More CYA From The Obama White House…Christmas Day Bomber Now Talking Because Of Family

By 24 Comments 1,046 views

It only took a public thrashing to get Obama and pals to figure out that hey, maybe we want to get this Christmas Day Bomber to cooperate after all:

The Nigerian man accused of trying to use a bomb hidden in his underwear to bring down a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day has been cooperating with investigators since last week, discussing his contacts in Yemen and providing intelligence in multiple terrorism investigations, officials said Tuesday.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s cooperation could prove to be a national security victory and a political vindication for President Barack Obama, who has been under fire from lawmakers who contend the administration botched the case by giving Abdulmutallab the right to remain silent, rather than interrogating him as a military prisoner.

In the days following the failed bombing, a pair of FBI agents flew to Nigeria and persuaded Abdulmutallab’s family to help them. When the agents returned to the U.S., Abdulmutallab’s family came, too, according to a senior administration official briefed on the case. The family persuaded Abdulmutallab to work with the FBI, believing he would be treated fairly in U.S. courts, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.

Gotta agree with York on this one….a little too smooth:

The Washington Post, citing “Obama administration sources,” reports Abdulmutallab “has been providing FBI interrogators with useful intelligence about his training and contacts since last week.” The Politico quotes a “law enforcement source” saying Abdulmutallab has provided “useful, current intelligence.” And ABC News, citing a “senior administration official,” reports that the intelligence “has been disseminated throughout the intelligence community.”

The reports represent a striking turnaround in the administration’s position. Ever since the public learned that authorities had just 50 minutes to question Abdulmutallab before he was read his Miranda rights and refused to answer any further questions, the Obama administration has claimed that it had, during that brief interrogation, gotten all the information that was possible to be gained from Abdulmutallab. On Fox News Sunday January 24, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that “FBI interrogators believe they got valuable intelligence and were able to get all that they could out of him.” When host Chris Wallace asked, “All they could?” Gibbs answered, “Yeah.”

On January 31, top White House adviser David Axelrod told Meet the Press that Abdulmutallab “has given very valuable information to the government about activities in Yemen and some of his experiences there.” To emphasize the point, Axelrod said, “We have not lost anything as a result of how his case has been handled.”

So just a few days ago the Obama administration claimed that Abdulmutallab had given up everything he knows. Now, they claim he is giving them fresh, useful intelligence.

Recall that the father of Abdulmutallab tried to warn our country about his sons nefarious intentions, to no avail.

What are the odds we will see this kind of stuff often from the families of other terrorists? Do we not often see the families laud their child’s “heroic” actions? But hey, I’m sure we will be able to get those families to come to our rescue.

Not likely.

You know what else is not likely? That we get a incompetent terrorist in our hands again. Do you think KSM or the other smart, dedicated, terrorists will fold because mom and pop ask him to? No….the Christmas Day Bomber is obviously nothing but a foot soldier and the brains behind him are the one’s we need to capture and interrogate. Actionable intel has an expiration date. The kind of intelligence we needed from this guy, ie. locations of his bosses and handlers, locations of his training, and so on, should of been extracted within hours of his capture. Now, his handlers, his recruiters, his training facilities are all gone because they know he is in our hands.

This is all cya for an Administration that is so inept it is dangerous.

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 24 years.

24 Responses to “More CYA From The Obama White House…Christmas Day Bomber Now Talking Because Of Family”

  1. 4


    Not to mention that now this information is two months old. I am pretty sure the terrorist cell he was part of is not still waiting around for people to stop by for a visit.

  2. 5


    So let me get this straight. After he was read his Maranda rights and layered up, he and his lawyer decided that it was in his best interest to tell all. Yep as Jannet would say “the system worked”. Ya gotta love Gibbsey.

  3. Note this: “The family persuaded Abdulmutallab to work with the FBI, believing he would be treated fairly in U.S. courts.”

    U.S. courts? An obvious dig at the designation of his loon as an enemy combatant.

    There is a further question as to what kind of plea deal they might be offering him to talk.

    But the bottom line is that we get the intelligence right?

    Well, most of what he says now, A MONTH AFTER THE ATTACK, is now worthless. The plotters who sent this nut to do his job never expected him to live. And had we been able to question him more thoroughly immediately after the fact what he told us might have led us directly to the plotters who have now had plenty of time to cover their tracks.

    This news is nothing more than an Obama damage control operation. What a shame they don’t spend as much time working on national security than they do spinning their failures.

  4. 8


    One major problem with this turn around is that critical moments in intelligence gathering were lost when Abdulmutallab clammed up after only 50 minutes of interrogation. Once his al Qaeda cohorts realized he was captured alive and not martyred, they are racing against the clock to cover up email traces, purging phone numbers, and alerting operatives/associates who might have been in danger of being apprehended.

    One of the last high-value detainees we had been interrogating (back when enhanced interrogation was allowed) was held for 3 months before al Qaeda finally learned of his capture and interrogation. Because they were unaware, during this period, they continued on with operational plans they deemed secure. And the information we were able to get from the 3-month luxury did foil plots.

    In August of 2009, the Obama administration shut down our ability to detain high-value captures in secrecy, forcing us to report within 2 weeks to the International Red Cross the identity of who we capture. Before, our CIA and military could file one-week extensions to the Secretary of Defense that the detainee’s identity not yet be revealed, so long as the detainee was still ripe with intell information.

    On a related note:

    * FEBRUARY 1, 2010, 7:11 P.M. ET

    A Tale of Two Terrorists


    The Obama administration’s decision to read the Christmas Day bomber his Miranda rights has rightly come under withering criticism. Instead of a lengthy interrogation by officials with al Qaeda expertise, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was questioned for 50 minutes by local FBI agents and then later advised of his “right to remain silent.”

    It’s well understood that the focus on gaining evidence for a criminal trial was an intelligence failure of massive proportions. Not well understood is that the most powerful recent argument for aggressively interrogating terrorists, keeping them in military detention, and prosecuting them in military commissions comes to us from the Obama Justice Department itself.

    On Dec. 18, 2009, days before the Christmas attack, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Preet Bharara, made a secret filing in federal district court that was aimed at saving the prosecution of Ahmed Ghailani, another al Qaeda terrorist. Ghailani is facing charges for helping al Qaeda bomb U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Ghailani argues that those charges should be dropped because lengthy CIA interrogations have denied him his constitutional right to a speedy trial.

    Mr. Bharara, on behalf of the Justice Department, filed a memorandum with the court stating that Ghailani’s claims are dangerous and off the mark. Interrogating terrorists must come before criminal prosecution, he wrote in language so strong that even a redacted version of his filing (which we have obtained) serves as a searing indictment of the administration’s mishandling of Abdulmutallab.

    “The United States was, and still is, at war with al Qaeda,” Mr. Bharara argued. “And because the group does not control territory as a sovereign nation does, the war effort relies less on deterrence than on disruption—on preventing attacks before they can occur. At the core of such disruption efforts is obtaining accurate intelligence about al Qaeda’s plans, leaders and capabilities.”

    Mr. Bharara is right. The interrogation of a high-value terrorist is a critical opportunity to obtain intelligence. As Mr. Bharara pointed out in regards to Ghailani, “the defendant was . . . a rare find, and his then-recent interactions with top-level al Qaeda terrorists made him a potentially rich source of information that was both urgent and crucial to our nation’s war efforts.” Abdulmutallab’s recent interactions with leaders of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula made it likely he could give up actionable intelligence. He possessed unique information about those who deployed him, bomb makers who prepared him, and operatives who trained with him.

    As Mr. Bharara’s memorandum notes, “The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 . . . naturally resulted in a heightened focus on intelligence gathering to preempt another attack.” He went on to say that “when the United States took custody of the defendant . . . and it justifiably believed that he had actionable intelligence that could be used to save lives, it reasonably opted to treat him initially as an intelligence asset.”

    The Justice Department did not bring Ghailani to a civilian court immediately after he was captured in 2004, preferring, after his lengthy interrogation was completed, to prosecute him in a military commission. It wasn’t until June that his case was shifted to the criminal justice system.

    Moreover, the government “did not Mirandize the defendant at any point to preserve the possibility of later using his inculpatory statements. It did not maintain a strict chain of custody with respect to physical evidence in the manner of a law enforcement agency. . . . Indeed, the goal of the [CIA interrogation program] was remote from law enforcement; the program’s purpose was to gain intelligence, not to get admissible confessions or to gather admissible evidence.”

    This, according to Mr. Bharara’s filing, was the right approach: “the defendant . . . did in fact have actionable intelligence about al Qaeda,” and thus “the interest in national security plainly justified holding the defendant in this case as an enemy combatant, interrogating him, and prosecuting him for violations of the laws of war, even if that meant delaying his criminal trial.”

    Days after Mr. Bharara’s filing, as the Abdulmutallab fiasco unfolded, Attorney General Eric Holder and other senior administration officials made it clear in congressional testimony and numerous media appearances that their focus was no longer on gathering intelligence to pre-empt an attack, but on prosecuting terrorists in the criminal justice system. That change in focus likely grew out of President Barack Obama’s early decision to close the prison complex at Guantanamo, and to transfer high-value detainees like Ghailani who have been held there to the criminal justice system.

    One immediate consequence of the president’s approach is the effort by Ghailani’s lawyers to take full advantage of a bevy of constitutional rights that are available to him in the civilian justice system, but which he would have never received in a military commission. Ghailani’s demand that charges against him be dropped because of the long delay in getting a trial is likely only the first of a torrent of filings to come from al Qaeda members if the administration persists on trying them in civilian courts.

    Administration officials have rejected robust interrogation methods and announced that those remaining Guantanamo detainees who would be neither tried nor released are slated to be transferred to a prison in Thompson, Ill.

    These decisions have been accompanied by intensified investigations of, and threats to prosecute, career and political officials from the previous administration. So it is ironic that the assessments laid out in the Ghailani memorandum were not proffered by the administration’s conservative critics, but by Mr. Bharara, who was appointed by Mr. Obama, and the career Justice officials who helped draft his filing. In other words, it was written by those who have been forced to deal with the consequences of trying terrorists in civilian courts.

    This administration’s approach greatly impairs our ability to obtain vital intelligence and puts us all at greater risk of suffering another terrorist attack. Hopefully, the administration will consider the arguments of its own prosecutors and change course before it’s too late.

  5. 9


    So the White House feeds this nonsense to the MSM, which obligingly broadcasts it as fact. I wonder how Hussein and MSNBC will convince the American people that the upcoming 9/11 II will be Bushs’ fault?

  6. 10

    American Voter

    @OLDPUPPYMAX — ‘They’ will find a way. . .NoBama should just start abbreviating Blame It On Bush — BIOB.

    I think I even saw John McCain uttering this acronym to a colleague at the recent SOTUS. . after NoBama spewed yet another BIOB declaration.

  7. 11


    There is a reason for the term “actionable” intelligence. It simply means that intelligence provides swift, and immediate, action. Once this clown was in custody, his handlers moved their locations at the speed of light.

    Now this brings other questions; who thought of bringing his “family” (meaning more than one member) here? When were they brought here? How long are they staying? “In the days following the failed bombing, a pair of FBI agents flew to Nigeria”? How many “days”? Two, ten, twenty-one?

    This was a botched mess on the part of Obama/Holder since day one. Why was it deemed not important enough that Obama was not notified of the bomber for three hours and then, still chose to remain on the golf course? Some guy tries to blow up 300 people on a plane over Detroit and the 14th hole is more important?

    This sounds like a spin to me. Was Janet Napolitano notified of bringing the family here? Leon Panetta? Or was that a club secret between Holder, Obama and a couple of FBI agents?

    Here is the problem as I see it: our national security is now being handled by an Attorney General whose sole purpose is to prosecute terrorists, not mandate policy. And it doesn’t help that Holder has loaded the DoJ with fellow terrorist sympathizers who thinks that the previous administrations policy on terrorist attacks was wrong, or that Holder’s own law firm, Burling and Covington, represented many, MANY of the Gitmo detainees WHILE HOLDER WAS AT THE LAW FIRM.

    Here is the new campaign question for any Republican that opposes Obama in ’12 “Do you feel safer now than you did four years ago?”

  8. 12


    Sorry for all the C&P, this is a good article from amazingly, CBS. Now we are witnessing “damge control.”

    The Holder/Obama decision to mirandize the terrorist was wrong and in his five pages of single spaced letter, he’s basically attempting to profess, IMHO, ignorance of the law regarding combatant terrorists. Man up, or should I say “Cheney-up?” There are animals out there trying to kill us.

    Although he still may have some intelligence to offer, the five-week delay in questioning him diminished it, they say, because it gave al Qaeda time to adjust to whatever he revealed—changing safe houses, closing down email accounts, adopting new pseudonyms.

    That’s why questions were raised immediately when agents read Abdulmutallab his rights and Holder opted to charge him with a crime like an ordinary murder suspect, instead of detaining him in a military process, with continued interrogations by intelligence experts.

    Aware of needed damage control, the White House and Attorney General are now taking the position that, legally, it was “highly questionable” whether they could have detained the terror suspect and continued to question him without a lawyer, even if they wanted to. Holder, in his letter to the Senators, said that legal authority “is far from clear.”

    Many legal experts, however, agree the law is, in fact, pretty clear: It’s not that highly questionable at all. Under existing law, the Obama Administration had the authority to detain and question Abdulmutallab more extensively. And it chose not to.

    If the Obama Administration wants to make a policy decision to treat al Qaeda operatives as common criminals and not as enemy combatants, that’s a position it could take—and some advocate they should. They’ve argued that giving rights to these terrorists, for example, will enhance our standing in the world and deter future terrorist acts.

    But those are policy arguments and policy decisions, and they have consequences. They should stand or fall on the merits. They aren’t required by law.
    To argue, instead, that the law essentially tied has their hands—that the law all but required this course of action in Detroit–ignores the cases that have been decided.

    And there’s a danger in that. Whether or not the Obama Administration made the right call on Christmas Day, it’s a problem to see top officials now make incomplete or misleading legal arguments to justify their decision after the fact.

    Today’s legal argument that it was “far from clear” they could continue interrogating Abudulmutallab, even if they wanted to, could set this administration down a fixed path on the most pressing issues facing this nation, based in no small measure on old-fashioned damage control.

    There is clear legal basis to detain al Qaeda combatants. Congress expressly authorized force against “nations, organizations, or persons” who carried out the 9/11 attacks, and two Presidents have made it clear this is a war. Federal courts have either endorsed or not questioned the government’s authority to detain al Qaeda members and actual combatants in wartime.

    As Gregory Katsas, an assistant attorney general in the Bush Administration pointed out to me, Abdulmutallab is an actual combatant. He’s not some money guy or a facilitator. He tried to blow up a plane with nearly 300 people on board. And he’s not a U.S. citizen. Sure, he’s being held in this country, Katsas notes, but so were three enemy combatants during the Bush Administration—Yaser Esam Hamdi, Jose Padilla and Ali Salah Al Marri–and courts have said those detentions were lawful.

    And while it’s true that a New York-based federal appeals court said the government had no authority to detain Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested in the United States, the Supreme Court specifically rejected that rationale in another case involving Hamdi. A separate, Richmond-based federal appeals court later upheld his detention in the military process.

    Bottom line: the government prevailed in every case involving enemy combatants being held in this country.

    And while it’s true, as Holder points out, that a federal judge could someday say that a non-U.S. citizen like Abdulmutallab had a right to a lawyer, even in the military process, the Supreme Court has never ruled those rights kick in immediately or at the same time as in the criminal process. At a minimum, they could have gotten days longer to question him by putting him on the military track.

    One of the most fascinating undercurrents in this entire debate is seeing White House officials defend themselves by saying the Bush Administration decided to Mirandize attempted shoe bomber Richard Reid and try him in a criminal court. I didn’t realize the Obama Administration had decided to adopt wholesale Bush’s policies, yet they’re arguing that since Bush did it with Reid, it’s ok. But has anyone ever thought maybe Bush was wrong? He certainly wasn’t arguing, as the Obama Administration is, that it was legally questionable to detain and extensively interrogate terror suspects without lawyers present.

    “Quite a turnabout,” Katsas said, “in rhetorical strategy.”

    And that’s before you get to the real differences between Reid, whom many believe was more of a lone actor, and Abdulmutallab, who was an operative trained with and directed by al Qaeda abroad. Abdulmutallab presumably would have valuable, actionable intelligence—about his handlers, their locale, and his own individualized training–if interrogators had moved quickly to extensively question him before al Qaeda readjusted.

    But that wasn’t the path this administration took with Abdulmutallab. And the legal arguments top officials now are making to justify it suggest there won’t be a course correction anytime soon.;cbsnewsLeadStoriesHeadlines

    Reid was arrested three months after 911, prior to all the years of court rulings, he also pled guilty sparing us the spectacle of trying him in Federal Court, nothing like the current case. Obama and Holder blew it and now they are trying to redirect attention hoping the “American people” will swallow the “he’s talking” story instead of the wasting 6 weeks letting actionable intelligence rot on the vine story.

  9. 13


    Vice President Cheney undersood the first few days after capture of a terrorist… get information quickly, keep the terrorist isolated and alone, make it clear the terrorist is in no position to negotiate.

    “Team Obama’s policy in dealing with terrorists is to read them their Miranda Rights, give them a lawyer and when they cry for their Mommy rush off and negotiate with and bring their family over.

    What could go wrong ?

  10. 15


    Just like the second post today, no lobbyists in this administration. Right….
    These guys lie and lie and lie and wonder why Scott Brown was elected. Keep talking

  11. 17


    Thomas Joscelyn included a portion of Holder’s letter in a post he did at Weekly Standard. It’s odd that Holder includes this statement because those on the Senate committee investigating this have been told by Dennis Blair, Janet Napalitano and Brennen, in their testimony, that they were not informed of Holder’s decision to mirandize the terrorist. Either the heads of our Homeland Security and intel departments are irrelevant or someone is lying?

    This quote/admission is from the letter written by Eric Holder:

    “I made the decision to charge Mr. Abdulmutallab with federal crimes, and to seek his detention in connection with those charges, with the knowledge of, and with no objection from, all other relevant departments of the government. On the evening of December 25 and again on the morning of December 26, the FBI informed its partners in the Intelligence Community that Abdulmutallab would be charged criminally, and no agency objected to this course of action.”

    Joscelyn writes:

    (1) While those other departments were informed, according to Holder, this evidently doesn’t include the senior-most members of those departments — per their congressional testimony. Senior officials including DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano have testified that they were not informed of the decision. If they were informed, which is unlikely, then they lied before Congress. If they weren’t informed, which is likely, then this means those departments have serious communication problems because such an important decision was never communicated up the chain. In other words, assuming Holder is right, then why weren’t the senior-most officials in those departments informed?

  12. @Missy: Thanks for that link to the Weekly Standard which also had a link to Holder’s letter in PDF. At least Holder finally responded to Sen. Mitch McConnell even though the response was filled with the typical excuses and phony justifications.

    Holder also admits using plea bargaining (with a terrorist who willingly would have sacrificed his won life in the attack) as a “lever” to get him to cooperate. How stupid is that?

    He totally ducks the issue of lost opportunity to gain time sensitive actionable intelligence.

    Holder closed with this:

    “The criminal justice system has proven to be one of the most effective weapons available to our government for both incapacitating terrorists and collecting intelligence from them.”

    Is there a better example of how the Obama Administration treats this war as a criminal matter? It’s such a glaring September 10th mindset!

    P.S. I love your “C&P” additions to these threads. Don’t ever stop!

  13. 19



    @Missy and @Mike’s America: here’s the link to Holder’s five page letter/response to Mitch McConnell and other GOP Congress members, demanding an explanation of the choice to Mirandize and prosecute the underwear bomber in US federal courts.

    Holder specifically notes that discussions with Obama, face to face, were held:

    In the days following December 25 – including during a meeting with the President and other senior members of his national security team on January 5 – high-level discussions ensued within the Administration in which the possibility of detaining Mr. Abdulmutallab under the law of war was explicitly discussed. No agency supported the use of law of war detention for Abdulmutallab, and no agency has since advised the Department of Justice that an alternative course of action should have been, or should now be, pursued.

    Interesting that Napoplitano, Blair and Brennen claim ignorance. Are they not considered “…other senior members of his national security team”?

    Obama, himself, cannot escape his culpability… condemned by Holder’s own documentation of discussions on a specific date.

    The intra-departmental communication deficiencies led to the fiasco of the underwear bomber… redeemed and rendered impotent by both inept terrorist bomb making skills and an alert citizenry. What is also obvious is that the WH national security appointees do not retain their lessons well, since their communications did not improve in the weeks following (INRE who knew what about interrogation, mirandizing and prosecution via law of war).

    It’s truly a fine line for the venue for justice since those arrested on US soil traditionally are afforded trials in our courts. Our current laws are not set up to accommodate for dealing with non-State affiliated enemy combatants who have declared war on the US. This was the reason for the DTA/MCA combo. However SCOTUS has rendered portions of that legislation vague. Instead of clarification, it becomes even more difficult to determine what can, and cannot be done.

    It may be that particular crimes of war, involving jihad or any other upstart that decides to declare war on the US in the future, should be exempted from automatic federal trials. The nature of acts of war differs so completely from normal criminal activity (i.e. murders, financial crimes, etc). This, however, proves difficult for an administration that tends to view the attempt by a jihad activist to blow an airliner out of the sky as attempted mass murder, and not an act of war.

    This makes motivation the prime reason for choosing a venue for justice. ala differentiating between some wacko nutjob who just wants 15 minutes of infamy for heinous acts (VA Tech shooter, i.e.), and one who is committing the act in the name of jihad. (Ft. Hood shooter, i.e.) Both committed mass murders, but with very different motivation. One was a crime, and the other an act of war, aiding quasi-organized enemy combatant groups outside the country.

    Therefore establishing the motivation prior to choosing a venue seems appropriate. This would involve interrogations prior to mirandizing. However then the problem arises that, if the motivation were not deemed an act of war, there is danger of inadmissible evidence during the trial, obtained pre’Miranda.

  14. 20


    does anyone know about that man who jump on the terrorist and by his action prevented all the people to explode with the plane?if i would be in the plane i realy would like to know that hero and i would demand that the company gives him free pass in his future travel ,thank you

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *