Saturday, May 15, 2010


It seems reality has slapped Attorney General Eric Holder alongside the head. In response to the foiled Times Square bombing plot, Holder earlier this week stated that the Obama Administration was looking in to modifying its previous stance regarding the use of Miranda rights for suspected terrorists. Apparently, there's something about a couple of near-disastrous terror strikes on the US homeland that can persuade even the most terrorist-coddling commander-in-chief and his trusty judicial branch sidekick that giving Al-Qaeda/Taliban-trained operatives the option to "clam up" while being arrested for suspected or attempted acts of homeland Jihad may not be the most effective way to deter and combat terrorism on both US soil and abroad.

According to the Politico from May 10:

“I think we also want to look and determine whether we have the necessary flexibility — whether we have a system that deals with situations that agents now confront. … We’re now dealing with international terrorism,” Holder said.

“I think we have to give serious consideration to at least modifying that public-safety exception [to the Miranda requirements]. And that’s one of the things that I think we’re going to be reaching out to Congress… to come up with a proposal that is both constitutional, but that is also relevant to our times and the threats that we now face.”

So the cabal government officials who have threatened to practically expose everything the CIA has done with water boarding, extolled the virtues of giving citizen's rights to non-citizen Al-Qaeda killers and treating them like ordinary criminals, repeatedly apologized for America in European and Middle Eastern countries, and offered to talk to Iranian President Ahmadinejad without preconditions may have finally realized that hamstringing potential terrorist investigations by cutting off the interrogation, may not be such a great thing. It's funny what happens when a President and members of his cabinet who approach the War on Terror with anti-American, Marxist ideals and things happen in the real theatre of that War that totally and completely disprove and discount the elitist idealism.

“The [Miranda] system we have in place has proven to be effective,” said Holder, who has drawn criticism for administering the self-incrimination warning to Shahzad, a recently naturalized American.

He told the Senate Judiciary Committee in April that “the giving of Miranda warnings does not necessarily mean that the information flow stops. I think quite the contrary. What we have seen over this past year with regard to Zazi, Abdullah Mutallab, Headley, all of whom were given Miranda warnings. The information flow was substantial. "

Oh really? If Miranda warnings were so darned effective, then how did suspected bomber Faisal Shahzad come so close to hatching the plot in the first place and how did he come so close to leaving the country after it was foiled? The entire theory that Shahzad acted alone was quickly thrown out the window soon after his arrest when it was "discovered" that the Taliban in Pakistan, Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, were fully behind the planning and attempted implementation of the plot.

Again, the Politico:

Eric Holder, making his first Sunday show appearance as Attorney General, told ABC’s Jake Tapper on “This Week” that investigators have “now developed evidence that show that the Pakistani Taliban was behind” last weekend’s attempted bombing of Times Square.

If the investigations were going so well and the Miranda warnings were effective, then A) Why did the Administration not fully realize the threat from the Pakistani Taliban? B) Why change the edict in the first place?

What it looks like to me is that a group of acting cast members led by Obama and Holder fully embraced the notion that if we just play "nice" with the terrorists and show the World how "just" we are by keeping their best "constitutional" interests in mind that we'd completely placate radical Islam's and therefore, the Muslim world's, unjustified hatred of us and their insatiable thirst for violence against us. And now after a couple of near-scares and the possibility of this philosophy putting them on the receiving end of anger and blame in the event of a successful terror attack, they are scurrying to loosen the shackles in which they've handcuffed themselves. I call it "foot-in-mouth governing"; the fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants change on-the-fly executive-ship that occurs after the notion sets in that, "oops, we got lucky" and "we'd better fix this or else we won't be so lucky next time,"; the lessons learned by a naive administration.

Now if only they all could have the same revelation about their philosophy of trying terrorists in civilian courts instead of Military tribunals.

No comments:

Post a Comment