Why Should Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab Have The Right To Remain Silent?

December 28, 2009

[via Gateway Pundit]

Here is a YouTube clip of President Obama’s statement on the failed Christmas Jihad attack:

The President’s statement appears to contradict itself.

(1:15) We will not rest until we find all who are involved and hold them accountable.

But then at the end of the statement:

(4:25) …an alert and courageous citizenry are far more resilient than an isolated extremist.

How are you going to find all who are involved with an isolated extremist???

Another part of the President’s statement should be examined for truthfulness:

(1:42) The American people should be assured that we are doing everything in our power to keep you and your family safe and secure during this busy holiday season.

If it is true that the Obama administration is doing EVERYTHING in its power, then they should be made to answer the following question:

Why should Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab have the right to remain silent?

It is completely within the President’s power to deny this foreign Jihad terrorist the right to remain silent. This administration should be placed on the record as to why they feel Umar should enjoy the right to silence.

That way, when the Yemen Jihad terror network does successfully down a plane (or worse), these same Obama administration officials can remind the American people of the greater good that was served when we didn’t interrogate the one man we had in custody who could potentially give us vital information on the Yemen network.

Let’s put it this way America, if the plane had been brought down, and the only survivor was Umar, do you think he should enjoy the right to remain silent? Would President Obama’s response have been different if the plane had been blown out of the sky? Why?

Our response to this attempted act of Jihad should be exactly the same as it would be if the bomb had successfully detonated. Anything less is begging the Jihadis to try again. And they will.

Unfortunately for all of us, with the progressives in power, even if the plane had been destroyed, and Umar was the only survivor, and he boasted of his act of Jihad, and the Yemen Jihad network confirmed it, the Obama administration’s reaction would still probably be to read him his rights and offer him an attorney.

Change (the clocks back to 9/10) You can Believe In™

UPDATE: Mark Steyn completely agrees

Tags: , , , , , , ,

6 Responses to Why Should Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab Have The Right To Remain Silent?

  1. Tommy on December 29, 2009 at 1:25 am

    Notice he didn’t wear a tie in that video. Neckties are considered a symbol of the cross.

  2. mcnorman on December 29, 2009 at 10:54 am

    In my neck of the woods, this is called “talking out your ass.”

  3. mcnorman on December 29, 2009 at 10:54 am

    I am referring to POTUS and his crack team.

  4. Scott on December 29, 2009 at 12:01 pm

    You are right on, that is a great point.

    “Let’s put it this way America, if the plane had been brought down, and the only survivor was Umar, do you think he should enjoy the right to remain silent? Would President Obama’s response have been different if the plane had been blown out of the sky? Why?”

  5. james on December 29, 2009 at 6:12 pm

    For Barry Hussein to tell us things functioned well sounds like the Bush government’s record of doing public relations work instead of intelligence-gathering. The next thing you know we’ll have the “Terror Color Guide” everywhere we look.

  6. Last Door on December 30, 2009 at 4:05 pm

    Yesterday the white house defended the release of Gitmo detainees, some of whom have made it back to Yemen and are working again with Al Queda. http://www.lastdoorontheright.com/?p=209

    Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) sent a letter to President Obama calling for a halt on the transfer of detainees to Yemen after learning of links between that country and the attempted Christmas Day terrorist attack. Yesterday, a White House Official said “I am aware of a lot of people pointing back at the way the transfers were handled under the Bush administration that apparently they have some concerns about that,” “I didn’t hear many of those concerns at the time, but there were obviously hundreds and hundreds of detainees that were transferred under the old regime.”

    He refers to “the old regime”. When did America have “regime”s running the country? I think it is quite telling that a white house official refers to the executive branch of the government or the federal government in general as a “regime”. The last time I checked this country was supposed to be a republican democracy. Apparently this official would prefer to live in an America quite different from the one our founding fathers intended and would prefer to use the power of the executive branch of the government in a way that would run afoul of the checks and balances that are crucial to what has made America an exceptional country.

    The escalation of their terror attacks against us is just getting started. With quizlings like this in the white house I would be surprised if the attacks don’t start becoming much, much worse.

TEACHING RADICAL

Jon David Kahn “American Heart”



Links