The Underwear Bomber: Being Kind to the Cruel

David C. Stolinsky, MD
Feb. 4, 2010

On Christmas Day, Umar Farouk Abdulmutellab boarded Northwest Airlines Flight 253 bound from Amsterdam to Detroit, with 80 grams of the high explosive PETN in his shorts. He attempted to detonate it over Detroit and kill all 289 people on board, plus more on the ground. Fortunately, only a fire resulted, and before the terrorist could do more, he was tackled by a courageous Dutch passenger, Jasper Schuringa. The terrorist was taken into custody when the plane landed safely.

The 23-year-old Nigerian comes from a wealthy family. His father is a prominent banker. (“Poverty causes terrorism.” Really?) He studied engineering at University College, London, but dropped out a year ago. How much engineering he learned is a question. But there is no question that he was radicalized by Muslim student groups and mosques in England. He then went to Yemen, where he learned bomb-making from Al Qaeda.

Regarding the interrogation of the terrorist, or should I say the non-interrogation, crucial questions should be raised:

● Why was the interrogation stopped after only 50 minutes? The initial explanation was that the bomber was then given the Miranda warning, and promptly did as he was told − remained silent. The second explanation was that after 50 minutes, the bomber had told everything he knew. The third explanation was that at that point, the bomber stopped talking spontaneously. The fourth explanation was that at that point, the doctors insisted on sedating the bomber to treat his burns − and sedated him so heavily that he could not talk, rather than more lightly, so he would talk with fewer inhibitions. The fifth explanation is that the terrorist is still cooperating − which contradicts the second and third explanations, and comes suspiciously soon after criticism of the decision.

Recall Murphy’s Law of Excuses: The more excuses people give, the less believable is each excuse. Excuses are subtractive, not additive. If people offer multiple excuses, their action was probably inexcusable. If they give mutually contradictory excuses, their action was surely inexcusable.

● Who decided to advise the bomber of his right to remain silent and obtain a lawyer? This question remained unanswered for six weeks. Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair admitted that mistakes were made, but denied making them. FBI Director Robert Mueller stated that the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, which should have been in charge, was not − for the very good reason that a year after President Obama announced its establishment, it has not yet been established. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano (who claimed “the system worked”) and Counterterrorism Center Director Michael Leiter also denied involvement.

After six weeks, Attorney General Eric Holder finally admitted responsibility. Holder was a key figure in the kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez at the point of submachine guns, as well as the Waco siege, in which 84 people died, including 26 children who were by definition innocent hostages. There’s a man who knows how to be tough on women and children, but how to be merciful to terrorists.

Recall Murphy’s Law of Blame-Shifting: The greater the number of people who come forward to declare themselves blameless, the more blame there is to go around.

This is reminiscent of Emerson: “The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.” Multiple administration officials pushed each other out of the way to reach a microphone and proclaim their non-involvement. We should hurry to the kitchen and count our silverware, before we are reduced to eating with our fingers. If key officials are not involved in crucial decisions affecting our safety, what good are they? Proclaiming their non-involvement is, in fact, proclaiming their own incompetence.

● Why do officials claim that everything useful the bomber knew was obtained in those 50 minutes? The only way to know that would be to continue the interrogation − including rough methods − for days or weeks, then find that nothing new emerged after the initial 50 minutes. Since this was not done, the claim is pure speculation. The terrorist himself claimed that others would follow him.

Recall Murphy’s Law of Justification: The more an action is defended by speculation, the more indefensible the action must be.

● Why do self-anointed “humanitarians” lose sleep worrying about the harm enhanced interrogation might do to terrorists? But the “humanitarians” sleep soundly, untroubled by the incalculable suffering and death that terrorism can cause if the attacks are not prevented? Why do they condemn waterboarding, which reportedly was used on only the three worst detainees at Guantanamo, but say nothing when waterboarding and other rough techniques are used on our own troops to prepare them for possible capture? These are the same people who claim that lethal injection of a powerful sedative is “terribly painful” for convicted murderers, but that 13 days without food or water was “peaceful, even pleasant” for disabled Terri Schiavo.

Recall Murphy’s Law of Compassion: You can tell a great deal about a person by those he has compassion for, and those he does not.

● Why do the media insist on calling the Christmas airline bomber not just the “underwear bomber,” which at least describes where he concealed the explosive, but also the “panty bomber,” which trivializes the event? Why does President Obama insist on calling him a “Nigerian student” rather than a terrorist? In fact, for a year he has not been a student in any school − except the Al Qaeda Academy of Terrorism, Yemen Campus. This is akin to calling terrorist murderers “militants” or “activists,” or referring to a severe beating or an armed robbery as a “mugging.”

Recall Murphy’s Law of Description: You can tell a great deal about a person by what he emphasizes and what he minimizes.

● Why do apparently intelligent people sermonize about the Geneva Conventions? The Conventions prescribe the treatment of prisoners of war. But the Obama administration never uses the expression “war on terror,” and instead concocted the term “overseas contingency operations” − an expression as vague as it is weak. If there is no war, there can be no prisoners of war − only terrorists.

But if there is a war, and there surely is, then what do you call a man who comes from abroad in civilian clothes, carrying explosives with which to attack civilians? You call him a spy. And you do with him what President Roosevelt did with German spies during World War II − you interrogate them, try them before a military commission, and then execute them, without consulting civilian judges.

In fact, Roosevelt insisted that he would execute the spies regardless of what a judge might order. He told his attorney general: “I won’t give them up…I won’t hand them over to any United States marshal armed with a writ of habeas corpus. Understand?” Roosevelt, the patron saint of liberals, had his priorities straight. He knew we were at war, and that he held the ultimate responsibility for the safety of the American people.

Recall Murphy’s Law of Legalism: If you insist on quoting laws as an excuse for acting against the public safety, you had better be sure the laws actually apply to the current situation. Otherwise people will see you not only as a fool, but as a dangerous fool.

Finally, recall the ancient proverb: “He who is kind to the cruel will in the end be cruel to the kind.” We need to get our priorities straight, for both moral and practical reasons. If we use up our sympathy on criminals and terrorists, we will have none left for their victims − or for their future victims. But what would that say about us?

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net.

www.stolinsky.com