Tweet
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the “underwear bomber” who attempted to blow up a Northwest Airlines plane on Christmas Eve 2009, will receive a life sentence today in Detroit, the conclusion of a trial that ended abruptly with a guilty plea.
On the second day of the trial in October, Abdulmutallab suddenly pleaded guilty to all charges. In a defiant speech, he said he was carrying a “blessed weapon” to avenge Muslims who have been killed or poorly treated around the world. He admitted he was inspired by Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical American-born cleric and leading al-Qaida figure in Yemen who was killed by a U.S. drone strike last fall.
“The Quran obliges every able Muslim to participate in jihad and fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, and kill them wherever you find them … an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” Abdulmutallab said.
Anthony Chambers, an attorney appointed to assist Abdulmutallab, believes the Nigerian will speak again Thursday but doesn’t know what he’ll say.
Abdulmutallab’s attorney will argue that the life sentence reflects cruel and unusual punishment, since the assailant actually did not hurt anyone but himself. The government argued that the threshold has little to do with the success of the terrorist attack.
The larger issue is that the system is working. Abdulmutallab was allowed to enter a plea, and based on that plea he will receive a sentence. This all took place in an Article III court, and nobody in the courtroom or the prison where Abdulmutallab is being held have been in any danger. Furthermore, the world did not come to an end because Abdulmutallab was allowed to speak in open court. He did not, to anyone’s knowledge, convert mass numbers of people to his cause.
The Abdulmutallab case is an example of how you don’t actually have to rip up the entire legal system in order to prosecute terrorism. We’re obviously long beyond the point where our law enforcement community could take an actual stand on this, but it’s just a reminder. We don’t really need a Guantanamo.
10 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Civilian courts work IF:
1) There is no tainted evidence. Torture taints evidence, as do warrentless searches.
2) There is no embarassment potential for the government. Torture, evesdropping without warrant, and perjurous filings all embarass the government.
3) There is no hearsay evidence. Some of the warrents that are obtained are obtained with bad data. Some convictions couldn’t happen without hearsay evidence.
Boxturtle (it actually amazes me that the government CAN prosecute in real courts anymore)
David, regarding this:
Are you saying that if what he said in court DID convert people to his cause, then the criteria of “inspirational significance” to keep someone from being heard by society is just, that it’s constitutionally okay to do whatever in the name of whatever to keep him from speaking or being heard?
The “inspirational significance” of terrorists is a criteria used in DOJ justification for CMUs — our Orwellian Communication Management Units. Even lawyering for anyone labeled terrorist is the crime of “material support.”
If the story is Muslim humanitarian group, environmental activism, and socks and ponchos, you get “material support” for terrorism, and you go straight to the CMU hole where you can’t communicate with anyone, can’t touch anyone. If you destroy the Gulf, you get your life back. If you destroy an SUV as an act of environmental defense, you get condemned to CMU.
Sorry I don’t have time to write more on this, but I have written several comments here on Firedoglake, and on Emptywheel, about them and their unjust, unequal application. The latest was in connection with a post on emptywheel, when an American contractor connected with Jewish humanitarian groups (no further detail) smuggled explicitly prohibited stuff into Cuba, i.e. …
…and the White House condemned his conviction by Cuba.
When Abdulmutallab pled guilty and had his 15 minutes of fame, I left a long comment on emptywheel about the pangs I had for the conduct of his trial and the state of American justice. Mary didn’t share my pangs but thanked me for it, so that is high praise indeed to me. My pangs come from my sense that Abdulmutallab might sincerely have been trying to stop our injustice and our killings in the insane war on terror, and that I don’t trust that the story of his terrorism career hasn’t been scripted by the DOJ. His classmates used to call him “The Pope” because of his “saintly aura” and unselfish acts (he gave his tourist money $80 to an orphanage instead). Here’s a photo of him at Buckingham Palace in 2001, post 9/11, that went by in a B roll on Hardball at the time of the bombing and then disappeared forever (I remembered it and it took me a long time to find it again in a New York Daily News article.). He’s pointing to a sign that says “STOP KILLING KIDS.” Abdulmutallab has been defined for us in the media, and this isn’t the view we see.
No, I don’t agree with his tactics. But I abhor our own. And I think the thing that needs to happen is people need to hear and reason with each other, and that that’s what courts and juries were supposed to be for, finding justice, stopping injustice. And speech should be holy and have the opportunity to be effective. And practically speaking, if someone’s got “inspirational significance” — I think that’s exactly who we need to hear and what we need to reason with. Otherwise, what are we doing?
Gotta go, sorry for the mess. Hope there’s something in there to find.
hey david you might want to contact this guy who witnessed the whole thing and said this in court today
Every victim of a crime in Michigan is entitled to make a statement in open court regarding the impact of the crime on their life. The statement is limited to the victim’s physical, emotional and financial well being as it relates to the crime. Keep that in mind as you read my statement. Below is a copy of the victim impact statement I gave today at the Underwear Bomber sentencing hearing. When reading my statement, keep in mind that I am a practicing attorney in the State of Michigan. In addition, I regularly practice in the Court the hearings are taking place at and therefore, I am somewhat limited as to what I can say. We were limited to 5 minutes each.
I wish to thank the Court for allowing me these 5 minutes to make my statement. My references to the government in this statement refer to the Federal Government excluding this Court and the prosecution. On Christmas Day 2009, my wife and I were returning from an African safari and had a connecting flight through Amsterdam. As we waited for our flight, we sat on the floor next to the boarding gate. What I witnessed while sitting there and subsequent events have changed my life forever. While I sat there, I witnessed Umar dressed in jeans and a white t-shirt, being escorted around security by a man in a tan suit who spoke perfect American English and who aided Umar in boarding without a passport. The airline gate worker initially refused Umar boarding until the man in the tan suit intervened. The event meant nothing to me at the time. Little did I know that Umar would try to kill me a few hours later as our flight approached Detroit. The final 10 minutes of our flight after the attack were the worst minutes of my life. During those 10 minutes I sat paralyzed in fear. Unfortunately, what happened next has had an even greater impact on my life and has saddened me further.
When we landed, I was shocked that our plane taxied up to the gate. I was further shocked that we were forced to sit on the plane for 20 minutes with powder from the so called bomb all over the cabin. The officers that boarded the plane did nothing to ensure our safety and did not check for accomplices or other explosive devices. Several passengers trampled through parts of the bomb as they exited the plane. We were then taken into the terminal with our unchecked carry on bags. Again, there was no concern for our safety even though Umar told the officers that there was another bomb on board as he exited the plane. I wondered why nobody was concerned about our safety, accomplices or other bombs and the lack of concern worried me greatly. I immediately told the FBI my story in order to help catch the accomplice I had seen in Amsterdam. It soon became obvious that the FBI wasn’t interested in what I had to say, which upset me further.
For one month the government refused to admit the existence of the man in the tan suit before changing course and admitting his existence in an ABC News article on January 22, 2010. That was the last time the government talked about this man. The video that would prove the truth of my account has never been released. I continue to be emotionally upset that the video has not been released. The Dutch police, meanwhile, in this article (show article), also confirmed that Umar did not show his passport in Amsterdam which also meant that he didn’t go through security as both are in the same line in Amsterdam. It upsets me that the government refuses to admit this fact.
I became further saddened from this case, when Patrick Kennedy of the State Department during Congressional hearings, admitted that Umar was a known terrorist, was being followed, and the U.S. allowed him into the U.S. so that it could catch Umar’s accomplices. I was once again shocked and saddened when Michael Leiter of the National Counter terrorism Center admitted during these same hearings that intentionally letting terrorists into the U.S. was a frequent practice of the U.S. Government. I cannot fully explain my sadness, disappointment and fear when I realized that my government allowed an attack on me intentionally.
During this time, I questioned if my country intentionally put a known terrorist onto my flight with a live bomb. I had many sleepless nights over this issue. My answer came shortly thereafter. In late 2010, the FBI admitted to giving out intentionally defective bombs to the Portland Christmas Tree Bomber,the Wrigley Field Bomber and several others. Further, Mr. Chambers was quoted in the Free Press on January 11, 2011 when he indicated that the government’s own explosives experts had indicated that Umar’s bomb was impossibly defective. I wondered how that could be. Certainly, I thought, Al Qaeda wouldn’t go through all of the trouble to plan such an attack only to provide the terrorist with an impossibly defective bomb.
I attended nearly all of the pretrial hearings. At the hearing on January 28, 2011, I was greatly disappointed by the prosecution’s request to block evidence from Mr. Chambers “as it could then be able to be obtained by third parties, who could use it in a civil suit against the government”. It really bothered me that the government apparently was admitting to wrongdoing of some kind as it admitted that it was concerned it would be sued. It further upset me to know that the government was putting its own interests ahead of those of the passengers.
When I attended the jury selection hearings, I questioned why versions of the same two questions kept coming up, those being:
1. Do you think you’ll be able to tell whether something is actually a bomb? and 2. Do you realize that sometimes the media doesn’t always tell the truth?
I continued to be greatly saddened at this point as I felt the truth continued to be hidden.
When Umar listed me as his only witness, I was happy to testify, not on his behalf, but on behalf of the truth. I never expected to testify, as my eyewitness account would have been too damaging to the myth that the government and media are putting forward. A mere 5 days after I was announced as a witness, there was an inexplicable guilty plea which exasperated me as I no longer would be testifying.
In closing I will just say that regardless of how the media and government try to shape the public perception of this case, I am convinced that Umar was given an intentionally defective bomb by a U.S. Government agent and placed on our flight without showing a passport or going through security, to stage a false terrorist attack to be used to implement various government policies.
The effect this matter has had on my life has been astounding and due to this case, I will never trust the government in any matter, ever.
In regards to sentencing, nothing I’ve said excuses the fact that Umar tried to kill me. He has waived his valid claim to the entrapment defense. Umar, you are not a great Muslim martyr, you are merely a “Patsy”. I ask the court to impose the mandatory sentence.
About half the people in Gitmo have been found innocent by our own bleepin’ government. We need to take these people in if they can’t go anywhere else, apologize, and provide them with reparations.
If the government has a beef with anyone in there, let them try them in civilian courts. I want change I can believe in, Oilbummer.
Um, a decided NO. U.S. laughingly-referred-to-as-justice-system shows only that poor people of color can be intimidated.
We ain’t seen nothing yet. Wait ’til the Army takes over the internal disposition of US citizens accused of terrorism pursuant to NDAA 2012.
Abdulmutallab Sentencing Shows That Civilian Courts Sufficient to Prosecute Terrorism
Really David? Really that is what it shows. after the countless articles you write about how our govt lies and rapes us. how the MIC has MSM working as nothing more than mouthpieces for its agenda. How whistleblowers are prosecuted while teh real criminals get to dine at the WH. how courts rubber stamp fraudclosure, side with govt in OWS and against the first amendment.
Are you serious with that headline. Come on it shows nothing of the sort. Just shows more than one way to skin the cat. we being the cat
> Civilian courts work IF:
Wouldn’t they be “working” if suspects got off when the prosecution couldn’t convict without cheating, lying, and misbehaving? I don’t think military courts are appropriate for any of these “war on terror” criminals, and that the reason military courts are used is so that a conviction can be assured — which is not “justice.”
I recognize the story — the guy must be Kurt Haskell, who has been interviewed on Antiwar Radio three times.
October 2011: http://antiwar.com/radio/2011/10/15/kurt-haskell-3/
February 2010: http://antiwar.com/radio/2010/02/03/kurt-haskell-2/
December 2009: http://antiwar.com/radio/2009/12/31/kurt-haskell/
While the sentencing does indeed show the continuing viability of relying on Article III civilian (i.e., constitutional) courts, our government has already expanded the alternative military (i.e., unconstitutional) detention regime in the NDAA. But we need not stand for it. Cite this article when raising your voice where you can make a difference — where you live. Communities around the country, in states both blue and red, are already raising their voices: http://www.constitutioncampaign.org/blog/?p=6098. Will your’s be next?