Is Eric Holder Seriously Defending His Blunder?

Why is it so hard for Eric Holder to accept the fact that he bungled the decision to treat the "underwear bomber", Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, as a criminal defendant in the U.S. Courts as opposed to an enemy combatant? As an immediate consequence of that decision, the FBI's interrogation of Abdulmutallab on Christmas Day, which was yielding potential valuable national security information, was abruptly curtailed to "mirandize" him. Thereupon, Abulmutallab was given a court-appointed lawyer and thereafter refused to answer any further questions. Holder seemingly made this ill-thought-out decision without consulting senior military personnel, the Department of Homeland Security or the President.

Why did Holder act unilaterally and so abruptly? Whatever legal justifications may have been offered then, Holder's decision was primarily political as opposed to being the only possible result under federal or martial law. Clearly, before the Attorney General or anyone can determine the appropriate forum for trying an individual under the circumstances at hand, the individual's status as an enemy combatant or not must be resolved not the other way around. However, in an effort to distance itself from the Bush Administration and Guantanamo Bay and to demonstrate to the world that the United States is now operating under a different set of legal guidelines than previously employed under the Bush Administration, the chief legal officer of the Obama Administration wasted no time in appeasing America's critics as opposed to arriving at the best course of legally justifiable action for the United States. This would be gross malfeasance for any legal officer of the U.S., but it is absolutely unconscionable for the U.S. Attorney General to act in such a self-righteous and self-serving manner.

No person, not even the Attorney General, was entitled to determine by himself whether Abulmutallab was an "ordinary" criminal defendant or an enemy combatant. The only reason for his precipitous behavior must have been to cut off, silence or preclude any debate on that question. And lo and behold, now Holder has much explaining to do. Yet despite the overwhelming condemnation of his conduct, Holder continues to insist that Abulmutallab actions can be addressed through the criminal justice system.

Whether or not that is true is beyond the point. The question is whether Holder should have made the decision he made in the manner he made it. Holder seems less than prepared to argue the merits of that question.