights I am talking about is referred to as being any people, not just citizens. The 5th amendment also does not state citizens, but states "No person." The history dates back to the Magna Carta and, I believe, has always interpreted to where the crime occurred, not who the criminal was. In my mind, it reflects the values of who we are as a people, and is not conditional on the circumstance.
With regard to enemy combatant, I would treat them as no different an enemy in war. The Army Field Manual, I believe, covers them. Also, there are international treaties we have signed, like the Geneva Convention, and the one Reagan signed specifically outlawing torture, that also apply in the case of war. Again, who WE are as a people needs to be reflected in our actions. Are actions should not be circumstantial (relative) based. Do you agree or disagree?
Posted by: tc on February 19, 2010 03:09 PMSo you believe Bin Laden, if caught alive, should be mirandized and given a jury trial?
Holder incredulously said that "maybe" (weasel word) we wouldn't have to mirandize him because the evidence against him was "overwhelming". So his ridiculous standard is that the level of evidence we have against a terrorist is reason enough to "maybe" not mirandize him. I don't know if he could sound more ridiculous.
Patrick Leahy agreed:
"For one thing, capturing Osama bin Laden -- we've had enough on him, we don't need to interrogate him."
These are the people leading our war on terrorism.
As for your arguments about due process, we have a good framework for that - the military tribunals. We did not, and should not, have treated him as a civilian criminal.
Posted by: Palouse on February 19, 2010 03:24 PMTorture? Who's talking about torture? When have we tortured?
Well, Obama is giving KSM (captured on foreign soli) the same privilege. No different than your or I. And they also mirandized him, longer after they interrogated him. Can they do that to you and I now? Seems so...
In order to grant rights to the enemy, they must take rights from citizens.
Why cannot the Left see this?
Assuming Bin Laden is captured (not outright killed -- e.g., drone attack, or in attack trying to capture), I feel he should face military tribunal, not civilian trial. I believe that is what would be called out in the Army Field Manual with regards to enemy leaders in war time, which we have declared 9/11 as an act of war.
I do think KSM should be tried by military tribunal also, since I believe the reason for trying him is tied to 9/11.
Now, assume for a moment 9/11 didn't occur and only Somolia and the USS Cole, in this instance a capture of Bin Laden, I think, would still be related to military trial since the attacks were against the military. The Blind Sheik, I believe, was civilian tried, but to me it was due to the attack being on US soil (first trade tower attacks). So, if we were trying Bin Laden for that attack, then I would say civilian court, but given the Cole and Somalia attacks against the military, I would think military jurisdiction would prevail.
I think to make the case that the Christmas Bomber is tied to our war with Al Qaida directly and not an "ordinary" terrorist attack, would you not need to "prove" that directions came from the Al Qaida leadership (Bin Laden/leaders in Afghanistan/Pakistan area). I know when the bomber was first arrested this connection was not evident, and even today, it is questionable whether this was driven by the top or driven only by Al Qaida in Arabic Peninsula (Yemen). While the groups are associated by name and for the most part ideological, I don't know if there is sufficient evidence to make the case this was a Bin Laden driven attack (other than after the fact where they are now taking credit since it was successful in their eyes of terrorizing us). It does not have the direct fingerprints of complex and lengthy planning that 9/11 or the attempted London Subway bombings. Let me counter with, if this was Hezbollah, or even say pre-9/11, such as the case with the Blind Sheik, what would your stance be civilian or military?
Posted by: tc on February 19, 2010 03:45 PM"Over the past two weeks, we've been reminded again of the challenge we face in protecting our country against a foe that is bent on our destruction. And while passions and politics can often obscure the hard work before us, let's be clear about what this moment demands. We are at war. We are at war against al Qaeda, a far-reaching network of violence and hatred that attacked us on 9/11, that killed nearly 3,000 innocent people, and that is plotting to strike us again. And we will do whatever it takes to defeat them."
"We are at war".
Period. They simply botched the handling of this guy. The same idiot who decided to try KSM in NY, is the same idiot who mirandized this captured enemy "soldier".
Posted by: Gary on February 19, 2010 03:57 PMYou mentioned torture through its euphemism (enhanced interrogation techniques) in your post @23.
A federal judge has ruled that Padilla meets the definition of torture per definition in the treaties US has signed.
Stress positions is one of the acts taken against John McCain in Vietnam. He called it torture.
Look at the pictures and read the description on the history of the Spanish inquisition, you will see stretch positions (the very acts we have taken in Gitmo as documented by the Red Cross and others) as the same (i.e., torture). Note: It isn't the action itself, but the length of the action (i.e., days vice minutes or a few hours).
The naked and cold deprivation and other similar acts documented to have occurred at GITMO lead to permanent internal bodily and mental injuries, which also is included in the torture definition. Just because there aren't external injuries, doesn't mean there aren't injuries. Note: Again, the torture definition relates to length of time and repeated use vice an single isolated incident.
Are you defending this treatment? Do you consider actions and values to be relative who they are carried out on, or do you consider our values to be who YOU are as a person?
Posted by: tc on February 19, 2010 04:03 PM
So how do you resolve this with your previous statement regarding where the act occurred? 9/11 occurred on our soil, he was responsible.
The Christmas bomber, also affiliated with AQ, similarly tried to blow up an airline, the only difference is that he failed. Or is your difference the scale of the attack? Or is it that 9/11 was deemed an "act of war"? To that, I'd say any attempt to blow up an airplane is an act of war.
Posted by: Palouse on February 19, 2010 04:35 PM
So, why is this not a show trial?
Our national security is in the hands of idiots.
Gotta love it!
Posted by: katomar on February 21, 2010 06:57 PMWhile McVeigh did attack the government, it wasn't meant to cripple the nation, but to send a statement. In 9/11, the attack focused on crippling our economic system (Trade Towers) and political system (White House/Capital and Pentagon).
Additionally, Bin Laden is responsible for attacking our military (USS Cole and Somolia). If you feel that 9/11 was simply an attack of terrorism equivalent to McVeigh's or the Blind Sheik's first World Trade Center attack, then I would say civil, but I feel the attack wasn't equivalent. It was equivalent to Pearl Harbor and other acts of war. That is the difference in my mind.
Posted by: tc on February 22, 2010 07:22 AM
This happened in 1942. Germany did not try it again.
Posted by: Gary on February 22, 2010 10:13 AMAnd according to you, attempting to blow up an airplane doesn't meet that standard. To me, it does. To GWB, it would. To Obama/Holder, it wouldn't. Again, this is silly.
Posted by: Palouse on February 22, 2010 12:04 PMImagine what the United States would do to say... Cuba, if one of its MIG's shot down an American passenger jet flying over Florida. Would tc also not think that was an act of war? If so, why does al Qaeda doing so not mean an act of war?
And besides, Obama has already proclaimed it. It's war, and yet he treats the enemy no worse than we would be treated if we held up a liquor store.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm
By your moral framework for war, should we have went to war against the various Columbia groups (FARC and others)? What in your moral framework makes the difference? How about against the groups behind McVeigh? Where do you draw the line in your moral framework?
To me, your moral framework appears wishy-washy and based soley on venegence and the rules apply when you say they do and don't when you say they don't. It isn't a sound framework to operate a country under. Under the guidelines you both seem to expouse, anytime anyone attacks we should seek out revenge first. If this isn't your moral framework, then (again) where are the lines drawn in your world and what justification do you have for drawing the lines there? The Just War framework has been around for a long time and has both a theological and philosophical (going back to Greeks) basis. It is a Western framework, so maybe you both believe in a different one. If so, please state.
Posted by: tc on February 22, 2010 01:02 PMNo. It becomes a war the minute a pattern is established. So First WTC bombing -> Embassy Bombings -> Cole = a pattern. You could establish a pattern with just two incidents, or if extreme enough, one. E.g. if 9/11 happened first, there's no question, it's war right away.
Posted by: Palouse on February 22, 2010 01:23 PMIn your moral framework, which you have not answered as to what it is, what actions constitute acts of war. Where are the lines drawn? Do you assume that the US should act in all those cases where you draw those lines? What basis do you have, outside of vengeance? Or, do you believe in the Wild West code? Answer the question as to what your moral framework is. I answered for myself -- i.e., Just War Doctrine.
Gary @98
I have stated we are at war at Al Qaeda (i.e., Bin Laden). Do you believe Bin Laden directed this attack? Do you believe Al Qaeda is a single organization? If so, should we attack all the places where they are located, like Somolia, Micronesia, the Phillipines (I believe), etc.? What is your plan of attack against them? Do you believe that Iraq attacked us at 9/11? Do you believe that Al Qaeda was in Iraq pre-9/11 (or even pre-US invasion)? Do you believe we should bomb Iran? What is your justification? As I asked Palouse, what is your moral framework for making these determination? You have one, why are you afraid to state what it is?
You want him legally treated just like an American citizen who commits a crime.
Posted by: Gary on February 22, 2010 03:09 PMGary @102
I will not respond. It makes no sense debating points ad nauseum. You never responded to my question on what your moral framework is based. Your questions are simply leading and meant to lead into a fruitless discussion. When you start having a backbone and state where you stand on things, instead of just shooting down everyone else, then maybe I will reconsider. For now, though, I am done responding to you.
Now, you used the occasion of the Christmas bomber topic to accuse fellow Americans of crimes.
Back it up.
Yes. They are primarily kidnappings for ransom, and while detestable, are not the same as AQ bombings on our civilians/military. The one bombing attributed to them on the list was a nightclub in Colombia. If we caught one of them for some reason, they'd be candidates for Colombian justice, since the incidents primarily exist there. Just a guess, but I'd bet they'd be better off with our military tribunal than theirs.
Attacks on our embassies and on our military overseas is an attack on America. AQ has done that, in addition to attacking us here (Christmas bomber included). That makes them different.
And as stated previously, I make a distinction with US citizens, so that makes Padilla and McVeigh different as well.
Posted by: Palouse on February 23, 2010 02:38 PM