About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Perino advances shoe bomber falsehood to attack Obama over handling of terrorism

February 08, 2010 5:47 pm ET — 38 Comments

On Fox & Friends, former White House press secretary Dana Perino attempted to rebut the Obama administration's comparison of their use of civilian trials for alleged terrorists with the Bush administration's similar treatment of shoe bomber Richard Reid by falsely suggesting that "there wasn't a system in place" for Bush to order Reid to be held by the military. In fact, such a system was in place by the time Reid pleaded guilty, as many suspects were placed in military detention before that date.

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

From the February 8 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

PERINO: Well, and I -- and the administration continues to tout that during the Bush years, we prosecuted two terrorists, Moussaoui and Reid, like they want to do for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. And I really want to take a moment just to put that in context. Moussaoui was arrested before 9-11. Reid was arrested six weeks after President Bush first gave the order to do enemy combatant status, and there wasn't a system in place. We're nine years later, and if the only thing they can look back on in the Bush administration to say that was done well was the prosecution of Richard Reid, I would be shocked if that was the case. I'm sure that is not what they believe. And I really think they ought to look at that before they claim that that was the best way to do it. Because I think, arguably, we could have done things better. We just didn't have the system yet. And it was right after 9-11.

Before Reid pleaded guilty, Bush placed hundreds of detainees in military custody

Order Perino referenced stated that military could hold detainees "outside or within the United States." Reid was captured in December 2001. Bush's November 13, 2001, "Military Order" explicitly stated that "Any individual subject to this order shall be ... detained at an appropriate location designated by the Secretary of Defense outside or within the United States." The order defined the term "individual subject to this order" as follows:

The term "individual subject to this order" shall mean any individual who is not a United States citizen with respect to whom I determine from time to time in writing that:

(1)  there is reason to believe that such individual, at the relevant times,

(i) is or was a member of the organization known as al Qaida;

(ii) has engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit, acts of international terrorism, or acts in preparation therefor, that have caused, threaten to cause, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy; or

(iii) has knowingly harbored one or more individuals described in subparagraphs (i) or (ii) of subsection 2(a)(1) of this order;

and

(2)  it is in the interest of the United States that such individual be subject to this order.

Detainees held by the military as early as November 2001. Soon after the war in Afghanistan began in October 2001, the United States began holding detainees in military custody. For instance, in the 2006 case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court majority opinion stated that in November 2001, the plaintiff in that case, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, "was captured by militia forces and turned over to the U. S. military."

Padilla transferred to military custody before Reid pleaded guilty in civilian court. Reid pleaded guilty on October 4, 2002, and was sentenced on January 30, 2003. Jose Padilla was initially held in the civilian court system after his arrest on a material witness charge and was transferred to military custody on June 9, 2002. (Padilla was later transferred back to civilian custody for trial after he appealed his detention to the Supreme Court for a second time.)

Hamdi held in military custody since early 2002. In addition to Padilla, Yaser Hamdi was held in military custody at Guantanamo Bay beginning in January 2002 and transferred to a military brig in South Carolina in April 2002.

Hundreds of detainees held in military custody at Guantanamo beginning in early 2002. In the 2004 case of Rasul v. Bush, Justice Stevens, writing for the majority, stated: "Petitioners in these cases are 2 Australian citizens and 12 Kuwaiti citizens who were captured abroad during hostilities between the United States and the Taliban. Since early 2002, the U.S. military has held them -- along with, according to the Government's estimate, approximately 640 other non-Americans captured abroad -- at the Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay."

Bush administration bragged about handling of Reid

Ashcroft: Reid case an example of "steady progress because of the combined and cooperative efforts of law enforcement and intelligence." From an August 25 speech by then-Attorney General John Ashcroft:

Around this nation, we can point to quiet, steady progress because of the combined and cooperative efforts of law enforcement and intelligence:

[...]

132 individuals have been convicted or pled guilty, including shoe-bomber Richard Reid, "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh, six members of the Buffalo cell, and two members of the Detroit cell

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by bintx (February 08, 2010 6:10 pm ET)
      6 2
      Around 40,000 people per year die in traffic accidents, over 116,000 people have been murdered since 9/11. Why are people so afraid of terrorists? It would seem to me that spending so much time worrying about the possibility that a terrorist MIGHT attack sometime in the future is playing right into the terrorist's hands. See, a terrorist never has to kill a single person as long as the targeted people simply BELIEVE he might and live in FEAR of that possibility. The terrorist's goal is not to kill, it is to create FEAR to the point that the target adopts the political or religious mindset desired by the terrorist. Put it in perspective, folks.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by southerngal (February 08, 2010 6:17 pm ET)
        3 6
        I don't understand where the left gets this whole "afraid of terrorists" thing. Do you say that going to the doctor or the dentist for routine examinations and prevention is solely out of fear? Of course not, it's called being smart and prepared. And being adult enough to deal with things before they become an issue.

        A terrorist's goal is also an apathetic society.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by kidLightning (February 08, 2010 6:35 pm ET)
             
          Well...because you certainly seem afraid of terrorists.
          What exactly are you afraid of?
          Do you think KSN is going to shoot lasers out of his eyes in a NY courtroom?
          Or use mind-bullets to mow down the jury?
          Are you THAT scared of our judicial system that you worry he might go free?
          And how you could possibly compare going to the doctor for a routine checkup to the erosion of civil liberties we now face because of terrorists is beyond me.
          Sorry to burst your bubble right ON, but the terrorists have certainly succeeded in disrupting our country; we live in fear (thanks in no small part to the constant right-wing worry brigade), we're going bankrupt trying to finance 2 wars that will never (and CAN never) be "won", however you choose to define "winning"; and the normal aspects of our lives are affected in inconvenient ways every day.
          Each time you have to take your shoes off to go through a detector at the airport, a terrorist somewhere chuckles to himself.

          Grow a pair.
          And by the way, a terrorists goal is not "an apathetic society"; it's a society that lives in fear.




          Report Abuse
        • Author by whatIthink (February 08, 2010 6:36 pm ET)
          7 1
          No, a terrorists goal is to instill terror in their targets by sowing and feeding seeds of dissent, foment internal struggles and basically reduce their victims to gibbering, fearful people that will lash out at anything. I would bet that terrorists around the world right now are laughing their butts off about what's happening here. The underwear bomber might have failed in hs tactical goal, but the strategic goal of disrupting government, inciting internal fighting and bringing the "war on terror" to a screeching halt because of partisan feuding has succeeded beautifully. And, right now, the people that are helping the most with that agenda, are conservatives. How? By spreading demonstrably false lies, innuendo and perverting the very ideals that this country was founded on. Not too mention, how many countries around the world right now are hysterical with laughter because an elected lawmaker in this country (Hoekstra) says he didn't know that the FBI read people their rights when they take someone into custody because he's not a "lawyer"? Even right wing critics have been saying that even terrorists know to ask for their rights when they are caught, and this buffoon of a ploitician is claiming he didn't know?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (February 08, 2010 6:50 pm ET)
            2 7
            If the terrorist's goal is solely to instill terror and fear, then they pretty had the US in their grip and succeeded on 9/12/01, didn't they? Of course they want people scared, fearful and to disrupt society. But unless they succeed in subsequent attacks, people will become apathetic and lax in security and determination. That is what they bank on to "slip" by. Which is all the more reason to be vigilant and prepared, not running scared - which the left always think is the same as vigilance and preparedness. It isn't.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 08, 2010 6:57 pm ET)
              6  
              If the terrorist's goal is solely to instill terror and fear, then they pretty had the US in their grip and succeeded on 9/12/01, didn't they?
              Yes. They did. They even got a numbskull president and complicit Congress to curtail some of the basic freedoms that made America unique and a shining light on the hill. They even got this same country to attack a country that had nothing to do with the attacks, creating more resentment which increased their recruiting effectiveness. The Al Qaeda strategy worked perfectly and we played right into their hands.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by foghornleghorn (February 08, 2010 6:58 pm ET)
              5  
              What do you think the Al Queda's goal is?

              (Hint - it's not to kill people)
              Report Abuse
            • Author by foghornleghorn (February 08, 2010 6:59 pm ET)
              4  
              What do you think the Al Queda's goal is?

              (Hint - it's not to kill people)
              Report Abuse
            • Author by whatIthink (February 08, 2010 7:01 pm ET)
              8  
              There's a world of difference between vigilant and prepared and hysterical and paranoid. Wanting to torture every suspect we catch, denying reality, rewriting history, turning a blind eye to law enforcements techniques that worked, accusing the leader of your country of being sympathetic to the enemy, accusing the leader of your country of being the enemy, disregarding and insulting the law enforcement personnel who did their jobs correctly and obtained valuable information just because they didn't use torture, and just about every other connsevative talking point about Obamas handling of terrorism not only crossed, but left the line between "vigilant and prepared" and "hysterical and paranoid" far behind, way into the hysterical and paranoid territory. Not to mention having left the realms of civility and honesty as well.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mari2jj (February 09, 2010 12:52 am ET)
                6  
                very well said. As a lifelong Republican, I have been horribly ashamed of the Bush Cheney administration's handling of the Gitmo detention program. If my grandchild is ever captured by our enemy, I fear the behavior allowed by Bush will put his life in terrible jeopardy and our country would have no moral authority to object. Amazing that neither Bush nor Cheney did not give credence to this issue. Their behavior is the humiliation of our country. As a Republican, I am totally disgusted with their unlawful behavior.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by bintx (February 08, 2010 10:27 pm ET)
              3  
              Yep, they won, because idiotic people allowed a group of ideologues to use the fear engendered by the hijackers to institute their pre-planned invasion of Iraq which had NOTHING to do with 9/11, to push for and get passed the Patriot Act [which attacked the very fabric of our culture], to essentially destroy the protections of the Fourth Amendment . . . . etc. They won.

              As I said, logic has no political ideology.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by jediknight65 (February 09, 2010 10:34 am ET)
              3  
              so how does torturing and beating the crap out of someone makes us prepared for the next attack?

              aside from giving them good reason to keep trying to attack us?

              how would you like to be beaten and tortured by the military because they can do that ya know. for any reason. that is the legacy of whom you support.

              Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (February 08, 2010 7:02 pm ET)
            6 1
            RightON fits right in with those you cite.

            He pushed for our terrorism-fighting groups to focus on people who bought one-way tickets and paid for their tickets with cash, which would really be a waste of limited resources!

            For them, if it doesn't help them politically, they don't care about it, or so it seems.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by rmjaco (February 09, 2010 10:04 pm ET)
               
            Whatthink, I agree with you.I do not believe their intentions were to crash that plane.Abdulmutallab intentions may have been to do it but I believe whomever gave him the underwear bomb intended for it to happen like it did(He that he was going to be a weapon of destruction and would be dead and now he must realize that he was a tool used by them to instill fear into the American public). Had the plane crashed, the evidence may not have pointed to terrorism because the explosive powder in his underwear would have immediately destroyed him,bought the plane down, leaving no one on the plane to tell what happened so there would have been speculation but not the fear that has overtaken our country from seeing him and knowing what he was trying to do. I also believe the same is true for shoe-bomber Reid. He deliberately chose a seat above the wing where the fuel is stored to maximize the explosion and he would be dead and the shoes blown up and no one left to tell exactly what happened.Reid's intention was to cause mass destruction and die but whomever gave him that shoe bomb meant for it to happen the way it did so that fear was instilled and problems were caused for us Americans. The 9/11 terrorists allowed people to phone their relatives from the planes and also allowed air traffic control and other planes in the sky to hear them because they knew that no one would be left to tell the story so they wanted to instill the fear before they died.i am not a psychologist but I call it "psychological warfare" and the terrorist are winning the war.
            I can't believe that an elected official did not know that anyone that is taken into custody is read their "Miranda Rights" Where was he when that case was decided by our Supreme Court?The US not following our rule of law is something that terrorist can use against us. Even if Abdulmutallib was not read his rights and turned over to the military, he was not going to tell them anything more than he initially told the FBI, unless he was tortured and he would have said anything to stop that and information received during torture can be argued against during any court,be it military,criminal or whatever. The military would have not done what the FBI did. The FBI went to Nigeria and had Abdulmutallib relatives accompany them to the US to talk to him.In Islam(like any other culture),there is great
            respect for the Mother so his mother may have come. A good mother doesn't want to see her child hurt anyone.She would have been able to get more information out of him than any military tribunal.After his relatives got to the US and spoke to him, he started to tell everything that he knew. The US has one of the best legal systems in the World. We need to let
            Report Abuse
        • Author by ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© (February 08, 2010 9:14 pm ET)
          6  
          That was stupid, even for you, right on.

          bin Laden said his goal was to bankrupt the U.S.

          Thanks to G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney, not to mention their right-wing coward base, he's coming awfully close.

          For shame, loser.
          ~
          Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (February 09, 2010 11:41 am ET)
              4
            I don't give a damn what bin Laden said, nor do I advocate reacting to his words or shaping our foreign policy, nor our readiness or preparedness, based on what he says. Sorry, you might, I don't.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by foghornleghorn (February 09, 2010 12:06 pm ET)
              3  
              I don't give a damn what bin Laden said

              There ya have it folks. The ignorant mindset.

              Don't worry Tommy, I know you're not ignorant. You just pretend to be ignorant to start arguments.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by DellDolly (February 09, 2010 1:41 pm ET)
                2  
                Yeah, the idea that recognizing where the terrorist mindset is has no value is ridiculous, and is a leftover from the Bush Administration.

                Understanding the issues surrounding terrorism in order to fight it by, in part, listening to the words of terrorists?

                What a concept.
                Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (February 08, 2010 10:24 pm ET)
          5  
          I'm not "the left." Logic has no political ideology.

          Terrorism is defined as the use of violence or fear of violence to achieve a change in political or religious ideology. If you live your life in fear, the terrorists have won. They need never attack again. They won.

          Logic, right on, logic.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by jediknight65 (February 09, 2010 10:30 am ET)
          2  
          terrorists are criminals. what is so damn hard about such a concept. they aren't soldiers. they are criminals. and should be treated as such. that means trials according to our laws. not some rigged military commission that will allow a guy to be beaten and tortured into submission
          Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (February 09, 2010 11:14 am ET)
              4
            All you liberals jumping around screaming torture, I never said one word about that nor intimated in any way I was in favor of it. I am flat out opposed to torture, period. So you all can calm yourselves as you have been arguing with yourselves. You are all so emotional, which is where most of your arguments derive from, that you got your pants all bunched about something I am not even arguing. And then going on them as criminals not terrorists.

            All I said was that is has nothing to do with us being scared or living in fear, it has to do with being prepared, smart and taking all available and legal preventative methods to avoid another attack on our citizens or on our soil. Period. If any of you are opposed to that, then I hope your radical notions don't find their way into any implementation regarding our national security. Stay the hell away from it.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by jediknight65 (February 09, 2010 11:32 am ET)
              2  
              and what methods do you propose to use may i ask?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (February 09, 2010 11:35 am ET)
                  4
                Methods for what? Read the original conversation at the top, there was no mention or torture. I was responding to the notion that the left thinks that the rest of us are all running around scared of being attacked. I made my point about how being prepared and realistic as to their intentions is not being a scaredy cat.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by foghornleghorn (February 09, 2010 11:44 am ET)
                  2  
                  And you still haven't answered my question: what do you think is the goal of Al Qaeda?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (February 09, 2010 11:49 am ET)
                      4
                    Really? Meh. Your question is irrelevant, as are you.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by foghornleghorn (February 09, 2010 12:00 pm ET)
                      3  
                      Let's see, irrelevant...

                      Knowing the goal of the enemy is a good way to protect yourself from the enemy. And since either won't or can't say what you think is the goal of Al Queda, anything you opine about protecting ourselves from their threat is irrelevant.

                      You remain an intellectually dishonest child.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by southerngal (February 09, 2010 12:10 pm ET)
                          3
                        Then perhaps you should stop asking questions from someone you consider an irrational intellectually dishonest child. You look like a fool.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by foghornleghorn (February 09, 2010 12:14 pm ET)
                          2  
                          I see that ifthethunder... answered the question above.

                          I'll stop feeding the child. Wouldn't want little Tommy to get fat.
                          Report Abuse
                • Author by jediknight65 (February 09, 2010 12:04 pm ET)
                  2  
                  that is what im asking of you? what methods of preperation are you proposing?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (February 09, 2010 12:13 pm ET)
                      1
                    I am hoping that the recently created dept of Homeland Security are taking all legal and necessary precautions based on our intelligence to make the citizens of this country as safe from foreign and domestic terrorist attacks as possible. If that is not sufficient enough for you, too bad.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Johaely (February 10, 2010 4:24 pm ET)
                         
                      The Dept. of Homeland Security hasn't done much since its ineption to actually prevent an attack. Most of the measures have been either post-attepmt and practically draconian (Inspecting shoes after the Richard Read attack, No liquids or pastes nor aerosols after the failed explosion in London, etc) or simply useless (Red-Orange-Yellow alert system which helps us how?).
                      Report Abuse
                • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 10, 2010 10:58 am ET)
                     
                  OK. Maybe that is not what you are arguing, RightOn. But it is certainly what the right wing is arguing. We cannot have trials for these suspects because they are scared. We cannot have the trial in New York because the city should be scared. We cannot house these prisoners in Illinois because the entire area should be scared. Is there another reason that we suddenly are not supposed to use our justice system to punish these terrorists? What is it?
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by armadillo (February 09, 2010 5:55 pm ET)
              1  
              rO: "I am flat out opposed to torture, period."

              But do you or did you vote for politicians who do support torture?
              Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (February 10, 2010 10:54 am ET)
             
          "A terrorist's goal is also an apathetic society." - RightOn

          It is?? I could not disagree more with that. Why would an apathetic society play into al Qaeda's hands? And, why would blowing things up make a society apathetic?
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Asemodeous (February 08, 2010 9:23 pm ET)
           
        We lose more Americans per month in traffic accidents then we have lost to terrorist attacks in the past 50 years. It's a non-issue and highlights how paranoid and reactionary the public is.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by captfoster2 (February 08, 2010 6:46 pm ET)
      5  
      How on Earth can anyone take this simple-minded Barbie Doll seriously??? Especially after her astonishing claim that 9/11 did not happen under Bush's watch!

      Certainly the same can be said about Giuliani for the same attempts at rewriting history... but since this is about Dana Perino... HOLY CRAP!!

      Only on Cluster Fox
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Hasa Diga Eebowai (February 08, 2010 6:58 pm ET)
        2  
        Aw...but she's so darn cute. Think of the make-up sex you'd have after an evening of arguing politics.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Asemodeous (February 08, 2010 9:28 pm ET)
         
      We lose more Americans to traffic accidents per month then we have lost to terrorist attacks in the past 50 years. It is a non-issue that anybody with a hint of statistical training can see as blind as day.

      This has most to blame on the public in large, who fails to recognize that you have a better chance of dying in the shower then by a extremist anything.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.