Mike Rogers: Fighting terror like it's 1993
[Rep. Mike Rogers (Mich.) is the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee's Terrorism Subcommittee and a former FBI special agent.]
NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly noted last week that the investigation of the Times Square bombing attempt was in some ways similar to the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. He was talking about the police work that nabbed Faisal Shahzad -- but the comment also highlighted the similarity of our government's response then and now.
Then came Attorney General Eric Holder's weekend comments about seeking a broader "public safety" exception to the Miranda rule. That agenda shows that he's still too focused on gathering evidence for a court case, when the top priority in such instances should be gathering intelligence to prevent future attacks -- something that Miranda in no way prevents.
That drove the point home: Somehow, we're back to a 1993 mindset on terrorism. Holder actually boasts that law enforcement is "the backbone of our national-security efforts." Sorry -- that's not a good thing.
Yes, the prosecution did an effective job in 1993 of taking some terrorists off the street -- but it didn't help gather useful intelligence to stop future attacks. We know today that one 1993 terrorist, Ramzi Yousef, is the nephew of the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
We've had 17 years to learn the lessons of 1993, but instead we're back where we started. The government's goal should be prevention -- to stop terrorists before they drive into Times Square, not after the fuse is lit, the bomb detonated and people killed.
Our federal investigators did a commendable job in the Times Square aftermath, but we shouldn't be congratulating ourselves when we came so close to losing innocent Americans.
The Justice Department is leading this investigation as well as other recent terrorism investigations. It also led the review determining whether detainees held at Guantanamo Bay should be released and the review of what interrogation and transfer policies should be used with suspected terrorists.
The attorney general shouldn't be leading this country's national-security apparatus -- Congress created that role for the director of national intelligence. Where was the DNI at the press conference after the Times Square incident? Is counterterrorism now the primary job of law enforcement?..
Read entire article at New York Post
NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly noted last week that the investigation of the Times Square bombing attempt was in some ways similar to the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. He was talking about the police work that nabbed Faisal Shahzad -- but the comment also highlighted the similarity of our government's response then and now.
Then came Attorney General Eric Holder's weekend comments about seeking a broader "public safety" exception to the Miranda rule. That agenda shows that he's still too focused on gathering evidence for a court case, when the top priority in such instances should be gathering intelligence to prevent future attacks -- something that Miranda in no way prevents.
That drove the point home: Somehow, we're back to a 1993 mindset on terrorism. Holder actually boasts that law enforcement is "the backbone of our national-security efforts." Sorry -- that's not a good thing.
Yes, the prosecution did an effective job in 1993 of taking some terrorists off the street -- but it didn't help gather useful intelligence to stop future attacks. We know today that one 1993 terrorist, Ramzi Yousef, is the nephew of the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
We've had 17 years to learn the lessons of 1993, but instead we're back where we started. The government's goal should be prevention -- to stop terrorists before they drive into Times Square, not after the fuse is lit, the bomb detonated and people killed.
Our federal investigators did a commendable job in the Times Square aftermath, but we shouldn't be congratulating ourselves when we came so close to losing innocent Americans.
The Justice Department is leading this investigation as well as other recent terrorism investigations. It also led the review determining whether detainees held at Guantanamo Bay should be released and the review of what interrogation and transfer policies should be used with suspected terrorists.
The attorney general shouldn't be leading this country's national-security apparatus -- Congress created that role for the director of national intelligence. Where was the DNI at the press conference after the Times Square incident? Is counterterrorism now the primary job of law enforcement?..