Questions for the underwear bomber

Victoria Toensing:

On the third day after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner, President Barack Obama finally interrupted his Hawaiian vacation to announce that our government "will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable." But how are we going to do that now that the terrorist is lawyered up and is even challenging what should be a legal gimme: giving the government a DNA sample?

It was not wise to try enemy combatants such as Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker in the 9/11 attacks, in our regular criminal courts. And it is unwise that Mr. Obama has decided to try some Guantanamo detainees in New York City. Never in our country's history prior to 2001 have we done so, for good reason.

The constitutional protections designed to ensure a person is not wrongfully convicted have no relevance to wartime military needs. The argument that our system is strong enough to try a terrorist is a non sequitur. It equates to the argument that if a person is in excellent health, she can withstand being set ablaze.

Moussaoui tied the Virginia federal court in knots for over three years, principally by insisting on the Brady rule, which requires that the defendant be given access to any evidence that could be exculpatory. (Moussaoui was convicted because he pleaded guilty, not because there was a trial and jury decision.)

The Brady rule is a needed constitutional protection for the accused bank robber, where the government wants to produce only the one witness who identifies the defendant as the perpetrator but not the other six witnesses who cannot identify him. It does not work where a terrorist demands access to all the servicemen and women who witnessed his capture on the battlefield.

Yet even the legal issues of a trial are of little importance compared to the threat to our security putting this terrorist into the regular criminal justice system presents. Abdulmutallab is in effect in possession of a ticking bomb, but we cannot interrogate him. His right to remain silent, as required by the Miranda rule, thwarts Mr. Obama's hollow attempt on Tuesday to "assure" us he is "doing everything in [his] power" to keep us safe.

Questions need to be answered. Where was Abdulmutallab trained? Who trained him? Where is the training facility located? Where is the stash of PETN, the explosive used in the bomb? What are the techniques he was told to use for getting through airport security? Was there a well-dressed man who helped him board the plane without a passport as claimed by another passenger? And, most important, are future attacks planned?

...

An IBD Editorial is more blunt:

The U.S. now holds a prisoner of war who has knowledge that could foil future terrorist operations. The Obama administration has a moral obligation to extract it from Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

...

Former Vice President Dick Cheney hit it on the head this week in charging that this administration is playing an inexcusable game of "Let's Pretend." If we close Guantanamo Bay and send terrorist POWs to some hamlet in Illinois, if we have ACLU-friendly judges try 9/11 conspirators in liberal New York City, then the American people will realize that the big-government sophisticates can take care of these problems.

...

Is it really a coincidence that this innovative airborne attempt on nearly 300 lives happened when terrorist groups have had nearly a year to see what this administration's foreign policy is all about?

...

If the United States of America won't get tough with a prisoner of war who may hold the key to the saving of hundreds of innocent American lives, then the message to the free world's bloodthirsty enemies is clear: Now is the time to strike — hard and repeatedly.

The Obama administration is putting American lives in danger with its lawfare strategy that denies us the ability to get intelligence on the future attacks planned by a nihilistic enemy. We already know that the lawfare strategy does not deter al Qaeda, and it aids them in gathering intelligence on our sources and methods of keeping up with them.