rssCharging of Plane Bombing Suspect Highlights Obama’s Inconsistencies
Monday, December 28, 2009 at 7:00 pm
- 16 Comments
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (U.S. Marshall's Office/ZUMA Press)
The Obama administration’s decision to try the Nigerian man suspected of attempting to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas as an ordinary civilian criminal rather than as an “unprivileged enemy belligerent” in a military commission, as the 9/11 hijackers initially were, highlights the inconsistent approach taken by both the current and previous administrations, civil libertarians and defense lawyers say.
The Justice Department appears to have immediately treated the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a 23-year-old Nigerian who claims he trained in Yemen with al-Qaeda, in the way it has long treated suspected terrorism: as a criminal act to be prosecuted in a civilian federal court.
[Law1] Arrested on Friday, Abdulmutallab was charged the next day, while being treated for burns in a hospital room in Ann Arbor, Michigan. He was charged with attempting to blow up Northwest Flight 253, which left from Amsterdam and was headed for Detroit.
Asked why the Department of Justice treated Abdulmutallab as a civilian rather than a suspected belligerent, DOJ spokesman Dean Boyd said: “At this time, we have no comment on the ongoing investigation or any prosecutorial deliberations — beyond the public charging documents that have been filed in the case.” The criminal complaint is here.
Defense lawyers who represent Guantanamo detainees who have not been treated as civilians applauded the Obama administration’s move, but noted the lack of a coherent rationale for continuing to treat other alleged terrorist plots as acts of war.
“There is something striking about fact that they treated the 9/11 attacks as an act of war but treat somebody who’s trying to blow up a plane as an ordinary criminal,” said David Remes, legal director of Appeal for Justice who represents almost a dozen Yemeni men still detained at Guantanamo Bay. “What is the basis of the distinction?”
Jonathan Hafetz, an attorney with the National Security Project of the American Civil Liberties Union similarly called it “a positive step that the Obama is handling this case through the criminal justice system which has demonstrated time and again that it is fully capable of prosecuting terrorism without sacrificing constitutional rights or values.”
He added in an e-mail that it is “unfortunate that the Obama administration is not applying this strategy across the board and instead continuing to detain individuals at Guantanamo without trial and outside the criminal justice system.”
This case was probably easier to send to federal court than some others because it does not involve a defendant who’s been detained for years without charge or tortured or otherwise abused by U.S. authorities, as have some detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. Those factors could all complicate a subsequent prosecution in federal court. By turning Abdulmutallab over to the FBI immediately, the administration could ensure that lawful procedures were followed and the evidence collected would more likely be admissible in a subsequent civilian trial.
That’s not the distinction the Obama administration has relied upon to justify the use of military commissions, however, and many critics have claimed that the administration has still failed to offer a coherent explanation for its choice of courts for different cases.
The Bush administration similarly chose different fora for different trials, often with little or not explanation. Richard Reid, for example, the so-called “shoe bomber” who tried to blow up an American Airlines plane shortly before Christmas in 2001, was, like Abdulmutallab, treated as an ordinary criminal and tried and convicted in federal court. In fact, the Bush administration tried more than 120 international terrorism cases in federal court after the 9/11 attacks. Still, both administrations have both treated some terror suspects with alleged links to al-Qaeda as war criminals to be tried in military commissions instead.
When Attorney General Eric Holder announced in November he was transferring the 9/11 suspects to federal court for trial, he also announced that four other high-level detainees would be tried by military commission. They include Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the suspected USS Cole bomber, and others who allegedly attacked military targets. Holder at the time attempted to distinguish the cases on that ground, although many critics, including former Justice Department officials, said that distinction didn’t hold up.
Abdulmutallab’s claimed connection to al Qaeda suggests that his alleged attempt to blow up a plane could be treated as an act of war, and he could be tried as a war criminal as well. Similarly, the alleged USS Cole bomber and others charged as war criminals could easily be tried as alleged murderers in federal court.
In fact, as even Justice Department official David Kris has acknowledged, the crimes of conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism have traditionally been treated as federal civilian crimes, not as war crimes. That could complicate current attempts to try al Qaeda suspects for those crimes in the newly-reconstituted military commissions.
The hope of a speedy and successful prosecution may be the reason the Justice Department chose to prosecute this latest case in the civilian system, where it’s had a long record of success, both before and since September 11, 2001. Almost 200 terror suspects have been convicted in civilian federal courts since the 9/11 attacks; only three have been convicted in military commissions.
The alternative, say many legal experts, would have been to risk procedural delays, appeals and the reversal of any conviction in the new and untested military commissions.
16 Comments
Trackback posted December 28, 2009 @ 10:43 pm
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMCMemberFeed: Wash. Independent: Handling of Plane Bombing Suspect Highlights Legal Inconsistencies: As civil libertarians cheer … http://bit.ly/52Z8p0...
Pingback posted December 29, 2009 @ 4:15 am
[...] more here: Handling of Plane Bombing Suspect Highlights Legal Inconsistencies … By admin | category: criminal trial | tags: across-the-board, board, detain-individuals, [...]
Pingback posted December 29, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
[...] The Journal is right that, as I noted yesterday, the Obama administration’s handling of Abdulmutallab is inconsistent with the treatment of some [...]
Pingback posted December 29, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
[...] The Journal is right that, as I noted yesterday, the Obama administration’s handling of Abdulmutallab is inconsistent with the treatment of some [...]
Pingback posted December 30, 2009 @ 11:08 am
[...] of the danger they’ve apparently just now realized Yemen poses, because Nigerian terror suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab has said he was trained [...]
Comment posted December 30, 2009 @ 11:41 am
What is MUCH MORE important here is WHY IS THE GOVERNMENT UNCONCERNED ABOUT THE WELL-DRESSED INDIAN MAN, in Amsterdam, that accompanied the NIgerian man, insisting he get on the plane without a passport. When rejected at the gate, he insisted he speak with authorities, which, apparently, let it all happen.
This was originally reported by several eye-witnessess on CNN. And today on infowars an eyewitness will go into more detail on what he saw on the radio show.
Yet the authorities just about ignore this whole situation and apparently have not questioned the eyewitnesses further.
Here is the video link… You can also get it at CNN.
http://www.infowars.com/bombshell-eyewitness-re…
Sorry to say, this whole thing stinks like 911. I just wish someone would do some actual investigative reporting rather than assist in duping the American people (again). There were many witnessess like this after 911 who were never contacted again.
Apparently it is so easy to get the fear machine going, especially if you are wanting to start new wars. Just blame the usual subjects. It worked so well in Iraq. People really need to face the manipulation here and grow up. Put the sho t g un down and get off the front porch.
Comment posted December 31, 2009 @ 12:07 am
browsing Mbt shoes on web pages of Mbt.com, you will find that Mbt sport white will be a good choice.
Comment posted January 2, 2010 @ 8:40 pm
YEMEM THE SECRET WAR
[The January 28th Confab]
On January 28th, the World will once again be held captive to yet another summit, this one is called a Global Summit, which Gregg Carlstrom, (http://www.TheMajlis.Org), called a global confab, and of which Gregg is skeptical to say the least, to be held in United Kingdom, the city of London hosted by of course [UK] United Kingdoms [PM] Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the Secretary General of [NATO] the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Anders Fogh Rasmussen of Denmark, ‘Der Stümper von Kopenhagen’ (‘The Clutz from Copenhagen’), the purpose of which is for European governments representatives, too show their solidarity based upon terms of sharing the burden, and interest of [NATO’s] and the Empire, in its War of Economic Stimulus, Resources and Markets, Blood for Oil on the Islamic Crescent/ Arabian Peninsula, a secret war to which [PM] Gordon Brown gave a [UK] [£100M/€112] One-hundred Million Pound Sterling/One-hundred Twelve-Million Euro, commitment to Yemen, making it one of the country's biggest donors, while also providing [MI-6] intelligence support, with the object of making it seem that its not about a secret war but only about just one hot bed of al-Qaeda, the next Afghanistan, Yemem, were as Gregory Johnson, in an interview on [www.Salon.Com] with Gleen_Greenwald Salon Radio Transcript, describes the secret war as having been going on for years within Yemem, with ebbs and flows, to the point were it would be a major military conflict lasting decades to over come al-Qaeda, within Yemem, this is one should take the time to listen to if you want to gain a clear understanding of the Secret Yemem War.
[NATO OFFENSIVE OR DEFENSIVE]
The [UK] seems to have been selected for this confab to keep it off the European Continent, to avoid the mass the [Anti-NATO] conference, demonstrations as in the City of Strasbourg. The meeting seems to be headed to a confrontation of two concepts of [NATO’s] mission, one in which [NATO] becomes an offensive military organization under tacit control of the American-Israeli Empire’s [MIC] Military Industrial Complex, or if it is to be a defensive organization, of European member nations under the tacit if not actual control of the [EU] European Union. This question must be addressed as Germany is split on the issue, with one faction the West Germans willing to come under the control of the Empire, were the East Germans see it as a matter of removing the yoke of the [USSR] Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, just to place the yoke of the Empire on its neck, and then there is always France, which sees Europe and its future as separate from the Empire, planning for [2020] the generally accepted end of the American-Israeli Empire, much of the East are forming closer relationships with China, with the creation of a [16] Sixteen Nation currency trading bloc within the Asian Sphere of Chinese Influence, as the Euro represents the nations of the [EU] European nations linking the [10] Ten, [ASEAN] Association of Southeast Asian Nations, countries, who already want a single currency by member would include; Japan, China, Australia, South Korea, New Zealand and India.
[NATO NEW STRATEGIC CONCEPT]
The new mission of [NATO] is the establishing of Western-style democracies around the globe, with organization members having joint interests everywhere, new threats have arisen and missions have developed that no one could have imagined within the past decade, fighting against the new forms of state based and non-state based terrorism, preventing the acquisition of [WMD’s] weapons of mass destruction with missiles or other deliver systems, cyber warfare, the threat posed by pirates, faced with all the challenges of the [21st] Century The Secretary General felt [NATO] must find a response to these challenges, and therefore [NATO], Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, requested a comprehensive new strategic concept for [NATO], replacing a decade old strategy. One in which response will be based upon individual offensive decisions intentionally targeting suspected enemies of the Empire even when they do not pose a direct threat, that is, are not involved in belligerent actions, as long as warlike conditions exist in any areas of [NATO] operations. The mission of [NATO] will be invested in the establishing of Western-style democracies in these regions and states, with a transitional exit strategy based upon gaining the trust of the people, a gradual transfer of power, turning over control, district by district, province by province and can only be completed when these countries have proven their capable of governing their country, guaranteeing not only their security, but that of the Empire, and will require that troops of occupation remain within a country or region, for undetermined amounts of time to ensure their stability. And to that purpose, on [Jan. 28th] European governments representatives will meet in the [U.K.] United Kingdom, London, too show their solidarity based upon terms of sharing the burden, and interest of [NATO’s] and the Empire.
[IN CONCLUSION]
The Confab in London may determine if [NATO] will now have to deal with its own Vietnam, the quagmire of unending war on the Islamic Crescent/ Arabian Peninsula or [18] eighteen months, with its withdrawal, with the objective of establishing a European solution other that a Vietnam quagmire of unending duration.
HERCULE TRIATHLON SAVINIEN
Comment posted January 11, 2010 @ 8:48 am
As is common with the media, distortion is the call. Bush did try Reid in Federal court instead of a military tribunal. Why? Because Bush hadn't the tribunal hadn't been created by then. A seemingly innocuous fact to omit. This type of journalism is replete throughout the media and must stop.
Comment posted January 21, 2010 @ 11:22 am
International Terrorists given the same rights that American Citizens get. Interesting concept. Our legal system is so bogged down with technicallities. If the terrorist had been trying to bomb a plane going to his home country how would that trial go?
Comment posted January 21, 2010 @ 4:22 pm
International Terrorists given the same rights that American Citizens get. Interesting concept. Our legal system is so bogged down with technicallities. If the terrorist had been trying to bomb a plane going to his home country how would that trial go?
Comment posted August 4, 2010 @ 12:16 pm
Yet the authorities just about ignore this whole situation and apparently have not questioned the eyewitnesses further.
~~
Comment posted August 4, 2010 @ 4:46 pm
Interesting concept. Our legal system is so bogged down with technicallities. If the terrorist had been trying to bomb a plane going to his home country how would that trial go?
Comment posted August 20, 2010 @ 7:54 am
This type of journalism is replete throughout the media and must stop.
Comment posted August 20, 2011 @ 11:13 am
THAT IS NORMAL THING
TO DO IN ORDER TO GET MONEY IN THIS WICKED WORLD
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
