Sen. Susan Collins delivered the Republican weekly address last week, taking an unduly harsh view of the Obama administration’s strategy against terrorism.
As ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Collins has a key role in keeping watch on the threats facing the nation. But Saturday’s argument was not an analysis of national security issues facing the U.S. It was a narrow critique of the administration’s judgments in the Christmas Day terrorism case.
Perhaps we should not expect too much from a partisan address It is natural that such an address would take a definite point of view, but the GOP speech could have offered more insight on the problems of dealing with terrorism. The issue raised by Sen. Collins has troubled both the Bush and Obama administrations: Should those accused of terrorism be treated as military combatants or common criminals?
President George W. Bush’s attempt to prosecute them as combatants without the rights of military prisoners was rejected by the Supreme Court. But, as Collins said Saturday, treating them as criminal defendants may also create problems.
Collins is well-positioned to weigh in on this issue, and it is an important one. An enlightened U.S. approach is key to national security, human rights and international relations, as well as to completing tasks like the closing of the prison at Guantanamo and bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohammad to justice.
Speaking for the party, she lamented the federal response to the Christmas Day terror plot. Despite warning signs, agencies failed to discern the threat posed by the underwear bomber, and for a time it appeared that they bungled his interrogation.
Sen. Collins and others made much of the fact that the suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutullab, stopped talking after FBI agents read him his rights. “This administration cannot see a foreign terrorist even when he stands right in front of them,” she said.
But this week FBI director Robert Mueller offered a different interpretation, arguing that the questioning of Abdulmutullab, and of most suspects, is not impeded by observing U.S. standards of justice.
In any event, the headlines and talking points arising from this incident aren’t the best measure of the U.S. approach to national security. This administration’s commitment to diplomacy and respect for individual rights are part of a well-considered approach to establishing an international front against terrorism.
— Questions? Comments? Contact Managing Editor Nick Cowenhoven at nickc@journaltribune.com or City Editor Kristen Schulze Muszynski at kristenm@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less