More on the 'Dirty Bomber'

Great Debates
1

I see another thread deals with how an American citizen comes to be held as a prisoner of the military even though he won’t be tried by the military. One can’t help but wonder at the current quality of the admissible evidence against him if the Criminal Code can’t be used. And quite where Habeas Corpus and due process are in all this, I’m afraid, escapes me.
Anyway, somehow the matter doesn’t seem to quite hit the right notes in other areas. For example:

  • If the guy was arrested on the 8th May, why wait now to tell the US public ? Well, in the absence of other arrests, I guess it’s probably political. But, if that’s correct, is it okay to tell the public when it suits the Administration – isn’t there some kind of moral obligation to not make such obvious political gain out of the arrest ? (“Look at the great way our Intelligence Agencies are now co-operating”) If it’s no big deal, when did it become no big deal ?

  • As he’s a US citizen - and was arrested on his return to the airport of his home town – why wouldn’t the Authorities let him stay free and able to make contact with other conspirators. He sure as hell wasn’t going to commit this alleged crime alone, in fact it sounds like a seriously sophisticated operation in the very early stages of planning…wasn’t the chance to nab any number of other ‘sleepers’ lost ? If so; Why – surely not for the short-term political gain of having made an arrest ?

All in all, it seems a funny old business to me. Any thoughts ?

2

Links to news stories.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/06/10/dirty.bomb.suspect/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/06/10/inv.dirty.bomb.investigation.ap/index.html

3

I think what makes me uncomfortable is the nicely circular situation which arises because of the nature of the allegations. i.e. any information about the specifics of the crime is sensitive and related to terrorism and al-Qaeda, so this guy will be held by the military and thus any requirement for legal process and a public airing of the evidence in a trial evaporates.
I for one would not want to be charged with plotting al-Qaeda. There seems to be no presumption of innocence.
Of course, ask me about how to approach this on the ground with a suspect in hand and maybe there are obvious reasons for handling him in this way.

4

I suppose some actions are covered by “national security” reasons. Much is written about this. For example:
http://www.aclu.org/issues/security/hmns.html

5

I heard this morning on the radio (Radio-France Internationale) that an US official (didn’t catch his name) has declared that the guy would be stripped of his US citizenship in order to be sent to this infamous military court.
1)Has this declaration actually been made, or did they get it wrong? And who said that?

2)Is it legally/constitutionnally possible?

3)In which instances is it possible?

6

From one of Goosie’s links:

“…adding the government faced a Tuesday deadline to decide whether to charge Al Muhajir in the federal court system or turn him over to the Defense Department.”

Now, presumably, that deadline could impact on the timing of the release of the information to the public, but not necessarily – they had him for a month in the same circumstances.
Yes Andy, i agree the civil-liberties issue must be of concern to many Americans.

I think what concerns me most is that there is an (apparent) political imperative in play that usurps old fashioned, Cold War stylie Intelligence gathering.

This guy was no immediate threat, the US is rightly concerned about the number of al Qaeda ‘sleepers’ already within the US and any tools (‘assets’, I guess) that aid a way into that world are gold dust. Yet this guy is picked up the minute he lands in the country.

It may, or may not, have been fanciful to think he could be ‘turned’, but surely he could have been tracked for months, if not years, to see what else came to light.

I just find it hard to not see this as the Administration seizing the first opportunity to make political capital (taking some of the pressure of itself and the Intelligence Agencies). If that’s the case, it’s acting in its own best interests rather than those of the country (and others concerned with fighting al Qaeda). Isn’t it ?

7

I don’t want to ride pjen’s pony here, but does anyone else find it strange that Taliban prisoners, who were part of the (admittedly horrible and non-uniformed) army of a regime defending itself, are denied POW status, yet this dude, who I believe would (subject to the allegations against him being proven) be counted a terrorist by almost anyone’s definition, is classed as an “enemy combatant”?

8

I don’t recall that “enemy combatant” is a protected class under the Geneva Convention.

9

minty - Lets not go there again.

jjimm - Well, the US also have the last alleged memebr of the 9/11 firm who’s being held and charged under the standard Criminal Code…if he’s not a terrorist (subject to evidence) , I don’t know who is.

Actually, I’m also still trying to work out the difference between this guy and the American citizen found fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan and who was also held and charged under the Criminal Code. Consistency doesn’t seem to be a hallmark of this Administration.

Yes Andy, i agree the civil-liberties issue must be of concern to many Americans.

From one of Goosie’s links:

“…adding the government faced a Tuesday deadline to decide whether to charge Al Muhajir in the federal court system or turn him over to the Defense Department.”

Now, presumably, that deadline could impact on the timing of the release of the information to the public, but not necessarily – they had him for a month in the same circumstances.
The main point however, and I think what concerns me most, is that there is an (apparent) political imperative in play that usurps old fashioned, Cold War stylie Intelligence gathering.

This guy was no immediate threat, the US is rightly concerned about the number of al Qaeda ‘sleepers’ already within the US and any tools (‘assets’, I guess) that aid a way into that world are gold dust. Yet this guy is picked up the minute he lands in the country.

It may, or may not, have been fanciful to think he could be ‘turned’, but surely he could have been tracked for months, if not years, to see what else came to light.

I just find it hard to not see this as the Administration seizing the first opportunity to make political capital (taking some of the pressure of itself and the Intelligence Agencies). If that’s the case, it’s acting in its own best interests rather than those of the country (and others concerned with fighting al Qaeda). Isn’t it ?

10

clairobscur, AFAIK (a) the US does not recognize “stateless” persons so you can only be “stripped of citizenship” if there’s some other nationality that can be attributed to you, and (b) for a born citizen that can only happen as the result of a due process where the state shows you’ve renounced the US and joined an alien state – not something that can be summarily decreed. For a naturalized citizen, for certain crimes the naturalization can be revoked and you revert to the citizenship of origin, but again, it’s not a summary procedure either. (took some 10 years for War Criminal John Demjanjuk)

11

I agree. You with me, jjimmbo?

I’m not necessarily bothered by that. Unless they knew what the guy was up to and that he posed no immediate threat, it seems reasonable to me to pick him up at the first opportunity. Al Qaeda is not some vague, small-time threat such that you can just let them go about their business while you develop evidence against them. If anything, that is the lesson of all those lost opportunities in the year leading up to 9/11.

12

minty I hear you and L_C loud and clear. To clarify, though, I was only mentioning it re. consistency, not anything else.

13

Picking him up right away doesn’t bother me much, especially seeing as how there is belief that the CIA and FBI knew that a few of the hijackers were in the country, and had them under survailance because they suspected something. They may have been waiting for them to make a move, but once that happened, it was too late. This time around, they decided to nip it in the bud and not take any chances. That, I can agree with.

How much information they can gather from the guy? I don’t know.

Wouldn’t his action be considered an act of treason? I don’t know when we last had something like that here in the US (1920s?), but if that is the case, perhaps the whole judicial process has to take a different route. Basically, I see them using any excuse to keep him in custody so they can either keep pumping him for information, or to make sure he doesn’t just get out on some technicality, and then continue with his original, or a new plan.

14

And what happens if they lose track of him like they lost track of the two 9/11 hijackers they were following? It may be beneficial to follow this guy and see where he goes, but that’s no easy task in a country the size of the US. All he has to do is buy a shitty car for a couple of grand and drive into the countryside. By taking one of the peices out of play, it disrupts the terrorists plans. This may force them to make mistakes that can expose them.

I am willing to give our intelligence /law enforcement agencies the benefit of the doubt and assume that they know more than you or I do about how to do their job . They have been in the intelligence game for many years and I think they are reasonably good at it.

15

Am I right in reading todays articles as they have no evidence, and there wasn’t even an actual plan?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/10/attack/main511671.shtml

How could they have stopped this in the inital planning stages, claim there wasn’t a plan, and then claim they had multiple independent corroborating evidence that they needed to arrest him.

Back in May? Huh? Two thoughts:

What’s the boards’ take on the timing – was there something buried yesterday?

Did the administration float a trial balloon concerning placing an American Citizen before a tribunal? Is anyone on record on this?

16

Just IMHO, but the administration moved further along towards sanctifying a preemptive attack on Iraq:Policy Of Striking First. Finding a nuclear plot against the US could be used to justify the use of an atomic bunker-buster on Saddam.

17

I have some serious reservations about this whole situation, but for the purposes of this post, I will set them aside and play devil’s advocate a bit.

Okay, three thoughts. We don’t know how they are defining a “plan” here. Maybe what they are saying is that there was a plan to obtain radioactive materials for the dirty bomb to be detonated on US soil, but the exact site or method of delivery had yet to be determined. In other words, they had a plan to obtain a dirty bomb but didn’t have a plan to use it as of yet. Again, we really don’t know and it’s hard to get the whole story from single page news articles and abreviated press conferences.

Second thought: Enemy Combatant? Well, the guy had not so much as set foot on US soil for 4 years. There may be residency concerns. OK, that’s just weaseling out of it but there may be legitimate concerns regarding national security. What training did he receive during those four years? It’s a long time and if he established ties to foreign military or even-paramilitary organizations I’m not sure where that leaves his citizenship.

Lastly, why wait a month to announce it? Though part of me wonders if “The Daily Show” is more on target when speculating about deflecting attention from the FBI and CIA hearings and reorganizations that dominated the news last week, I’ll take the devil’s advocate position and ask, well, why not? We had enough to arrest him on some very serious charges, so we picked him up before he could leave the country. He is the very definition of a flight risk. After he was arrested, it was decided to delay the press conference in order to maximize the usefullness of information gained during interrogation. If Muhajir could tell the agents the wherabouts of John Q Terrorist, they didn’t want to tip off John Q Terrorist that he needs to move by telling the world that Muhajir has been captured.

18

But I get a trail, not just the President deciding I’m “a bad guy” before they lock me up w/o an attorney.

19

That’s true. My guess is the administration doesn’t want to let this guy go for fear he’ll flee and help in some terrorist plot, but they’re not sure yet with what to charge him. He’s probably guilty of treason (assuming the actions that have been alleged did actually take place), but it’s very difficult (Art. III, Sec. 3) to convict someone of treason. In all, it seems like it’s a big mistake to just let him languish in a military prison with no attorney (again, assuming that’s what’s actually going on), as eventually some judge will probably say that this is extremely unconstitutional - he’s an American citizen - and any evidence gained during this time period will be ruled inadmissible.