Christmas Day Weakness

Once again President Obama has project weakness to our enemies in the aftermath of the terrorist attack against Northwest Flight 253. First, on national television, his hapless Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, claimed that the airline security system / anti-terror program worked. This was clearly false on its face. If not for a failure in the system of catastrophic proportion, how else could an Islamist like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who was known to US Intelligence because his own father ratted him out, be allowed to board a flight to the United States with a valid US visa. Napolitano is the same genius who coined the phrase “man made disasters” and expected us to use that in lieu of “terrorist attack” (to me, a man made disaster is something like the bridge collapse in Minnesota several years ago). She was also the one who illuminated us as to the dangers of US soldiers returning from war, they might become right wing militia members. Does this woman install confidence in anyone? If so, I haven't met him. The President should immediately fire Secretary Napolitano for incompetence.

Next, and not surprisingly, Mr. Abdulmutallab was arrested by the FBI and read his Miranda warnings. The Obama Administration has decided to treat this unlawful enemy combatant as a common criminal. He now has all of the same rights that Martha Stewart had upon her arrest. Evidently, those in change of our national security believe that the perpetrator of his incident has no valuable intelligence which could help prevent future attacks. For if they did, he would be remanded to the custody of the US Military or the CIA for interrogation. He would not be given the opportunity to lawyer up like an insider trader. Remember, it was a law enforcement approach to terrorism that allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen.

Then, in the President’s first public remarks on the attack, he referred to Mr. Abdulmutallab as an “isolated extremist”. The facts belie this. Two former Guantanamo Bay detainees were involved in the Christmas Day plot. Also, ABC News has reported that Mr. Abdulmutallab spent months in Yemen receiving explosive and terrorist training with other members of al-Qaida in Arabia. He was also in contact with Anwar al-Awlaki, the same al-Qaida leader who was in contact with Maj. Nidal Hasan. And, al-Qaida itself has issued numerous statements since Christmas Day that more attacks are forthcoming. How is it possible that the Commander-in-Chief believes that al-Qaida is made up of just a few “isolated extremist”? Logic and common sense tell us otherwise. Those on the left often tell us that there are just too many terrorists to kill and that we have to win their hearts and minds. If there were just a few isolated extremists, why couldn't we just kill or arrest them all? Why worry about winning the hearts and minds of just those few?

In addition, the President never once mentioned the fact that Abdulmutallab is a radical Muslim. In fact, Mr. Obama only mentioned Islam once during his speech and that was when he referred to Iran by its full name, “The Islamic Republic of Iran”. For some reason, President Obama wants us all to believe that Islam plays no part in the actions of those who perpetrate terrorist attacks in the name of Allah. He does not understand the nature of the threat that these people pose to Western Civilization and, as such, he is unprepared to protect the American people from them.

Based upon the actions (or inactions) of the President of the United States, our enemies now perceive America as weak. This emboldens them and terrorist acts will become more frequent and more deadly. Had the President responded boldly to this attack, he could have shown the Islamist that he means business. Instead, we are told not to use blankets or go to the bathroom during the last hour of an international flight. (Why can’t a terrorist blow up the plane with two hours left in the flight?)

When President Obama declared that there is no War on Terror, the Islamic extremists who wish to kill Americans and Jews failed to receive the memo. They continue to do everything they can to perpetrate as many attacks as possible in an effort to achieve their objectives – restoration of the caliphate and death to the infidels. And, while they are doing that, we have a President who refuses to take the enemy at their word. Unfortunately, next time, the results could be far worse than third degree burns on the genitals of an Islamist extremist.


Anonymous said...

A little behind the new developments.

Anonymous said...

How does this leave us any weaker than we are with Richard Reid in prison, after he tried to light a bomb on a plane?

What would you suggest as a strong response? Summary executions?

Steven L. Baerson said...

At no time did I suggest that the handling of the Richard Reid case was proper. As a matter of fact, I often argued that the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui in a US District Court was a mistake. Both Reid and Moussaoui should have been tried in military tribunals. As for a suggestion of a strong response, all unlawful enemy combatants would be remanded to either the US military or the CIA for detention and interrogation. And, after the interrogation process is completed, the unlawful enemy combatants will be tried in military tribunals.

Anonymous said...

My point is that one did not see Bush criticized for 'showing weakness' for trying Reid in civilian courts. I don't think that trying Reid in civilian courts was 'improper' in the sense of not having valid jurisdiction. Both civilian courts and military commissions had jurisdiction, notwithstanding the validity of military commisions at the time.

In any case, Hamdan vs Rumsfeld invalidated the EO, although that was well after Reid was convicted and sentenced. If he had been tried by a military commission, he may have had to be retried. How strong would that have made Bush look?

Nothing in the military commissions order or the MCA authorizes transferring prisoners to the CIA.