Crushing:
Holder imagines that he can hide inside that "thoughtful" routine that Obama so often relies on, but it is utterly pathetic here. Either he knows damned well what he's doing and he's lying or he's outrageously unqualified for his job. His evasive style is so similar to Obama's that he makes Obama look worse.
November 18, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
245 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 245 of 245I expect that this trial will officially raise in evidence practices which would not be allowed in the capture and prosecution of an "ordinary" criminal. The purpose of the trial is not to determine the guilt of KSM, nor to give him any chance of being released. It will provide a basis for someone to indict Bush/Cheney.
I thought people tried in federal court were presumed innocent. It's clear from the words of the President and attorney general that this presumption does not exist. KSM is so dangerous he cannot be released.
Will this trial set a precedent for defining certain defendants so dangerous that they cannot be released, even if found innocent, or hung jury?
"tg wrote: But Obama has no fear that Holder will do anymore than Hold the Job so that no real Attorney General gets in Obama's way."
He's never been worried about any obstructionism by Holder. Holder and Obama are ideological peas-in-pod. They share an identical world outlook.
Eric Holder's law firm directly represented the 9-11 attackers before he was elevated to Attorney General. He and his firm are one of the main reasons this has drug on for so long and his goal has always, ALWAYS been to have the terrorists given the civil rights of US Citizens and tried in civil courts.
The principal reason there were so few military trials is the tireless campaign conducted by leftist lawyers to derail military tribunals by challenging them in the courts. Many of those lawyers are now working for the Obama Justice Department. That includes Holder, whose firm, Covington & Burling, volunteered its services to at least 18 of America’s enemies in lawsuits they brought against the American people. (During 2007 alone, Covington contributed more than 3,000 hours of free, top-flight legal assistance to our enemy detainees.)
There is a HUGE conflict of interest here with Holder and his former firm Covington and Burling, from whom Holder also received a nifty 1 to 5 million dollar severance package when he became Attny General.
Holder is dirty, and his former firm stands to profit greatly with this upcoming show trial. They already represent some of those currently held in GITMO and will probably receive millions more. Big payback.
All of this is just another example of Obama paying off those who helped to get him elected at the expense and safety of the American people.
These criminals, and that includes Obama, are shameless and are TRAITORS who mean us harm. We are in great danger every day just because people foolishly elected these thugs and gangsters.
Thanks a bunch Ann.
It should be noted that Holder does not, IMO, have the constitutional authority to determine the venue regarding KSM. Not that it matters, not when the Constitution is considered a living document.
Perhaps the professor can show where I'm wrong -- I've read the Constitution many times and have not seen where it authorized military tribunals for the trial of non-US civilians.
Interesting, DBQ.
Also,
I didn't catch this at the time:
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R-S.C): Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?
ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I don't know. I'd have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I've made --
GRAHAM: We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I'll answer it for you. The answer is no.
HOLDER: Well, I think --
GRAHAM: The Ghailani case -- he was indicted for the Cole bombing before 9/11. And I didn't object to it going into federal court. But I'm telling you right now. We're making history and we're making bad history. And let me tell you why.
When Graham said, "I'll answer it for you. The answer is no" I thought he meant none - the answer is there have been no cases.
But he was really saying: No, you can't think of one even though there was one and only one - the Ghailani case - and you, as Attorney General, brought that case to federal court.
Holder is either dumb, stupid, incompetent, lying... or all of the above.
Guantanamo detainee denies guilt
"Earlier, US Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement: 'With his appearance in federal court today, Ahmed Ghailani is being held accountable for his alleged role in the bombing of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya.'"
DBQ wrote: There is a HUGE conflict of interest here with Holder and his former firm Covington and Burling....
Holder is dirty, and his former firm stands to profit greatly with this upcoming show trial. They already represent some of those currently held in GITMO ....
Not to mention the issues that won't be raised by the defense attorneys, who are cut from the same cloth as Obaholder.
If there is an opportunity to further the cause of the Dems at Bush/Repub expense by going on with this farce, there will be no motions to exclude DOJ because of Holder's conflict, change venues from NY, dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or constitutional authority, etc.
Surreal isn't it?
I'm not trying to be dumb here, but what is the purpose of the "trial" if everyone involved in prosecuting the trial admits that the outcome is foreordained as "guilty"?
I mean, this is not a trial. This is an exposé or a show, but it's not a trial, is it?
Or am I just ignorant of what constitutes a trial?
I served on a jury as a foreman. It was clear to me then that the result of our deliberations was the legal guilt or innocence of the defendant. He was innocent until proved guilty.
If KSM goes before a jury, will he be innocent? Can the jury declare him innocent/not guilty, and will that judgment have any effect?
Will KSM be freed if the jury declares him not guilty?
I am just asking questions.
So it goes.
Ritmo (thinking I liked MUL better but so be it):
"Why do you think the Russians sent their worst political enemies to Siberia rather than shoot them and be done with it? The perps are neutered and cannot be martyred. Gitmo was our Gulag 19. You try them and shoot them after they are long forgotten. That is deterrence."
And how well did that work for the Soviets, Elliott A.?
It worked GREAT!!! Are you kidding me? Do you pretend that, other than very indirectly, the repercussions of the Arkhipelag GULag are what brought the Soviet system down? Rather, it kept them afloat for decades!
If the Russian people had been free to call Lenin and Stalin murderous wankers, you think that would have PERPETUATED communism?
I'm not even going to get into mud-throwing, simply going to ask you to explain yourself.
How low has our government sunk when an Attorney General has to be lectured on the responsibilities of his job by a politician?
miller said...
I'm not trying to be dumb here, but what is the purpose of the "trial" if everyone involved in prosecuting the trial admits that the outcome is foreordained as "guilty"?
Well for one thing, Holder who does not support the death penalty, has selected the best venue to protect his client, whoops, he isnt representing KSM any more is he.
Well KSM faced a releastic chance of death in from of 7 combat Colonels. In Virginia, we have the death penalty and in ur last big terror trial they got 11/12 for death.. No cigar. But we put the Beltway sniper down last week, so it can happen. In NY? not so good. NY has no state death penalty and no terrorist has ever gotten a death sentence there. The last trial broke 7/12, when you need 12/12.
So Holder did KSM a huge favor in some regards
I'm not trying to be dumb here, but what is the purpose of the "trial" if everyone involved in prosecuting the trial admits that the outcome is foreordained as "guilty"?
It's been a while since I had a good discussion of foreordination and predestination. Suffice it to say that in the Divine case, we all have free will and can do as we like, and in consequence some of us will be saved while others will burn in Hell for all eternity. Similarly, while here we can predict the outcome to a great degree of certainty, every player has free will and can do as they choose.
NY has no state death penalty
Which is not relevant to a Federal prosecution.
Drill: Spot on except that a Fed. trial judgement does not depend on the state where the fed. trial court is located.
Also, Holder is making a mockery of our court system when he pronounces KSM guilty, never to be released.
There's been a feeling IMHO in the US that Obama et al want to destroy our current form of government and system to replace it with a "more representative caring" form. Not certain Obama means a Socialist system or what. Plus Obama really doesn't like our Constitution with its "negative rights," his words.
Well, let's avoid the problem with a theological word and get back to the point:
Isn't there a problem with calling this a "trial"?
Isn't this just a scripted show where the output is already determined in advance as declared by MC President and his assistant Holder?
None dare call it "trial"
Isn't this just a scripted show where the output is already determined in advance as declared by MC President and his assistant Holder?
I think there are two things operating here. One is that Obama and Holder are certain that no jury will let KSM go free, once they hear the evidence with which O and H are familiar. The other is that even if KSM were to be acquitted, the US can continue to detain him on other grounds.
Further, if wikipedia is accurate, KSM was also involved in the WTC bombing, by financing it. So that would be another prosecution.
Had Timothy McVeigh been tried before a military tribunal a lot of what we know today about what happened would never be known
Why not? That seems like an odd claim to make. The facts that came out in the actual trial were pretty basic. The conspiracy theorists even now claim that McVeigh was associated with foreign terrorists, something the Feds deny.
Perhaps the professor can show where I'm wrong -- I've read the Constitution many times and have not seen where it authorized military tribunals for the trial of non-US civilians.
Non sequitur. The point made was that Holder does not have "the constitutional authority to determine the venue regarding KSM". Your response evaded that point.
Congress did pass a law requiring military trials for non-US terrorists, or "civilians" as you quaintly call them.
Perhaps you can say, based on your multiple readings of the Constitution, why you think that law is inoperative.
I'm not trying to be dumb here, but what is the purpose of the "trial" if everyone involved in prosecuting the trial admits that the outcome is foreordained as "guilty"?
The whole point is to invalidate the entire system of mliitary trials for captured terrorists. Once KSM has a day in criminal court it will be impossble to deny the same to everybody else in Gitmo.
FLS said...NY has no state death penalty. Which is not relevant to a Federal prosecution.
OldGrouchy Doug Wright said...
Drill: Spot on except that a Fed. trial judgement does not depend on the state where the fed. trial court is located.
agree, but the lack of a state death penalty gives one insight into the local opinion. Trust me, Upstate NY is far more death penalty friendly than NYC. The local attitudes are very much anti-death compared to say, VA
This just gets better and better. According to Byron York's article in The Examiner later in the hearing Senator Grassley asked Holder for "The names of political appointees in your department who represent detainees or who work for organizations advocating on their behalf?"
Our Attorney General said he would consider it. He claimed reluctance based on questions of attorney-client privilege.
So I'm wondering a) can he even claim to provide a fair trial with such staff, b) is he setting KSM up for total reversal and vindication in higher courts, and c) has he spent so long in a culture of intimidating his enemies that he no longer even considers right and wrong?
What was the devastating part? He seemed to be focused on Miranda. My guess is that if the prosecution has a case that can hold up even though the guy was water boarded more than 150 times, Miranda is not likely a serious issue by comparison.
It might help if you watched the clip, which has nothing to do with reading KSM his Miranda rights.
Your response evaded that point. I could not parse that sentence in any way that made much sense. The Constitution does not spell out the powers of the Attorney-General. But it does vest the judicial power of the United States in the Judicial Branch, not in the Army. Finally, in a criminal case, venue is proper in the place where the crime occurred. Therefore I do not see how Holder would be exceeding his Constitutional authority by specifying the venue in which KSM would be tried.
fls,
So you believe the UCMJ is unconstitutional? Were the Nuremberg trials unconstitutional, too?
I could not parse that sentence in any way that made much sense. The Constitution does not spell out the powers of the Attorney-General.
The claim made was that Holder does not have "the constitutional authority to determine the venue regarding KSM".
I think its remarkable that your responses to this consist of answering some other questions entirely. In fact your own answer seems to be that Holder does not have the constitutional authority to determine the venue regarding KSM! So why not just say that?
But it does vest the judicial power of the United States in the Judicial Branch
Subject to such exceptions and restrictons as Congress may make. I'm sure a frequent reader of the Constitution such as yourself remembers that passage.
Finally, in a criminal case, venue is proper in the place where the crime occurred.
Yes, I know you are expert at begging the question. Regardless of what you may think, and what Obama and Holder may really believe, the Dems are at least pretending to believe that 9/11 was an act of war and not some mere burglary gone awry. Holder said as much in his testimony.
the UCMJ is unconstitutional?
Nay, Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to regulate the land and naval forces
Were the Nuremberg trials unconstitutional, too?
"International law is part of our law."
Synova and the rest of you guys can take solace in the fact that either KSM will be convicted (and I'm sure he will) or Obama will be blamed for any other outcome.
The decision to to try KSM in criminal court has diddly to do with KSM. I'm sure that Obama and Holder are largely indifferent as to whether or not he's convicted. KSM is not the target here for the Dems.
I think its remarkable that your responses to this consist of answering some other questions entirely.
Your question does not make sense as written. Only you know what you're talking about. Kindly rephrase it if you want an answer. I've reached the limit of what guesswork can do.
Subject to such exceptions and restrictons as Congress may make. I'm sure a frequent reader of the Constitution such as yourself remembers that passage.
The publisher left that sentence out of my copy of the Constitution.
"International law is part of our law."
Which has nothing to do with the Nuremberg trials. I'm sensing a pattern in your debating technique.
Your question does not make sense as written.
You understand the question perfectly, you simply pretend to be dumb so as to avoid answering it.
Does Holder possess the Constutional authority to determine the proper venue for KSM to be put on trial? Yes or no?
Btw, he obviously thinks he does possess at least the legal authority to do so.
Yes, there's a certain pattern of refusal to answer questions.
The part I don't get still, though, is if MC President and his assistant already have declared KSM as not free-able and will be found guilty -- why have the trial? What is it going to accomplish?
The publisher left that sentence out of my copy of the Constitution.
That seems to be a common problem with people on the left. We'd all get along much better if you didn't work from these abridged versions of the Constitution. FYI, the full version is widely avalable online.
the full version is widely avalable online.
If you can find your phrase in it, I will FedEx you a left-over fun size Snickers bar.
1jpb: "Has anyone asked why the focus is on Miranda as a stumbling block rather than 183 water boardings which seem more like a mountain, in comparison?"
Yes, this is from way yesterday, so?
I wanted to answer this clearly.
Miranda is a symbolic reference to ALL the elements of the case and situation that do not conform to the protections afforded by our justice system.
So it's not just Miranda rights, it's all rights afforded to the accused including the assumption of innocence, speedy trial, jury of peers, etc.
And I am not at all reassured by the idea that I can be confident that there is no chance that this terrorist will go free. There really are some things more important and the integrity of our criminal justice system and Constitutional protections ARE more important than that man.
If I had to choose, I'd put the guy in street clothes and let him off somewhere and consider that I got the much better end of the deal.
If you can find your phrase in it, I will FedEx you a left-over fun size Snickers bar.
I don't recall saying that "my phrase" was in it. The absense of quotation marks on my part was a pretty big signal that I was not quoting the exact text.
What I did do was correctly paraphrase what the text said - it says that Congress can restrict what the Supreme Court does and how it does it.
Or to give the exact cite, "the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
Your wanting to be a pedant does not trouble me. Your being a poor excuse for one does.
I see you're still struggling with the answer to the question posed earlier.
Does Holder possess the Constutional authority to determine the proper venue for KSM to be put on trial? Yes or no?
I suppose you're still trying to parse the question in such a fashion that you can refuse to answer it.
Former Law Student----The difference between the would-be saboteurs in Quirin and al-Qaeda was that the would-be saboteurs were German nationals acting on behalf of Germany (with which we were at war) without anything identifying them as German military, while al-Qaeda are a bunch of thugs acting on their own.
Former Law student is assuming a fact not in evidence - that Al Queda members were acting on their own. Also, under the Geneva Convention, there is not a requirement for a state of war to be declared.
Former Law Student Contradicts himself...
First he says
But it does vest the judicial power of the United States in the Judicial Branch, not in the Army.
Then he correctly says that military judicial authority comes from Congress
Nay, Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to regulate the land and naval forces
(that's where the UCMJ comes from)
And further, Congress sets jurisdiction of all courts but the Supreme Court. Which is why the laws Congress passed should have been adhered to.
Also, can one of the liberals please explain why the Massoui case is considered a success?
----Others objected to the degree to which the court and especially Judge Leonie Brinkema tolerated the bizarre and threatening courtroom behavior of Moussaoui.[2] Moussaoui expressed contempt for the trial and court by introducing legal motions deriding Judge Brinkema, surprised onlookers by electing to represent himself in court, and rankled federal prosecutors by requesting the presence of captured al-Qaeda members as witnesses in his case. During the course of the proceedings, Moussaoui admitted his guilt in various degrees, and to being a member of al-Qaeda.
During the trial, Moussaoui initially stated that he was not involved in the September 11 attacks, but that he was planning an attack of his own. Some al-Qaeda members reportedly corroborated Moussaoui's statement to an extent, saying that he was involved in a plot other than September 11, but prosecutors believed that his story had no merit. On April 3, 2006, Moussaoui was found to be eligible for the death penalty. Before leaving the courtroom, he was reported to have shouted, "You will never get my blood. God curse you all!"[3] Later that month he withdrew his qualifications and again admitted guilt on all charges levied by the prosecution.
On May 3, 2006, a jury decided against the death penalty for Moussaoui. The next day, he was sentenced to life in prison without parole. As he was led out of the courtroom, Moussaoui clapped his hands and said, "America, you lost... I won."[
Is it because a self-professed enemy of America was able to say "I won"?
First, Congress may define jurisdiction limits on the Supreme court. Although, there might be political and legal issues with a severe limitations of said jurisdiction.
Second, Congress obviously sets jurisdiction limits on the lower courts and on military courts through the UCMJ.
Moussaoui lives so who really knows whether he won or lost. However, our legal system won.
And, regarding KSM and federal courts, Holder is setting the USA up to be hypocrites in the court of world opinion and in the eyes of our citizenry. Or, Holder is setting up a major restriction on the USA: Holder's view is that "the facts are such, you're guilty;" suffer little citizens.
We are living in the hell of most interesting times of our own choosing; that sucks, big time.
Under George Bush and Dick Cheney, Zacarias Moussaoui was tried in northern Virginia, near the Pentagon.
Where wer Huckleberry Graham, Ann Althouse and all the other right wing lemmings then?
Why is it horrible and awful to have such a trial under Obama but it didn't elicit a peep under Bush?
Hypocrites.
former law student,
Let's get to the most basic principle about the Constitution:
The Constitution was written for citizens, not non-citizens. The Constitution gives citizens rights and our government guidelines to follow to maintain those rights. Being a citizen of the United States comes with privileges that non-citizens are not afforded under our Constitution.
Look back to the war that those that wrote the Constitution experienced. Military tribunals were used as far back as the Revolutionary War by George Washington.
Prisoners of war were not treated as citizens, but were held without trial, without rights. Taking care of them as we do today was not our concern. The only thing they could look forward to was a prisoner exchange, if they made it that far.
Our legal system was not made for those enemy combatants, but for those U.S. citizens, under our law, who broke our law.
As for KSM, he should be tried by military tribunal.
They have worked effectively since the beginning of our country to punish those outside our country who would like to harm us. We are able to prosecute fairly without added security concerns or loss of sensitive intelligence.
Holder's decision breaks grossly with that precedence.
1. al-Qaeda is not a state -- if al-Qaeda were acting under the authority of a state let us subdue that state ASAP as we did the Barbary Pirates who acted under the authority of the several Barbary Coast states.
2. Unless al-Qaeda was part of our armed forces I don't see how Congress's power to regulate our land forces extends to it.
3. The law of armed combat has changed dramatically since the Constitution was drafted. We can no longer rely on the customs and usages of that faraway day.
4. Considering that the judiciary has been trying terrorists forever, though Congress could say that the judiciary could no longer try terrorists, I doubt the judiciary would put up with it. They've already demanded their right to habeas corpus.\
5. At many points the Constitution maks it clear it applies to foreigners as well, ...and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
1. It does not matter if al-Qaeda is a foreign state or not. These people are non-citizens from many different foreign states, mercenaries against America in a common foreign state in which we are warring.
2. Not sure I understand your second point.
3. Sure, many laws have changed, but this is a discussion about the Constitution and what we think it meant, and we can divine many of the founders intentions by their actions and writings. The tribunal has been used EVER SINCE the Revolutionary War. It is not old and outdated.
4. Your are correct in saying that the judicial has been trying foreign enemy combatants or terrorists in the past...in the form of tribunals. The Constitution says "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Tribunals are one of those ordained inferior courts. So, again I say the tribunals are a much better choice.
As for habeas corpus, how is it that KSM has it if both the President and the attorney general have stated that if he was acquitted, he would remain in the custody of the state? If you are going to give him Constitutional rights, you have to give them all to him. It seems like a political decision to try him here because they are picking and choosing which rights they would give him. That's not the way the Constitution works. We are a nation under law not the arbitrary decisions of one man (Holder).
5."...and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
This again is talking about dealings with those in foreign lands from an American citizen's point of view. It does not place our law over those of other countries. The US has no right or jurisdiction to force people of other countries to obey our laws. And since they cannot forced to be under our law, we also do not have the right or jurisdiction to afford them our rights under the Constitution. We don't have the rule over them. But in time of war or when they are on our soil we can prosecute them for acts committed.
To those doing the Timothy McVeigh comparison, remember Timothy McVeigh was a U.S citizen and entitled to rights and a trial in a U.S court. That cannot be said in this situation. These trials are being held in New York because of White House egos. Nothing more. To those that are so sure of conviction...two letters: O.J. Also, who would want to be on the jury? Who would put their life at risk for that???
Post a Comment