The chance to secure crucial information about al-Qaeda operations in Yemen was lost because the Obama administration decided to charge and prosecute Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as an ordinary criminal, critics say. He is said to have reduced his co-operation with FBI interrogators on the advice of his government-appointed defence counsel.
[…]”He was singing like a canary, then we charged him in civilian proceedings, he got a lawyer and shut up,” Slade Gorton, a member of the 9/11 Commission that investigated the Sept 2001 terror attacks on the US, told The Sunday Telegraph.
[…]Abdulmutallab could have been held and interrogated in military custody under existing US legislation before a decision was taken whether to charge him before a military tribunal or a civilian court, according to Michael Mukasey, the last Attorney General under President George W Bush.
Mr Mukasey argues that it was crucial to gain intelligence from him immediately as details about locations, names and other plots is subject to rapid change. For the same reason, he dismissed the argument by John Brennan, Mr Obama’s chief counter-terrorism adviser, that investigators will garner valuable data during any plea-bargaining talks.
Democrats are not serious about counter-terrorism.
- Are Democrats fixing national security or fixing the blame on others?
- Homeland security chair says Swedish grandmothers just as likely to be terrorists
- Homeland Security head says that “the system worked”
- Terrorist’s father warned US Embassy of son’s extremist views
- Navy SEALs face assault charges from Iraqi terrorist they captured
- What is Obama working on instead of making Americans safer?
- Is waterboarding really torture? Does it enhance our national security?
- Why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?