The Law Enforcement approach to terrorism

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmQ5NDcyMjZlYzI2Mzc4ZmVlNTNlNzhlYWVmOWMyMDk=

The people now in charge of our government believe Clinton-era counterterrorism was a successful model. They start from the premise that terrorism is a crime problem to be managed, not a war to be won. Overdone "war on drugs" rhetoric aside, we don't try to "win" against (as in "defeat") law-enforcement challenges. We expect them to happen from time to time and to contain, but never completely prevent, the damage.

Here, no thanks to the government, the plane was not destoyed, and we won't get to the bottom of the larger conspiracy (enabling the likes of Napolitano to say there's no indication of a larger plot — much less one launched by an international jihadist enterprise) because the guy got to lawyer up rather than be treated like a combatant and subjected to lengthy interrogation.

This is a critical point:  Obama and Holder think it is more important to respect "the Constitutional Rights" of the bomber than it is to find out how the attack was planned and who else might be involved.  The bomber should be treated as an unlawful enemy combatant.  The lives of Americans are more valuable than the "rights" of terrorists.

Posted via email from The Blue Pelican