BHO's Position On Mirandizing Terrorists

If BHO really believes that terrorists shouldn't be handled with kid gloves, why was the panty bomber mirandized and Holder not reprimanded?

From this post at Weasel Zippers (hat tip to Infidel Bloggers Alliance):

In an interview with 60 Minutes last spring, President Obama discussed the handling of captured terrorists and challenged those who claimed the "American system of justice was not up to the task of dealing with these terrorists."

Obama said: "I fundamentally disagree with that. Now -- do these folks deserve Miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter -- down the block? Of course not." President Obama ought to call Attorney General Eric Holder. In a five-page letter to Senator Mitch McConnell, Holder lays out in exhaustive detail exactly why these folks deserve Miranda rights and why his Justice Department will treat them like a shoplifter down the block.

Charles Krauthammer points out in this recent essay:

The real scandal surrounding the failed Christmas Day airline bombing was not the fact that a terrorist got on a plane -- that can happen to any administration, as it surely did to the Bush administration -- but what happened afterward when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was captured and came under the full control of the U.S. government.

After 50 minutes of questioning him, the Obama administration chose, reflexively and mindlessly, to give the chatty terrorist the right to remain silent. Which he immediately did, undoubtedly denying us crucial information about al-Qaeda in Yemen, which had trained, armed and dispatched him.

We have since learned that the decision to Mirandize Abdulmutallab had been made without the knowledge of or consultation with (1) the secretary of defense, (2) the secretary of homeland security, (3) the director of the FBI, (4) the director of the National Counterterrorism Center or (5) the director of national intelligence (DNI).

The Justice Department acted not just unilaterally but unaccountably....

BHO didn't have any problems reprimanding the United States Supreme Court during his State of the Union Address. Indeed, he could have taken the opportunity during the speech to pointedly reprimand Holder, but didn't.

So, what does BHO really believe about the handling of apprehended terrorists? Weasel Zippers asked the question this way:

Habitual liar or lack of core beliefs?

Maybe both!

Meanwhile, we have this:

The five senior leaders of the U.S. intelligence community told a Senate panel Tuesday they are "certain" that terrorists will attempt another attack on the United States in the next three to six months.

The warning came during the annual threat briefing to Congress in response to questions from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat and chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who asked, "What is the likelihood of another terrorist-attempted attack on the U.S. homeland in the next three to six months? High or low?"

"An attempted attack, the priority is certain, I would say," Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair, a retired admiral, said in response.

Four other intelligence agency leaders who appeared at the hearing with Mr. Blair said they agreed with the assessment.

They included CIA Director Leon E. Panetta, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, Lt. Gen. Ronald L. Burgess Jr., the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and John Dinger, the acting assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research.

[...]

The testimony specifically warned that al Qaeda is capable of another attack on the United States, marking a change from the 2009 assessment that emphasized the group's intentions to attack U.S. soil but said their capabilities to launch an attack on the homeland were limited.

In the event that such an attack occurs, will BHO still insist on using criminal court to try the terrorists if they fail in or survive the perpetrated attacks?