Detroit bomber 'singing like a canary' before arrest.

[andymays]

President Barack Obama is under fire over claims that the Christmas Day underwear bomber was "singing like a canary" until he was treated as an ordinary criminal and advised of his right to silence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6957485/Detroit-bomber-singing-like-a-canary-before-arrest.html

Excerpt:

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.

The potential significance became chillingly clear this weekend when it was reported that shortly after his detention, he boasted that 20 more young Muslim men were being prepared for similar murderous missions in the Yemen.

Excerpt:

And after Mr Obama entered the White House, his Attorney General Eric Holder announced plans to investigate CIA agents involved in waterboarding interrogations of captured al-Qaeda chiefs. That move was greeted with a mixture of dismay and anger in at its headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

"People in Langley got the message and a lot of them are just hunkering down and watching their backs," said a retired intelligence official. "The atmosphere is not really conducive to good intelligence work."

[kenwoodallpromos]

Try this: bomber was "singing like a canary" until he was treated as an ordinary criminal and advised of his right "NOT TO BRAG AND ENCOURAGE OTHERS".
Whether or not a post-9/11 attack in Europe or the USA is successful, most important to them is the PRublicity that is generated.

[Tom]

But what valuable intelligence did we give away?

[ElKabong]

First off, let me preface what I'm about to post is something I'm not pushing or in favor of. Ya got got that, little face paint girl? This is an open question....

At what point does the CIA or another agency take things in their own hands and "take care of" the preznit? If this story has any truth to it, it's going to make a lot of people on the inside really pissed off and frustrated. Not repubs; People who are long time pros at what they do, and see things heading downhill way too fast.

[PaceAdvantage]

At what point does the CIA or another agency take things in their own hands and "take care of" the preznit? If this story has any truth to it, it's going to make a lot of people on the inside really pissed off and frustrated. Not repubs; People who are long time pros at what they do, and see things heading downhill way too fast.Why must we even think about going down this road...I mean, to this day, some claim the CIA was behind the JFK murder, but it has never and will never be proven, so why even speculate like this?

[Greyfox]

At what point does the CIA or another agency take things in their own hands and "take care of" the preznit? .

This post reflects sick conspiracy theory thinking.

[ElKabong]

Greyfox,

Why did you crop my post? I specifically stated I wasn't in favor of it.

[ElKabong]

Why must we even think about going down this road...I mean, to this day, some claim the CIA was behind the JFK murder, but it has never and will never be proven, so why even speculate like this?

PA- JFK's murder had nothing to do with this. Oswald was a loner, didn't go along with anything or anyone. The CIA didn't have a reason to assasinate JFK. Completely different.

And, as I stated earlier, I wouldn't be in favor of it by any means.

0bama's actions, if the article linked is correct, is going to rub people in those agencies the wrong way. If you don't feel comfortable having my post up, feel free to delete it. But the questions remain and we all know it.

[hcap]

First off, let me preface what I'm about to post is something I'm not pushing or in favor of. Ya got got that, little face paint girl? This is an open question....

At what point does the CIA or another agency take things in their own hands and "take care of" the preznit? If this story has any truth to it, it's going to make a lot of people on the inside really pissed off and frustrated. Not repubs; People who are long time pros at what they do, and see things heading downhill way too fast.Yeah, I got that you are losing it Kabong. Open question? Bullshit. You might as well just come out and say what you are really wishing for. It is obvious.

[ElKabong]

Well hcap, I can see that you aren't capable of addressing an open question. And since I stated I wasn't in favor of it, you have a problem with comprehending what you read.

Perhaps you can address a racist comment? Feel free to go over to that thread and give your .02 worth.

[ElKabong]

Ah, one more thing. I wish no one harm.

My joy will be Nov 2012 when 0bama gets Mondale'd by someone you'll hate for 4 years. That will be my joy.

[bigmack]

Perhaps you can address a racist comment? Feel free to go over to that thread and give your .02 worth.
Wrong racist for him. Now Trent Lott, he'd be all over that.

[ElKabong]

When I read Harry's racist comments, I immediately thought of Lott. And just now read where Reid "isn't going away", said he'll run again. Double standard for him I suppose.

This quote of his will follow him forever.

[PaceAdvantage]

PA- JFK's murder had nothing to do with this. Oswald was a loner, didn't go along with anything or anyone. The CIA didn't have a reason to assasinate JFK. Completely different.

And, as I stated earlier, I wouldn't be in favor of it by any means.

0bama's actions, if the article linked is correct, is going to rub people in those agencies the wrong way. If you don't feel comfortable having my post up, feel free to delete it. But the questions remain and we all know it.If you don't believe the CIA had any reason to assassinate JFK, then I can't see how you can bring this question up now...because if they didn't have any reason for JFK, they certainly don't have any reason right now...

Perhaps I'm reading different historical accounts of the JFK admin than you are...

[ElKabong]

PA, I'm reading the link provided, 0bama is creating a difficult situation for agencies to get info from detainees (re: underwear bombers). "President Barack Obama is under fire over claims that the Christmas Day underwear bomber was "singing like a canary" until he was treated as an ordinary criminal and advised of his right to silence."

That will piss people in the agencies off whether you or me or hcap likes it or not. That's a reality.

JFK didn't have a post 9-11 to deal with. Nothing he was doing rivals w/ what is linked in Andy's article. Bay of Pigs wasn't 9-11. Also, he was much more liked by both party's.

Personally I want 0bama to fulfill his 4 yrs and let the dems see how F'd up that party has really become. Hilary w/h been a much better CIC (opinion). 0bama basically guarantees a change in 2012.

[hcap]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2010/jan/07/military-tribunals-civilian-courts-terrorism


"If you're like a lot of people -- Liz Cheney, say -- you've been wondering why Barack Obama seems to think the rights of terrorists are more important than the lives of the American people and wants to give them civilian trials and let them get "lawyered up," in the suddenly voguish phrase, so they can take advantage of sneaky liberal wrinkles in the law inserted in there by sneaky liberal defense lawyers and judges over the years. This is instead of hauling them before military tribunals, the current hot right-wing talking point.

Oh, you're not one of those people? Okay, then. You might therefore be interested to know the following.

The Bush administration -- in which Liz Cheney's papa held a fairly high position, you might recall -- prosecuted, after 9-11, 828 people on terrorism charges in civilian courts. At the time of publication of this excellent report from the Center on Law and Security, NYU School of Law last year, trials were still pending against 235 of those folks. That leaves 593 resolved indictments, of which 523 were convicted of some crime, for a conviction rate of 88%.

With regard to military tribunals, the Bush administration inaugurated 20 such cases. So far just three convictions have been won. The highest-profile is the conviction of Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's driver. The Hamdan legal saga, rehearsed here, doesn't exactly suggest that military tribunals provide swifter and surer and tougher justice. In the end, he was convicted all right, but sentenced -- not by a bunch of New York City Democrats, but by a military jury! -- to five and half years.

....So here's the situation. Bush/Cheney found civilian prosecution a perfectly acceptable path to pursue in 828 cases. They've won convictions at an impressive rate in those civilian prosecutions. The most high-profile military prosecution was kind of a disaster.

And yet, Obama is a weakling because Abdulmutallab is being treated the way the Bush administration treated 828 "suspects," to use a word the right has declared reveals a girly-mannish mindset. Amazing. And again: where are the Democrats who are saying this?

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/1_10_10_12_37_40.png

[Tom]

Hope...change.....but when all else fails, BASH BUSH! :lol::lol::lol:

[hcap]

If you read the article no one is bashing Bush. To the contrary. The bushies were quite successful using the criminal court system.
Whereas military tribunals not so.

Obama is just continuing a policy that worked.

My use of BigMacks' silly graphic was a comment meant to annoy you gentlemen and I guess it worked? :cool:

[Hank]

First off, let me preface what I'm about to post is something I'm not pushing or in favor of. Ya got got that, little face paint girl? This is an open question....

At what point does the CIA or another agency take things in their own hands and "take care of" the preznit? If this story has any truth to it, it's going to make a lot of people on the inside really pissed off and frustrated. Not repubs; People who are long time pros at what they do, and see things heading downhill way too fast.

The precedent for this was already set by the Bush administration.
Richard Read the "shoe bomber" was tried and convicted in federal court.The federal judge that sentenced him stated"You are not an enemy combatant,you are a terrorist'..You are not a soldier in any army,you are a criminal.to call you a soldier gives you far to much stature"
The really pathiec thing about your post is not that it reveals your ingnorance about the subject at hand, whats really sad is you not understanding that your feeble little "let me preface this by saying" preamble would fool no one as to the true nature of your post and consequently the true nature of the poster.

[ElKabong]

The precedent for this was already set by the Bush administration.
Richard Read the "shoe bomber" was tried and convicted in federal court.The federal judge that sentenced him stated"You are not an enemy combatant,you are a terrorist'..You are not a soldier in any army,you are a criminal.to call you a soldier gives you far to much stature"
The really pathiec thing about your post is not that it reveals your ingnorance about the subject at hand, whats really sad is you not understanding that your feeble little "let me preface this by saying" preamble would fool no one as to the true nature of your post and consequently the true nature of the poster.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[boxcar]

The precedent for this was already set by the Bush administration.
Richard Read the "shoe bomber" was tried and convicted in federal court.The federal judge that sentenced him stated"You are not an enemy combatant,you are a terrorist'..You are not a soldier in any army,you are a criminal.to call you a soldier gives you far to much stature"


"The really pathiec thing about your post is not that it reveals your ingnorance about the subject at hand, whats really sad is you not understanding that your feeble little "let me preface this by saying" preamble would fool no one as to the true nature of your post and consequently the true nature of the poster.

Permit me to tell you what's really pathetic: This stupid, self-deceived, delusional judge who thinks terrorists are nothing more than common criminals. You see, this moron doesn't get it. The difference between common criminals and terrorists is that the former commit crimes against society usually to satisfy a personal rage or for personal gain, whereas the latter are out to destroy a society because of some misguided religious zeal that says America is the "great Satan".

And you know...being the betting man I am, I bet you don't get it either and never will.

Boxcar