President Obama says that the Al Queda trained bomber who tried to blow up a passenger airliner on Christmas Day is a suspected extremist. He has been given Constitutional protections, was provided an attorney and has been read his Miranda rights.

Is this the best course of action to take?

From Neal Boortz:

Review: This guy was trained by Al Qaeda. Presumably he was trained with other radicals. He knows names. He knows locations. He knows plans. He knows stuff that could save American lives. He ain’t talking. And why not? Because as soon as he was taken into custody The Community Organizer made the decision that he would be treated as a common criminal, not an agent of the Islamic war of terror against the United States. So here this failed bomber sits being read his Miranda rights by a cop. “You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to an attorney” So … this Islamic goon gets his attorney and shuts up. We get nothing out of him. Now Obama’s counterterrorism advisor is making noises about a plea bargain? A freaking plea bargain? How about “You tell us what you know and we don’t make your life a living hell for the next eight years … or more, if we need too.”

Now let’s hop across the Atlantic, through the Mediterranean, through the Suez Canal and on to Yemen. We’ll find an Al Qaeda stronghold and see if we can eaves drop on their instructions to the next bomber they’re planning to put on an airplane: “Don’t worry, Muhammad. These Americans are weak. They have a weak leader. If your bomb doesn’t detonate and they take you into custody you’ll get a free lawyer. He will tell you that you don’t have to cooperate or say anything. You’ll live in a cell that is much more comfortable than the shed you’re living in here. You’ll have medical care and three meals a day … plus they’ll give you a new copy of the Koran. Oh… and you’ll have an actual toilet. There will be many Americans who will watch your situation carefully and will raise the alarm if anyone should ever try to do you harm. Now go out there and do your duty to Allah!”

Is this individual a “suspect,” or is he an enemy combatant, a “non-person” as the Supreme Court has recently ruled ?

The knee jerk reaction from many Americans, including this one, is Strap him to the waterboard and turn on the spigot!

It’s not like this guy knocked over a bank or stole a car. This man trained for a single purpose, and that is to bring Jihad, or Holy War, to the United States.

He has information about Al Queda training camps, can finger individuals in the terrorist organization and through interrogation may very well be able to save American lives.

As a suspect, we have no right to interrogation under military law, and in fact, his lawyer is now trying to strike a plea bargain. Ironically, it seems like this individual has better legal representation than any American could hope for if they were arrested and could not afford an attorney.

Are we basically negotiating with terrorists now, even if they have don’t have a leg to stand on because they are in the custody of the United States?

This particular case seems clear cut, because the individual was a foreigner and his sole reason for coming to the United States was to kill American citizens in a war.

The attempted terrorist attack occurred on a US airliner, reportedly over Canadian airspace, making the case for treating him like a terrorist enemy combatant even more compelling. If this had happened over US airspace, would it change the situation?

We should give careful consideration to our answer, because the implications could be far reaching. If we can declare this individual an enemy combatant, what is to say we can’t deem American citizens enemy combatants for acts considered to be “terrorism” as we opined in How Long before government deems you a Non-Person?:

The Supreme Court’s ruling that these men are considered “non-persons” void of any human rights whatsoever should scare every single American.

How long before Patriot Act and other anti-terrorism laws are expanded to include what some would deem lessor crimes? How long before something a blogger writes or a protester says becomes “hate speech” or “enemy speech,” and said writer or speaker is deemed an enemy combatant, or, by the new definition, a non-person? Couldn’t happen in America right?

Think again.

We direct your attention to the Sedition Act of 1918.

Given the fact this man was trained by Al Queda to commit what is deemed a terrorist act the argument seems pretty clear. According to Al Queda and probably the terrorist himself, this is a war. If the United States is really engaged in a War on Terror, then interrogation should commence and no Constitutional protections should be granted. Waterboard him!