Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn trial. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn trial. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Ba, 14 tháng 5, 2013

Gosnell trial revealed horrors of abortion, media silence

  • dr-kermit-gosnell-ftr

Mengele. Kevorkian. Now Gosnell can be added to that awful list. Men who perverted the idea that medicine should indeed “first do no harm.”

Dr. Kermit Gosnell was on trial for his life for the first degree murder of four babies born as a result of a failed late-term abortion. The American media that had resisted covering the gruesome case were also on trial.

Both were found guilty.

Followers of the Philadelphia case weren’t surprised with either result. 

The facts in the Gosnell case read more like a demon’s resume than a description of a man sworn to heal.

Gosnell is a monster. He was initially charged “with killing seven babies born alive," along with Karnamaya Mongar a newly-arrived, 41-year-old refugee from Bhutan. 

Prosecutors say Gosnell's staff gave the 90-pound woman a lethal dose of anesthesia and painkillers during a 2009 abortion,” according to the Associated Press. Some charges were dropped and he was found guilty of three counts of first-degree murder and one count of third-degree murder, as well as “211 counts of failing to comply with a state law that requires a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion is performed.”

The facts read more like a demon’s resume than a description of a man sworn to heal. One former worker testified that she saw “a late-term baby who survived an abortion ‘swimming’ in a toilet and ‘trying to get out.’” 

Another child reportedly was big enough “that Gosnell joked it could have walked to the bus.” Child after child had life ended as scissors snipped spinal cords, decapitating them.

Yet this “house of horrors” would never have seen the light of day if the American media had their way. 

Major outlets ignored the story until conservative anger called them out. The Media Research Center (where I work), Kirsten Powers, Fox News Channel, some in Congress and an army of conservatives on Twitter provided part of the pressure.

Even then, news coverage was paltry – far less than outlets would devote to any story du jour from Manti Te’o and his invisible girlfriend to endless accounts of the Jodi Arias trial.

ABC was the worst. It took that network a couple years after the arrest and 56 straight days of trial to acknowledge Gosnell existed. ABC found more than three hours of air time for other court cases during that time, but waited until Gosnell was convicted before it ever admitted he was even on trial.

“Nightline” co-anchor Terry Moran inadvertently admitted the network’s failure during the May 13 “World News with Diane Sawyer” segment. “For two months, jurors heard often shocking, grisly testimony.” Yes, two months of “shocking, grisly testimony” and only one minute and 51 seconds of news coverage at the very end.

In short, if you rely on ABC for your news coverage, you are out of luck. It’s that kind of timely newsgathering that would have viewers expecting to see reports on the end of WWII or the sinking of the Titanic later this week.

The other two members of the Big Three didn’t impress either. NBC was bad and CBS only a little better. NBC’s Savannah Guthrie asked Obama a question about Gosnell but didn’t even bother to follow it up. And when NBC finally gave an actual report on the case on May 1, it hid the awful nature of the case. The network that had reported on the smell of a decomposing body in the Casey Anthony trial called Gosnell’s crimes “too gruesome” to tell viewers.

Other outlets were just as averse to reporting the awful story of baby murder. The Washington Post committed to the story after health reporter Sarah Kliff defended her own failure to cover Gosnell because it was a “local crime” story.

But it wasn’t a local crime story. It was part of a national belief in infanticide coming directly from the pro-abortion movement. Just in the time of the Gosnell trial, we’ve seen a Planned Parenthood lobbyist and an abortion doctor both show support for baby murder after the child is born.

Abortion lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow told an astonished hearing that the life of a baby born after a botched abortion should be “left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”

The pro-life group Live Action caught a D.C. abortion doctor in an embarrassing admission of, you know, supporting baby murder. “One video features a D.C. doctor, Cesare Santangelo, who said that in the unlikely event that an abortion resulted in a live birth, ‘we would not help it,’” reported the Post. For that reveal, he said he considers the heroes of Live Action to be “terrorists.”

That is the world that Kermit Gosnell introduced to America. It’s a world where the liberal fantasies of “safe, available and rare” abortions have been twisted into a convenient rationale for taxpayer-funded baby murder, even after a child is born. It’s an image the abortion community won’t be able to erase.

Dan Gainor is the Boone Pickens Fellow and the Media Research Center’s Vice President for Business and Culture. He writes frequently about media for Fox News Opinion. He can also be contacted on Facebook and Twitter as dangainor.


View the original article here

Thứ Sáu, 26 tháng 4, 2013

The truth about the Kermit Gosnell trial

Closing arguments are expected next week in the trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, the late-term Philadelphia abortionist. As the trial nears conclusion media coverage of the gruesome testimony in the case has intensified.  

A coordinated effort by pro-life bloggers and citizens on Twitter managed to break through a mass media cone of silence, and now commentators across the political and pro-life/pro-choice spectrum are offering their perspectives.  

Some of those perspectives are startling. So, too, are some of the omissions about the entire chain of events – 40 years long and counting – that Gosnell represents.

Among the startling responses is the claim that anti-abortion policies produced Gosnell’s depredations. 

The stories emerging from the Gosnell trial are dark, bloody and remorseful, a repudiation of what health and happiness should be.

In a piece for Slate magazine’s “MoneyBox” blog, Matthew Yglesias declares his sympathy with the view that Gosnell is the logical residue of a legal and business culture in which there are few late-term abortion providers: “Making it difficult to establish an above-board competitive marketplace with multiple legal providers of late-term abortion facilities ensures that the demand for the procedure will be pushed into low-quality channels.”  (A rare example, by the way, of a liberal commentator embracing a robust health care marketplace and linking quality to it.)

Apart from its cold calculus, this perspective on Gosnell overlooks the more basic reason why there isn’t a thriving marketplace of doctors willing to kill babies nearly or fully capable of living outside the womb:  The practice itself is in no way one of the arts of medicine.  

Few are drawn to it because few people with rarefied medical skills see the fulfillment of their years of training in wrenching apart a baby limb from limb. 

For mothers and babies alike, the stories emerging from the Gosnell trial are dark, bloody and remorseful, a repudiation of what health and happiness should be.

Put more simply, what Gosnell was doing was objectively wrong and obviously hurtful. 

Moreover, lawlessness – and not a set of pro-life laws – is what gave birth to Gosnell’s crimes, and that spirit of lawlessness, of no limits and no scruples, dates back to the period before Roe. v. Wade. 

Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner has laid out in detail how Gosnell vaulted into public view in 1972 through his involvement in another gruesome episode, the “Mother’s Day Massacre.”  

In full view of public television cameras, Gosnell brought 15 poor Chicago women to Philadelphia to undergo second-trimester abortions induced by inserting a mass of razor-sharp plastic coils into their wombs.  

The so-called “super coil” method was the invention of Harvey Karman, an ex-con with a diploma-mill Ph.D., who was a darling of International Planned Parenthood.

That Gosnell was able to participate in a highly publicized event that left nine of its 15 “subjects” with major medical complications and suffer no penalty was a harbinger of the path he would take over four decades.  

Legal abortion resembles the back alley because the two overlapped to an overwhelming degree.  

In the early days of legal abortion, Mary Calderone, at the time national medical director of Planned Parenthood, reported an estimate that 90 percent of illegal abortionists pre-Roe were, in fact, physicians.  Then-Planned Parenthood president Alan Guttmacher’s estimate was 80 percent.      

The miracles of modern perinatology, the ability to save the lives of babies born as early as 24 weeks’ gestation, the marvels of fetal surgery that have inspired specialties at children’s hospitals across the country, including Philadelphia’s pioneering unit – these are the spires and sinews of medical progress.

The Gosnell trial is a stark reminder of another fact.  The women who entered the infernal portal of 3801 Lancaster Ave suffered from an array of debilities, chief among them the absence of hope.  

In a sex-saturated society availed of an arsenal of pregnancy-preventing and –destroying drugs, devices and, yes, abortion clinics, they turned to a facility that should have shocked and repelled them from the moment they saw its battered and blood-stained environs.  

Some would argue that their neighborhoods lack enough family planning centers; more importantly, they lack enough families. There is a relationship poverty that runs deeper than any other kind.  Low expectations can be a hard form of bigotry.

Despite this, in the neighborhood of Kermit Gosnell there were advanced hospitals, Catholic pregnancy and adoption services, and two pregnancy care centers: clean, well-lit places where they and their children would have been valued and cared for.  

Do we need more such centers, more highlighting of their work, more funding? Yes, and we need more obstetricians as well, and reform of a tort law system that is driving out quality physicians by the hundreds and leaving in place some whose victims are too impoverished and too ashamed to sue them. 

Incredibly, part of the agenda of NARAL is to drive pregnancy care centers out of business or block their advertising.  They label them “fake clinics.”  

Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues to pursue its over-the-top “preventive services mandate,” fully aware that one of its primary effects may be to close religious hospitals that care for millions of America’s poor and hundreds of thousands of expectant mothers.

Building multiple late-term abortion clinics in search of a bazaar of absolute choice is the last thing our nation’s poor neighborhoods need.  

We would do well instead to seek a new birth of compassion, reinvestment of time and energy in the Hippocratic ideal of “doing no harm,” and the affirmation of the equal value of every human life.

Chuck Donovan is President of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the research arm of the Susan B. Anthony List.


View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 16 tháng 4, 2013

Excuses, excuses after liberal media finally covers Gosnell trial

Now that some in the media have finally been shamed into covering the Gosnell abortion trial, the only thing left for journalists is finding the right alibi for ignoring it for so long. It’s like watching an episode of “Law & Order,” complete with a horrific journalistic crime and an endless stream of media excuses.

In print, online and on TV, lefty journalists came up with excuse after excuse to say they couldn’t possibly have had a typical lefty bias. Journalists offered up racism, classism, ignorance and more as possible excuses.

CNN’s resident media critic Howard Kurtz tried the blame-conservatives approach, claiming “The conservative media didn't do much either.” Ah yes, those tens of thousands of conservative reporters and editors who work, where exactly?

Shame is an amazing thing.

Kurtz couldn’t even be honest or factually correct enough to call the victims “babies,” choosing the lefty term “fetuses,” even for living, breathing children.

CNN's legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin was just as willfully ignorant during the April 12 “Anderson Cooper 360.” Toobin knocked any conservative allegation of bias. “Well, the people making those criticisms by and large are conservatives, who are saying the liberal media is trying to protect abortion rights by not showing this horror show. I don’t buy that at all,” he claimed.

Washington Post reporter Paul Farhi raised the tough question. He gave the “conservative Media Research Center” credit (Hint: It’s where I work.) for pushing the story. Then he asked: “Could it be, as conservative bloggers have charged since shortly after the trial began March 18, that the media had taken a pass because Gosnell — who stands accused of killing seven newborn infants and one mother — is an abortion doctor whose alleged crimes run counter to the mainstream media’s supposed support for abortion rights?

He included several unsatisfying answers. ABC didn’t say. NBC tried to dodge. CBS admitted correctly that it planned to cover it. “Fox News has been the only consistent national TV source on the story,” Farhi wrote. He added that MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” would cover it on April 15 and they did.

His own paper had given multiple responses. 

On April 11 at 7:08 p.m., health reporter Sarah Kliff defended her failure top cover Gosnell. “I cover policy for the Washington Post, not local crime, hence why I wrote about all the policy issues you mention,” Kliff said. Conservatives set Twitter aflame that night, making “Gosnell” a trending topic.

By 5:43 p.m. on the next night, the Post had changed its tune. Executive Editor Martin Baron, told the paper’s Erik Wemple Blog: “We believe the story is deserving of coverage by our own staff, and we intend to send a reporter for the resumption of the trial next week. In retrospect, we should have sent a reporter sooner.” The Post was joined by The Wall Street Journal and New York Times. Shame is an amazing thing.

CBS, the only broadcast network that has ever previously mentioned the case in its coverage,  back in 2011, covered it over the weekend and on Monday morning. The “This Morning” story had reporter Jan Crawford warning that “some of the details you are about to hear are very disturbing” and “there are almost no words” to describe what witnesses said happened in the clinic. One quote in the story had a man saying “the grand jury went to the scene wearing Hazmat suits.”

While CBS acknowledged there was a debate over the media coverage, it did its best to do CYA reporting. The segment interviewed Walt Hunter, who “broke the original story,” and reminded viewers it had reported on the story in 2011. The network left out how CBS had ignored the story ever since, admitting “his trial has received little national news coverage.” The report cited a USA Today column by Kirsten Powers with complaints about the lack of coverage “that went viral on Twitter” and were then picked up by House Republicans.

Liberal outlets, while bashing Gosnell, were mostly dismissive of the whole debate.

The lefty American Prospect came up with “Five Lessons from the Gosnell Abortion-Clinic Controversy” – essentially ways to rationalize the media not covering it. Those included claiming that “many prominent feminists” had covered it and the evil media ignored them and that somehow the stigma of abortion hurts women. The Prospect didn’t explain how women had gotten past that “stigma” 50 million times since Roe v. Wade. And while it mentioned the Powers column, it didn’t even spell her first name correctly.

Salon’s Alex Seitz-Wald tried the Kurtz strategy, blaming conservatives. After all, it’s not like most in the media will point out how silly that was. He whined, “it’s difficult to take complaints seriously from people who haven’t used their own public platforms to push a story they think others are now ignoring.”

Even liberal Wikipedia considered deleting its own page on the trial because “his case has not received national attention.” Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy. The media ignore something and then when it doesn’t get press, Wikipedia disappears it like in the old Soviet Union.

The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf, who had created a stir admitting the “trial should be a front-page story,” tallied the 14 different theories why the “case didn't get more media attention.” Most of those were media or liberal rationales. It was an extensive list including the laughable Mother Jones theory that conservatives were “working the refs.” The lefty, Soros-funded magazine charged: “it didn't get much coverage until conservatives decided they could make hay with charges that the story was being deliberately suppressed by the liberal media.”

Because, of course, that’s what conservatives wanted was “hay,” not balanced news coverage on a life-or-death topic. The Mother Jones big complaint was that the conservative media hadn’t reported more thoroughly on the case. That’s right, because the conservative media’s non-existent pool of thousands of reporters is equal to what the Times, Post, Gannett and others can bring to bear.

Conservative blogger David Burge summed up conservative criticism of the media succinctly. “Ben Carson or Kermit Gosnell: guess which doctor the media consider ‘controversial.’”

We all know the answer, but at least journalists have to admit both exist now.

Dan Gainor is the Boone Pickens Fellow and the Media Research Center’s Vice President for Business and Culture. He writes frequently about media for Fox News Opinion. He can also be contacted on Facebook and Twitter as dangainor.


View the original article here

Reporting from the courtroom of the Gosnell trial

  • abortionclinicdeaths.jpg

    March 8, 2010: In this photo, Dr. Kermit Gosnell is seen during an interview with the Philadelphia Daily News at his attorney's office in Philadelphia.AP/Philadelphia Daily News

I spent the day today in Philadelphia at the trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell.

The prosecution in the Gosnell murder trial seems to be nearing the conclusion of its work. A small courtroom, able to hold about 70 people, but mostly empty throughout the day, was the site today of this ongoing trial that looks and sounds like something out of Nuremburg.

Gosnell sat there -- just a few yards away from me -- with a great deal of composure during the whole thing, sometimes smiling, sometimes whispering to his attorney, sometimes taking notes.

Just in front of the witness stand were various silent witnesses, namely, various instruments from Gosnell’s clinic. I saw the suction machine, and the plastic cannulae (which were a stained orange color). Likewise an ancient looking ultrasound machine was there, again with stains on it -- one of those things that looks like a dinosaur computer that might be in an old closet in your garage.

The morning was taken up with the tearful testimony (spoken through a translator) of the daughter of Karnamaya Mongar, one of Gosnell’s murder victims. She described how her mom was given medication by the staff, began to experience pain and drowsiness, and was eventually taken away by ambulance. Interestingly, she got to Gosnell’s mill via three other facilities -- two in Virginia and one in DC -- all of whom said they could not do the abortion on her.

In the afternoon, one of the witnesses was a man employed by Gosnell and who had various cleaning responsibilities in the facility, including taking care of clogged pipes and toilets. He testified that at one point, when using a plunger to unclog the drain, body parts -- particularly little arms -- came up out of the waste.

Later, an employee of the state testified about how, in making an official visit to Gosnell’s facility, found vaccinations that had expired.

As I said, the courtroom was mostly empty. I was there with a couple of other pro-life leaders, and various reporters. At one point during the morning, a high school class from a local girls’ school came in to watch the proceedings. One of the girls later was asking why it would take so much time and effort to convict this man…. Wasn’t the wrong that he did obvious?

We shall see.


View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 26 tháng 3, 2013

Italy orders Amanda Knox to go on trial for 3rd time; saga in murder case far from over

It's not over yet for Amanda Knox.

Italy's top criminal court dealt a stunning setback Tuesday to the 25-year-old college student, overturning her acquittal in the grisly murder of her British roommate and ordering her to stand trial again.

"She thought that the nightmare was over," Knox's attorney, Carlo Dalla Vedova, told reporters minutes after conveying the unexpected turn of events to his client, who had stayed up to hear the ruling, which came shortly after 2 a.m. West Coast time. "But she's ready to fight."

Now a student at the University of Washington in Seattle, Knox called the decision by the Rome-based Court of Cassation "painful" but said she was confident that she would be exonerated.

The American left Italy a free woman after her October 2011 acquittal — but only after serving nearly four years of a 26-year prison sentence from a lower court that convicted her of murdering Meredith Kercher. The 21-year-old exchange student's body was found in a pool of blood, her throat slit, in a bedroom of the house the two shared in Perugia, a university town 100 miles north of Rome.

Raffaele Sollecito, Knox's Italian boyfriend at the time, was also convicted of the Nov. 1, 2007, murder, then later acquitted. His acquittal was also thrown out Tuesday and a new trial ordered.

Italian law cannot compel Knox to return for the new trial and Dalla Vedova said she had no plans to do so.

In any case, the judicial saga is likely to continue for years. It will be months before a date is set for the new trial, to be held in Florence instead of Perugia because the small town has only one appellate court, which already acquitted her.

Prosecution and defense teams must also await details of the ruling explaining why the high court concluded there were procedural errors in the trial that acquitted Knox and Sollecito. The court has 90 days to issue its explanation.

Another Knox defender, Luciano Ghirga, said she was gearing up psychologically for her third trial. Ghirga said he told Knox: "You have always been our strength. We rose up again after the first-level convictions. We'll have the same resoluteness, the same energy" in the new trial.

Still, it was a tough blow for the former exchange student, whose parents mortgaged both their homes to raise funds for her lengthy, expensive defense.

"It was painful to receive the news that the Italian Supreme Court decided to send my case back for revision when the prosecution's theory of my involvement in Meredith's murder has been repeatedly revealed to be completely unfounded and unfair," Knox said in a statement.

She said the matter must now be examined by "an objective investigation and a capable prosecution."

"No matter what happens, my family and I will face this continuing legal battle as we always have, confident in the truth and with our heads held high in the face of wrongful accusations and unreasonable adversity," Knox said.

Prosecutors alleged that Kercher was the victim of a drug-fueled sex game gone awry. Knox, then 20, and Sollecito, then 24, denied wrongdoing and said they weren't even in the apartment that night, although they acknowledged they had smoked marijuana and their memories were clouded.

An Ivory Coast man, Rudy Guede, was convicted of the slaying in a separate trial and is serving a 16-year sentence.

Sollecito, whose 29th birthday was Tuesday, sounded shaken when a reporter reached him by phone.

"Now I can't say anything," said the Italian, who has been studying computer science in the northern city of Verona after finishing up an earlier degree while in prison.

A local Italian news report quoted Sollecito's current girlfriend as saying he and Knox spoke by phone and described him as being psychologically destroyed.

His lawyer, Luca Maori, said neither Sollecito nor Knox ran any danger of being arrested. "It's not as if the lower-court convictions are revived," he said, noting that the high court didn't determine "whether the two were innocent or guilty. "

For those familiar with the U.S. legal principle of "double jeopardy" — which holds that no one acquitted of a crime can be tried again for it — the idea that the Italian justice system allows prosecutors to appeal acquittals is hard to absorb.

Knox attorney Dalla Vedova dismissed the "double jeopardy" concern, maintaining the high court ruling hadn't decided the defendants' guilt or innocence, but merely ordered a fresh appeals trial, which he said was unlikely to start before early 2014.

The appeals court that acquitted Knox and Sollecito had criticized virtually the entire prosecution case, especially the forensic evidence that helped clinch their 2009 convictions. It noted the murder weapon was never found, and said DNA tests were faulty and that prosecutors provided no murder motive.

In arguing for overturning the acquittals, prosecutors said the Perugia appellate court was too dismissive of DNA tests on a knife they maintained could have been used to slash Kercher's throat as well as DNA traces on a bra belonging to the victim and tests done on blood stains in the bedroom and bathroom.

The court on Tuesday also upheld a slander conviction against Knox. During a 14-hour police interrogation, she had accused a local Perugia pub owner of carrying out the killing. The man was held for two weeks, based on her allegations, before being released for lack of evidence.

Her defense lawyers say Knox felt pressured by police to name a suspect so her own interrogation could end.

Because of the time she served in prison before the acquittal, Knox didn't have to serve the three-year sentence for the slander conviction. The court on Tuesday ordered her to pay 4,000 euros ($5,500) to the man, as well as the cost of the lost appeal.

Whether Knox ever returns to Italy to serve more prison time depends on a string of ifs and unknowns.

"Questions of extradition are not in the legal landscape at this point," another Knox attorney, Theodore Simon, said on NBC TV.

If she is convicted by the Florence court, Knox could appeal that verdict to the Cassation Court. Should that appeal fail, Italy could seek her extradition from the United States.

Whether Italy actually requests extradition will be a political decision made by a future Italian government. It would then be up to U.S. officials to decide whether they will send Knox to Italy, and Dalla Vedova said U.S. authorities would carefully study all the case's documentation to decide whether she had received fair trials.

U.S. and Italian authorities could also come to a deal that would keep Knox in the U.S.

For now, Knox has a memoir, "Waiting to Be Heard," coming out April 30, for which publisher HarperCollins reportedly paid her $4 million. She still plans to appear in a prime-time special with Diane Sawyer to promote the book, according to ABC News.

In her statement, Knox took the Perugia prosecutors to task, saying they "must be made to answer" for the discrepancies in the case. She also said "my heart goes out to" Kercher's family.

The Kercher family's attorney, Francesco Maresca, called Tuesday's ruling "what we wanted" and relayed a message from the late woman's sister, Stephanie.

"To understand the truth about what happened that night is all we can do for her now," the family's message said.

__

AP writer Colleen Barry in Milan contributed to this report.


View the original article here

GOP leaders voice 'grave misgivings' to Obama over key terror trial in civilian court

The Republican chairmen of four congressional committees, with oversight for intelligence, the armed services, the judiciary and foreign affairs, have told President Obama they have "grave misgivings" about his administration's decision to send Usama bin Laden's brother-in-law to a federal court for criminal prosecution.

The lawmakers voiced their concerns to Obama in a letter obtained by Fox News.

"I've found in visiting Guantanamo, in visiting the prisons in Afghanistan that we have ways of getting information. We have people that are highly trained that can sit down and get these people's confidence and they learn a lot or can learn a lot unless we shut them off with attorneys," House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon said.

He and Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee; Rep. Ed Royce, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and Rep. Bob Goodlatte, chairman of the Judiciary Committee are now requesting a briefing from the nation's top intelligence officer, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, to explain how the administration's apparent rush to bring Sulaiman Abu Ghaith to a criminal court is in the national security interest.

Abu Ghaith, who is an alleged senior Al Qaeda member who served as spokesman for bin Laden, lived in Iran for a decade after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks with other members of the bin Laden family and his inner circle. It is still unknown whether they were under house arrest or free to operate as guests of the regime.

Abu Ghaith's capture is described by the Republican congressmen as a "significant opportunity to acquire substantial, critical intelligence" including information on the network's regional strategy and its relationship with Tehran.

After leaving Iran for Turkey, Abu Ghaith was deported to Jordan, where he was eventually transferred from Jordanian to U.S. custody in March. In their letter to the White House, the congressmen state that they have little confidence that the intelligence community, as well as interrogators, were given enough time to build a rapport with bin Laden's son-in-law to learn everything he knew.

"The failure to provide an adequate mechanism for the United States to acquire sensitive intelligence information from Abu Ghaith prior to Mirandizing him and brining him to criminal court suggests a fundamental lack of a coherent security strategy, " the congressmen wrote in the two-page letter dated Friday.

One of the lingering questions of the 9/11 Commission was why the majority of "muscle hijackers" who overcame the passengers and flight crews passed through Iran from Pakistan to reach the Afghan training camps. A new report by the Kronos advisory group being circulated to lawmakers, called "Iran and The Global Jihad," assesses that Al Qaeda set up a management council or "shadow shura" because it understood "America's decades-long aversion" to conflict with Iran.

A leading terrorism analyst says there is also a larger issue at play. As reported by the Long War Journal, Thomas Joscelyn, a senior fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, says only 17 of the documents confiscated from the compound in Pakistan where bin Laden was found and killed in May 2011 have been made public.  

"The release of the Bin Laden documents was highly selective, and those that were given to the public only highlighted the antagonistic episodes between the two (Iran and Al Qaeda). The documents that were released to the public didn't show the history of collusion and we know for a fact that - that history of collusion is in fact in the documents," Joscelyn said.

Joscelyn said that while career intelligence officers and treasury officials are actively pursing Al Qaeda and designating operatives inside the Iranian government, he said other parts of the government that are more "politicized" want to declare Al Qaeda on the decline.

"If Al Qaeda is operating in Iranian territory and has this core pipeline, as the Treasury Department says, then it makes it much more difficult to declare Al Qaeda dead," he said.

Joscelyn also points to the fact that the administration has apparently relied on the bin Laden documents to list a handful of Iranian entities as terrorist organizations, which allows the Treasury to freeze their assets, among other punitive actions.

"I've been told that the bin Laden documents were part of what was used for the series of designations that came out the U.S. Treasury Department and State Department,"  Joscelyn explained.  "The Obama administration only released to the public those documents that show tensions between the two (Iran and Al Qaeda) and didn't release to the public those documents that show the two colluding."

On Monday, a federal plea agreement was unsealed in the case of Ahmed Warsame, a member of the Al Qaeda affiliate in Somalia. Warsame was captured in April 2011 and held at sea for more than two months, before he was transferred to a New York City court in December 2011. While a press release from the U.S. attorney's office and FBI hailed Warsame's cooperation and the intelligence gathered as a "watershed,"  Rep. McKeon said neither the Warsame nor the Abu Ghaith cases were anything to celebrate.

"We've captured thousands and don't have enough ships to park them over there and put them one at a time on a ship," he said. "We are not equipped to do that on a ship. That one (Warsame) was a unique case that worked out well and I am glad it did, but again, it is not a policy builder."


View the original article here