".... The case of Najibullah Zazi continues to be under-appreciated victory for the United States. A deadly attack was thwarted; intelligence was collected; and justice was served. No torture, no military commissions, no need to stray from the legal process. The legal system was followed to the letter, and it worked beautifully."And conservatives really don't want to talk about it.
The Republicans who most vociferously blasted the Obama Administration for putting the attempted Christmas bombing suspect through the criminal justice system have apparently been silent on another high-profile terrorism case making its way through the civilian system. <...>
Given the GOP outrage over the administration's decision to charge attempted Christmas bomber Umar Abdulmutallab in criminal court, one might have expected a flurry of Republican press releases and TV appearance this week over the handling of the Zazi case.
But the press releases never came, and the TV appearances were never scheduled.
On the Hill, the usual suspects of hysterical conservatives -- Kit Bond, Pete Hoekstra, Pete King -- haven't said a word. And what about their media allies? Even when Zazi's guilty plea became a major development, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity literally didn't say a word about the guilty plea of a man who would have killed innocent Americans in a terrorist attack in New York City.I guess this was an American story that simply proved un-spinnable to the GOP and its cohorts.
Here we had a serious terrorist threat -- arguably the most important since 9/11 -- and an al Qaeda recruit who was poised to kill a lot of people. The Obama administration thwarted Zazi's plan, took him into custody, read him his rights, and gave him a lawyer.
And the results couldn't have been better for the United States. Zazi will spend the rest of the his life behind bars, but only after cooperating with federal officials and becoming a valuable source of intelligence.I wonder why Republicans would choose to deliberately ignore this. Don't they want to debate the efficacy of U.S. counter-terrorism policy? Where'd they all go?"
—Steve Benen 1:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/Background on Zazi..
"Holder was right" by Joe Conason..
<snip>
"Before Najibullah Zazi is finally dispatched to a secure cellblock for good, it is important to remember how the taxi driver–turned–terrorist was brought to justice—and why the critics who jeered his civilian prosecution were dead wrong. By convicting Mr. Zazi and pursuing the leads that his capture and interrogation have provided, the F.B.I. has shown that traditional American methods—rather than the “enhanced interrogation” and military tribunals favored by the right—are highly effective instruments of... READ MORE»"<snip>
"Following his arrest, Mr. Zazi obtained counsel and, like many criminal defendants, seemed to be preparing to go to trial. Then came the drumbeat of criticism from the right, led by former officials of the Bush administration. Former White House press secretary Dana Perino declared in the National Review that the Zazi case provided a “cautionary tale” because the surveillance had been aborted, the case blown and the investigation ended “prematurely.” According to Ms. Perino, the suspect had lawyered up and “stopped talking.” Without applying instruments of torture, she worried, “any further cooperation Zazi may provide is up to him and his lawyer.” If only the Obama administration had declared Mr. Zazi to be an “enemy combatant” and applied “so-called enhanced interrogation techniques” to him, the results would have been far better."<much more>
http://www.observer.com/term/najibullah-zazi
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
