The Attorney General doth celebrate too much.
Eric Holder has had a rough few weeks—er, months—so it’s not surprising the Attorney General would try to celebrate some good antiterror news. To wit, this week he seized on a guilty plea in a terrorism case to rehabilitate his policy that emphasizes civilian law enforcement over intelligence gathering and military justice.
Afghan Najibullah Zazi admitted Monday to plotting to bomb the New York City subway system. U.S. intelligence had caught on to his travels in Afghanistan, tailed him and finally arrested him in Denver in September. Announcing the guilty plea on three terrorism charges this week, Mr. Holder said “the criminal justice system has proved to be an invaluable weapon for disrupting plots and incapacitating terrorists, one that works in concert with the intelligence community and our military.”
Well, let’s parse that one. There’s no doubt the arrest is an antiterror victory for which the CIA and FBI deserve credit. Zazi planned the kind of attack—on public transportation—that would spread fear and economic damage across the country, as it did in Madrid and London. He was arrested after he had begun to collect bomb materials and admitted to links to al Qaeda and training in Pakistan.
The stretch made by Mr. Holder this week concerns civilian justice. Few people we know believe that terror cases should never be handled in civilian courts, or that civilian courts can’t punish terrorists. Some cases are workable in civilian trials, especially when the defendants cooperate freely. The biggest problem is when these criminal prosecutions compromise intelligence gathering, or betray information that terrorists can exploit.
In this case, Mr. Holder insists Zazi has provided valuable intelligence, but how much and when he doesn’t say. Actionable intelligence is best gathered in the initial days after capture when the terrorists don’t know a comrade has been taken. A loud arrest can compromise that element of surprise.
Mr. Holder botched the case of Detroit Christmas bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who clammed up after being read his Miranda rights after only 50 minutes of interrogation. If Abdulmuttalab is now cooperating amid the inducements of a plea bargain, that’s good news. But valuable time was still lost. Abdulmuttalab should have been declared an illegal enemy combatant, held in military detention and interrogated, and then he could have been charged later in civilian court if he struck a deal.
In the latest case, Zazi reportedly cooperated only after the feds charged his father with conspiracy and threatened his mother with deportation. That came well after his arrest. It’s also amusing that critics who decry as “torture” such interrogation techniques as isolation or exposure to heat and cold don’t seem to mind threats to possibly innocent family members.
Another issue is where this Administration plans to hold the hardest terror cases if they capture them. Guantanamo is available, but that would offend Mr. Holder’s friends on the left. We suppose there’s Bagram prison in Afghanistan, but a Supreme Court case is pending that would grant habeas corpus rights to detainees held even overseas.
Would Mr. Holder feel obliged to charge Osama bin Laden in U.S. criminal court if he’s ever captured? Would he offer him a plea in return for cooperation? Or would he let the new White House interrogation team at him first? We know what most Americans favor, but Mr. Holder and President Obama haven’t answered those questions.
The reason Mr. Holder is having to play defense about his antiterror bona fides is because he’s let his ideological antipathy to Bush practices interfere with the practical realities of fighting terrorists. The Zazi case is a victory for America, but it’s no vindication for Mr. Holder.
Editorial, Wall Street Journal
__________
Full article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704188104575083512250354250.html
