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.
१८ नोव्हेंबर, २००९
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२४५ टिप्पण्या:
245 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Spot on Professor. They are not that dumb; but it is always on days that Sarah Palin is in facebook or otherwise being heard that all of their best illusions are falling to the ground dead like the Martian Machines in War of the Worlds. Aint that strange.
And he's exactly wrong.
Had Timothy McVeigh been tried before a military tribunal a lot of what we know today about what happened would never be known and the conspiracy theorists would have a lot more grist for their mill.
or maybe that's the point, seeing as how the truthers and the birthers seem to be largely the same people and driving the debate on the right.
Eli...
When Timothy McVeigh was arrested was he mirandized?
Provided a lawyer?
Was he guaranteed his Constitutional rights?
If, for some reason, he was NOT convicted, would he have been locked up for life ANYWAY?
Eviscerates is a better description.
I really can't stand Graham's earnest McCainisms, but he truly shredded this bozo to shit.
And he did it nicely.
I think this clip begins *after* Graham gets Holder to assert that KLM will not be released no matter what the result of the trial.
Synova:
McVeigh was read his Miranda rights. What is wrong with that? He was read his Miranda rights, he had a lawyer and the system worked as it was supposed to.
Just as it worked with Ramzi bin-Youssef, Sheikh Abdul Rahman and Zacharias Moussaoi.
Why are you so afraid of giving another terrorist a trial? The track record has been pretty good lately.
Graham seems to be manning up after his supine response to the Hasan case. Bravo.
"Lindsey Graham devastates Eric Holder."
Devastating him is child's play. A flunky 1L could do this to this fucking moron.
That's not the point.
Eric Holder dangerous to the country. He is placing American civilians in harms way - needlessly. Civilians are going to be attacked because of Eric Holder and his leash-holder Barack Obama.
Barack Obama has already guaranteed that any conviction won't be held up on appeal because he's already said that KSM will be found guilty and killed.
Barack Obama has tainted the jury pool and pre-determined an outcome that will ensure KSM wins release on appeal.
The only way they can free these terrorists is guarantee them a trial and guarantee they win that trial (or appeal).
They want the terrorists freed to kill again and this is the only politically acceptable way for that to happen.
Barack Obama wants KSM to kill more Americans and he is making sure the man is freed to do it.
Obama is clearly out of his league. Unlike the previous president who found enough competent people to circle himself with, Obama's minions are equally clueless. The same ineptitude is crushing our economy, losing respect overseas, and trying to run our health care system off a cliff.
Eli Blake...I have never even considered the birther or truther stories. Who does, besides some ex-czar that made a career of telling known lies to poor fools. Obama cannot lie his way thru this job with a smile anymore. Now what shall we do with the problem of Obama, as Newsweek asks?
But we're not giving them a trial, Eli.
We're giving them a show.
This clip starts right after Graham clarifies and Holder asserts that there is NO CHANCE of KSM (or whatever the heck his name is) going free. That even if he is not convicted he will remain in custody.
So... that's not a trial.
When someone is arrested here the police follow required procedures and must ensure that the arrested person is given certain protections.
What happens when the police don't do that?
Does the "perp" get convicted?
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. Presumably a lawyer (Graham) and law prof (Althouse (haha)) would agree. But, for some reason jumping up and down and say 'Miranda' is devastating. Er...ok.
Could Althouse find a non-hotair clip that doesn't cut off Holder's answer? Seems like that could be informative, for the record--as you lawyers and law profs say.
At least, maybe this will inspire Palin to stop giving support to Graham's primary challenger.
Florida:
Barack Obama wants KSM to kill more Americans and he is making sure the man is freed to do it.
You said it, that's the kind of banter making its way around the right these days. You're hardly the first one I've heard that from. Nothing new though, they used to spell Clinton's name with a hammer and sickle replacing the 'C.'
traditionalguy:
Now what shall we do with the problem of Obama, as Newsweek asks
Well, since I'm among the majority of Americans who approve of the job he's doing, my answer is that we should re-elect him (and I have every intention of working to do that in 2012.)
Seriously...
Who here is *okay* with a show trial?
Why are you so afraid of giving another terrorist a trial?
Giving enemy aliens the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens cheapens our hard-won rights.
It also gives the terrorists perverse incentives to attack U.S. civilian targets in the effort to get into U.S. civilian court.
These are unlawful combatants who under traditional principles of international law can be executed upon capture. Now they get the rights my ancestors and I fought for? No, thanks.
Trust me, Synova,
They read him his Miranda rights. They are following procedures. As I just pointed out, they know how to prosecute terrorists by now.
Holder is confident that he will be convicted, and so am I.
And-- to answer you question-- if he is not, then they can file some different charges (doing so is not double-jeopardy, as long as they are not the same charges.)
Say,... now that he's in New York, how about being in the country without a visa? (Just joking, I know that some of you would take me seriously if I don't add this disclaimer.)
"Why are you so afraid of giving another terrorist a trial? The track record has been pretty good lately."
Actually, as someone who wants to see the current administration castrated and thrown out of office ASAP, I think (politically) this decision is definitely own goal for Team Obama.
Some of us just think it's bad policy and precedent, and may have unfortunate unintended consequences re: weak horse BS.
Politics should end at the point where someone else might point a gun (or a bomb) at us, you know?
Jim said...
I really can't stand Graham's earnest McCainisms, but he truly shredded this bozo to shit.
And he did it nicely.
Agreed. And like you said, Graham is one of McCains little hero-worshipping lapdogs. We shouldn't forget that, because the professional POW-victim said GITMO must be closed - instantly chimed in "Close GITMO! St John McCain wishes it so!!"
Then Lindsey "the human weasel" Graham - after bashing Bush and giving cover to Obama behind his Idol, the famous POW - then started having a cow about "dangerous terrorists being brought to the US" within days of praising Obama's executive order to close GITMO.
NOw he is in full-time scorching mode of Holder.
Just don't forget where the Human Weasel is coming from. A good grilling of the idiot AG - but Lindsey is every bit as inconsistent and incoherent in what he wants to do about terrorists as John McCain is when he has to flip between the love of NBC's cameras and the love of Fox's.
And Lindsey talking tough might just have a bit to do with conservatives sick of his co-dependent backstabbing of conservative policy along with McCain..will have a strong conservative challenge in next year's Senate Primaries.
It also gives the terrorists perverse incentives to attack U.S. civilian targets in the effort to get into U.S. civilian court.
If they want to attack U.S. civilian targets I doubt if where they are tried is much of a factor in consideration. Either they hope to die in an attack (like Moussaoi) or they work to avoid capture and any kind of a trial (like bin-Youssef and KSM.)
Besides, if they got to choose their court, they would all choose a Sharia court, under which if they were convicted of a crime they would lose their head within a few minutes.
Well, since I'm among the majority of Americans who approve of the job he's doing, my answer is that we should re-elect him (and I have every intention of working to do that in 2012.)
You better start working harder, then, because this hugely unpopular decision is going to contribute negatively to the legacy of Barack Hussein "One-Term" Obama.
"They read him his Miranda rights. They are following procedures. As I just pointed out, they know how to prosecute terrorists by now."
They read him his miranda rights in what universe?
And Holder did not dispute, didn't even know the case law related to his decision, that no terrorist captured on a battle field has *ever* been tried in Federal Court.
If I'm mistaken that this includes this guy and instead this guy was arrested by police officers on US soil, then I apologize.
Not that he's going to get a fair trial and assumption of innocence... Holder promised that he'd be held, no matter what happens.
This will be a zoo if it goes forth.
Obama stated that he will be convicted. Anyone remember Nixon
stating that Manson was guilty and what happened at the trial? Manson held up a copy of the LA Times quoting Nixon as saying, "Manson is guilty".
Mark:
Actually, as someone who wants to see the current administration castrated and thrown out of office ASAP, I think (politically) this decision is definitely own goal for Team Obama.
You're right about that, and I agree with you. 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.
Only ever since Rush Limbaugh said he wanted Obama to fail, I'm sure that there will now be some on the far right who will be rooting for an acquittal just so they can blame Obama.
So Eli, are you angered then at the various times where we don't mirandize those captured overseas or on the battlefields who are terrorists? Because Holder and company themselves are grossly inconsistent with who and who doesn't get mirandized.
Also, what about a KSM type who is involved with 911 but also with the USS Cole bombing thus targeting both civilians and military targets how do we handle him then. What about the interrogations of such a target?
Why are you so afraid of giving another terrorist a trial? The track record has been pretty good lately.
Because the military is not set up to Mirandaize prisoners taken on the battle field. They are also not set up to execute search warrants. They routinely bust doors down, and seize what they need. All inadmissible in U.S. courts. They also have problems with getting all the witnesses together that they need - even assuming that they are alive. It may require shipping people half way around the world, and to make matters worse, they may get pulled out of units in combat, severely impacting unit cohesion.
And, maybe the best reason is that if the military has a choice between search warrants and Miranda warnings, and shooting the illegal combatants because they appeared to be reaching for a gun, etc., they would chose shooting them. And, since the illegal combatants are not in uniform, etc., they can be shot pretty much with impunity.
I think we need Simon Cowell to be the Special Judge for the First Stalinist Show Trial since 1953. He has the heartlessness we need. No inept terrorist will get by into the next round with Simon judging them. But there is the danger that a lady Judge could fall in love with a Best Looking Terrorist in the world. Holder Justice has its fun parts and its dangers. But what the heck, WE ARE COURAGEOUS enough to be total fools and losers when Holder challenges us to do it.
No, but he will be read his rights before he is charged with a crime in federal court.
Like I said, they will make this airtight.
Oh, and by the way, Ramzi Youssef was arrested in Pakistan before being transported to New York for trial. So whoever said that KSM was the first was wrong.
Eli:
Did they read him his rights when they woke him up from his nap in Pakistan? Before they brought him to a speedy trial, what, six years later? During the torture sessions ordered by bushitler&co? I think some of the nuances of this particular situation seem to elude you.
jr565:
I have no problem with how we capture terrorists overseas. However I see nothing wrong with deciding to try KSM in New York. I trust the system to work.
In regard to other cases, there is no (and should be no) specific rule about who to try how, that's for the President and to decide (largely based on the evidence they have.) And I support the President and the Attorney General in their decision to try KSM in New York.
Michael:
No, they didn't. But now that he is being charged in a civilian court, he does have access to our system, including Miranda rights. So what? As I've pointed out, that has not prevented us from prosecuting other terrorists.
Eli wrote:
Just as it worked with Ramzi bin-Youssef, Sheikh Abdul Rahman and Zacharias Moussaoi.
Why are you so afraid of giving another terrorist a trial? The track record has been pretty good lately.
So, what about all the people who Holder has tried using military commisions thus far, who don't merit the full protection of the law. Why is Holder so afraid of giving those terrorists a trial considering the track record has been so good as of late?
I'm as baffled by your support of Holders insanity as by your lack of regard and consistency to the times when Holder decides that military tribunals are a ok after all?
Wait, wait -- what? Eli Blake, you think we should read prisoners of war taken in battle their Miranda rights? Are you high?
Eli, you're doing a better job of defending this than Holder did.
But there's not getting around the fact that the Obama administration reserves the right not to try terrorists in criminal court and the guy they are going to try in criminal court will never be let out of prison no matter the verdict.
This is a show trial. It makes a mockery of the system.
You said it, that's the kind of banter making its way around the right these days. You're hardly the first one I've heard that from. Nothing new though, they used to spell Clinton's name with a hammer and sickle replacing the 'C.'
>>>
And your buddies used to spell Bush's name as Bushitler with the S replaced by a swastika. And those were the nicer signs! What's your point?
Oh, and by the way, Ramzi Youssef was arrested in Pakistan before being transported to New York for trial.
And we know how safe we were after that--we all lived happily ever after.
You're accusing commenters here of wanting KSM to be acquitted. Seems to me that you want the sequel to the 1993 WTC bombings--i.e., another 9/11.
Eli-
The majority of Americans do NOT approve of him. He has fallen below 50% in most of the polling. If this trial takes place, he will be in the 30s. In addition to the damage to the country, it is a level of stupidity unmatched even by the previous White House denizen.
There's no confusion on the battlefield about it. Just do the usual.
It's Holder's call to effectively let the guy go free, if he's still alive to be tried of course.
The danger to our legal system is in trying to convict the guy in spite of resulting procedural errors in Federal court.
Eli wrote:
I have no problem with how we capture terrorists overseas. However I see nothing wrong with deciding to try KSM in New York. I trust the system to work.
So then why would Holder have to hold any military comissions? If you see no problem trying KSM in New York, why should you or Holder have a problem trying nameless jihadis in court as well as opposed to giving them trials by military tribunals, which Holder has done and will continue to do. Holder appears to think the military tribunal system works well enough, so i wonder why you wouldn't. There's an inconsistency here wide enough to flow a river through.
Nomilk:
You better start working harder, then, because this hugely unpopular decision is going to contribute negatively to the legacy of Barack Hussein "One-Term" Obama.
He's not afraid to make an unpopular decision, one on which he is also right. And as I pointed out in my reply to Mark, he doesn't gain political points here and an acquittal (though it won't happen) actually would be devastating politically. But we elect a President to make the calls, and he's made it. Live with it.
However, what will determine his re-election prospects will be how the economy looks in 2012.
Eli: It matters when Miranda rights are presented to the suspect. Six years after being captured is probably on the late side. If you actually believe in the efficacy of our system of justice and are aware of the tendencies of courts over the last decades then you are also aware that technicalities often prevail in the teeth of profound evidence. Thus people such as yourself are given to noting that terrorists such as the Ft. Hood shooter are "alleged" shooters, or better still, "suspects" when hundreds of witnesses actually saw the shooter do the shooting. Nothing alleged in their universe. KSM did not conduct his terrorism in the open as did the "alleged" shooter in Texas. Do you see what I am driving at here or ...what?
Just because KSM will not be freed if acquitted does not make this a 'show trial.'
Pretty much everyone except the usual mewling idiots on the left agree that KSM is a combatant, and everyone except the same mewling idiots on the left agree that the US can legally hold combatants for the duration of hostilities.
There is some legal hairiness that comes in if someone says "I am not a combatant," but that's not the case here.
This trial is not designed to and should not ascertain whether KSM can be held. The US has every right in the universe to hold him regardless of the outcome of this trial.
This trial is simply to determine if, in addition to being a combatant, KSM is also a war criminal. If he is, then whether we may execute him for his crimes.
As long as the verdict is not a foregone conclusion, then it's not a show trial.
jr565:
As I said already there is no set rule for who to try how.
So there is no contradiction. Holder is a prosecutor and he aims to get convictions. He believes he has the evidence he needs to get a conviction of KSM. In the case of the nameless jihadis, either he has less evidence (so he'd prefer that if they are acquitted it not be on national TV,) or he doesn't have the resources to prosecute all of them. KSM is high profile enough though that he looks at him like the Israelis looked at Eichmann-- a big enough fish to try on a national stage and show what happens to terrorists that attack us here.
Charges?
Prosecution $80,000,000
Security $100,000,000
Bombings $3,000,000,000
Dem frisson, World Schadenfreude, and Cochran X 100 appeal for Obama-Holder
Priceless
Eli wrote:
No, they didn't. But now that he is being charged in a civilian court, he does have access to our system, including Miranda rights. So what? As I've pointed out, that has not prevented us from prosecuting other terrorists.
Ah, so this is the kind of miranda rights that can be applied years after the fact. Now that he's been waterboarded and interrogated, er, excuse me.. TORTURED!!!!!!... he has the right to remain silent. Is that how it works in our system?
You don't think his lawyers might use his interrogation to try to get evidence thrown out on the grounds that it was coerced? And what about his right to see all the evidence with which he is being accused. You don't think that that might open up a can of worms in regards to sources and methods and or state secrets?
Why is this so hard? McVeigh was an American citizen, KLM was not. Do you see the difference there?
Why are you so afraid of giving another terrorist a trial?
Why are you asking that question again when it was answered with perfectly clarity in the video? Must we dance this hora ad infinitum?
See the slippery slope? Is there any doubt that the next US citizen who pills a Tim mcveigh will not get due process and will probably be waterboarded. the Right was already asking for this with Nidal Hassan (looking at you redstate.com). Ironically, he'll probably have voted for Bush.
After him, it will an accused child rapist. And then...
Enjoy your new freedom America. You deserve it.
I've wondered what this case could mean for Miranda rights in general.
(Also, is there new, conservative support Miranda rights?)
Michael:
If this is thrown out because he wasn't read his Miranda rights until he was transferred to U.S. federal custody than I will buy you dinner. (you can click through to my blog and link back to this post if it happens and I will mail you a certificate to a very nice restaurant.) In other words, it ain't happening. I know you think Obama and Holder would make a freshman mistake like that but I have confidence that they won't.
It seems absolutely clear that Holder is making the trial location decisions, not based on a clear policy, but rather on how much evidence there is.
The slam dunks are going to Federal court for the political balue. The iffy cases, which should get better review are gonna go to those evil Tribunals, which now are un-evil since the right people want them, even though it was a Democratic Congress that wrote the rules to start with.
Graham does have a huge point to make when he makes it clear that Obama and Holder have muddy'd the rules out on the battlefield.
At the Squadie level, OBL will likely get 2 in the chest and 1 in the head... oh well...
PS: Grahm may be a douche bag, but he spent 6 years on active duty as a JAG and is a full Colonel Instructor at that second rate USAF JAG School...His last several ADT's in Iraq working on detainee type issues. He has clearly done a lot more thinking about this than Holder.
My Colonel wife teaches once in a while at the Real JAG School (e.g. Army/UVA)
Chip Ahoy:
Ramzi Youssef was not a U.S. citizen.
And we brought him back from Pakistan for a trial. So why is this any different?
The majority of Americans do NOT approve of him. He has fallen below 50% in most of the polling. If this trial takes place, he will be in the 30s. In addition to the damage to the country, it is a level of stupidity unmatched even by the previous White House denizen.
It of course depends on which polls you use. The link was to a combined polling total. However, two of the polls seem to have significantly raised the average in favor of President Obama, and they were the WaPo and the CNN polls, which both seem to run maybe 5 points higher for Obama than the rest of the polls. Why would they do that? The snarky answer is that it is because we are talking the Washington Post and CNN. But more realistically, it may because both appear to be of adults, and not registered voters, or even likely voters. Also, one of them appears to be heavily oversampling Democrats.
There is a saying in the computer industry: GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out).
Where KLM = KSM or KFC or summat.
That's a good question, Eli, why did we?
Eli wrote:
So there is no contradiction. Holder is a prosecutor and he aims to get convictions. He believes he has the evidence he needs to get a conviction of KSM. In the case of the nameless jihadis, either he has less evidence (so he'd prefer that if they are acquitted it not be on national TV,) or he doesn't have the resources to prosecute all of them.
I don't see how he somehow wouldn't have evidence to convict KSM in a military tribunal since he has the same evidence regardless. Do you?
But even more importantly,this is not simply an argument about how to try people but rather right to confer onto people. And you seem to suggest that it's based on the ability of the prosecutor to convict someone. So if they have an airtight case and can convict using a court trial they'll do that, but if the case is a bit shakier then they'll use a tribunal instead so they can still get a conviction?
Regardless, if they have enough evidence to convict someone in a civiilan court then they certainly have enough evidence to convict usuing military tribunals since the standard is lower and someone in a military tribunal is not afforded the same degree of rights.
Eli Blake...The chance for Obama's re-election are slim and none. Does he plan to have UN supervision/fixing of US elections before 2012? The Global Warming Hoax Treaty he wants so bad could cause that result. Maybe that's why the World Governing Authority's assigned Viceroy for America seems so relaxed about future elections.
Eli- You nailed it. The terrorists around the world get to see what happens if you are tried here: Martyrdom on the worlds' largest stage. 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.
Drill SGT:
And you wouldn't if you were a prosecutor?
Prosecutors as a rule want to 1. win every case they can, 2. raise the profile of the cases they most think they can win, and 3. lower the profile of any cases they might not win, or better yet have it tried in somebody else's court.
Nothing surprising about that, it's pretty much what any county attorney in the United States does.
If the courts, for whatever reason, find that KSM innocent of these charges, they can and will order his release. Now Holder can pledge that they will not release him, sure. However - what is the point of giving him a "fair" trial? He is assured of the outcome one way or the other.
That perverts the system of justice far beyond Gitmo or military tribunals. You have to give the Bush/Cheney axis credit here - they understood the issues with criminializing this and chose a path that was the least damaging for holding and prosecuting the terrorists.
Obama and Holder are gold plated idiots. They are going to wreak more havoc on the US than Bush ever did...
Ow, that must have left a mark.
I can only hope Americans are watching their daily missteps. At least independents are, I guess.
Eli: I finally get it, you are pulling our legs. For a minute there I actually thought you were that thick. Sorry. You certainly had me going.
traditionalguy:
Global warming is being measured by the day (check sea level rise.) But that's a topic for another board.
As far as Obama's re-election let me know if you want to go to his swearing in for his second term in four years. I'll save you a space.
You know, when a bunch of random, undistinguished internet commenters can find the problems with trying KSM, it's not surprising that a Senator can.
This is a clear case of the government simply failing to think things through. It's a triumph of abstract thinking over reality.
When conservatives say a liberal isn't "serious," this is what they mean.
Where is Holder going to get a jury when the fatwahs to kill the jurors are issued?
The Irony is of course that KSM Already had a Military Tribunal and... On December 8, 2008, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his four co-defendants told the judge that they wished to confess and plead guilty to all charges.
So what if KSM stands up in open Federal Court on Day 1 of his trial, and says...
Your honor, I have already been tried on these charges, in a Federal (military) Court, and announced my guilt. Clearly jeopardy had attached. As this is a separate trial, it amounts to double jeopardy, and I move that these charges be dismissed, and I be released...
And once again, all this discourages us from capturing enemy leaders.
Why should we bother when we can find a way to kill them on the battlefield instead? Drones can't read rights.
We're creating an abstract, purely nominal procedure for treating enemy prisoners that is simply not workable. It will be replaced with a real procedure consisting of drone strikes and assassinations. The effect of the President's and Attorney General's policies is to encourage killing rather than capturing enemy leaders.
Something similar happens with our criminal justice system. We have an abstract procedure calling for adversarial hearings and trials, and then we have the reality of plea bargains. The American justice system is really plea bargaining, since the overwhelming number of defendants are handled without a trial.
It's indefensible, and yet they try. It seems Eli has resorted to "sure it's wrong but it won't matter cause he's guilty. Great.
We don't care about anything else because a thoughtful Harvard Law graduate is running things. What could go wrong? He's edumacated and everything.
Why is it that many highly educated legal minds have such little respect for the law and the centuries of development that already provide clear direction on these things? Is there any doubt that some rube like Palin would have more respect for the law than these geniuses of progressivism? At least someone like her would know what they don't know.
Now let's get this puppy fired up!
John Lynch:
I certainly hope it is just as you say and no more. I believe the administration has a delusion that a criminal trial with all the rights of a US citizen bestowed on KSM will reflect well on our nation, or at least this particular smug administration. I am not sure they have considered how it already looks when the AG says that we will not let him go even if he is found innocent, or the POTUS declaring (and backtracking on) his guilt. So far this doesn't look "fair" to me. I remember well the Nixon faux pas with Charles Manson and the smuggled newspaper that Manson held up to the jury with the headlines that Nixon had declared him guilty. Perhaps that was a more sober time but there was genuine concern that a mistrial would be declared. We are laps ahead of that with this KSM bit. Very funny if one ignored the larger implications. Which one should not.
Eli, just to clarify your position. A person can be thrown in jail for six years and repeatedly interrogated and it's constitution that just before being tried, they are finally charged with a crime and Mirandized and given a lawyer?
* * *
Question: Did you agreed with the federal government's treatment of Jose Padilla?
Holder never answered the question of what happens to OBL if we catch him after all. Does the Army read him his rights and put him on a plane to New York to meet his stable of ACLU defense attorneys? If not, what are they supposed to do?
This is not really a rhetorical question, we could capture OBL or another high value terrorist at any time. Has the administration even thought about what they'd do?
John Lynch: "When conservatives say a liberal isn't "serious," this is what they mean."
Bingo!
"There is a saying in the computer industry..."
I prefer MEGO, my eyes glaze over. This seems quite fitting after reading a bunch of hyped drivel about how Miranda is going to cause the prosecution of KSM (never mind that he was water boarded 183 times, it's Miranda that's the stumbling block) to fail.
BTW, Holder said that the decision making regarding who goes where for trial involved "the nature of the offense, the location in which the offense occurred, the identity of the victims, and the manner in which the case was investigated."
Yup, that last one is where you drive the proverbial truck, if you need to go w/ a military tribunal.
And, BTW, BHO has already said that there will be some folks who will be indefinitely detained w/o any trial. So, you blatherers expressing concern that we're having show trials because the venues are being chosen based on where the evidence will fly must, on principle, be against keeping folks indefinitely detained w/o any trial when we have no case in any system.
Of course non of y'all who protest these so called 'show trials' are opposed to indefinite detention for the folks where we don't have enough evidence for a military or federal process.
Let the blather continue.
Eli: I have not seen you around here much, perhaps I've just missed it but glad to see you in the mix. I usually disagree with you but always respect your reasnable approach.
Adding to above,
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?
Oh right, the Rs did the torture. But, this isn't political.
And, it's not like water boarding someone 183 times could also be a problem in a military tribunal. Naw. But, it's not politics.
Continue w/ the great Miranda debate.
If nothing else Obama has made liars and fools (as if that was hard) of his supporters. For seven years under Bush we heard that military tribunals were illegal and that detaining people indefinitely without trial was the dark night of fascism. Now that Obama is in office, holding KSM forever even if he is aquitted is no problem. And having military tribunals for people that we have no legit evidence on, is just great.
Ultimately, Obama's supporters were never serious. They had no idea what to do about terrorists. And worse, they didn't care. They just wanted to score political points. Obama could shoot all the GUITMO detanee and they wouldn't say anything.
Graham pretty much devistates Holder here. But in case you haven't figured it out, Holder is an idiot of the highest order. I would feel better if he was being cynical and evil. At least he would know how to do something and might do the right thing for the wrong reason. Instead, he is just a craven idiot who somehow managed to get to a position of importance. A living example of the Dilbert Principle.
Now we will have the worst of both worlds. We will be trying some terrorists in civilian court and having whatever screwy rulings courts make to ensure they are not let go acting as precedent for other non terrorism cases. And we will still have tribunals and take all of the hit in world opinion for that. Meanwhile, God knows how much intel will be compromised in the trial. Great.
Graham gets props for being one of the few decent Republicans left. But his shaking and quaking while questioning Holder in the Senate chamber is a result of his own crushing fears that the GOP has long ago lost this political battle. Their lack of confidence in our nation's system of justice is a statement in its own right. As was the lawlessness they embraced as a result.
You guys still think this is a winning strategy? You're making a mockery of American justice and the people know it.
Bush had his own reasons for maintaining the fictive "War on Terror" in Iraq and elsewhere as a purely metaphorical "war". Even he wasn't so stupid as to believe that an exclusively military approach wasn't without its own problems that could backfire, legally and otherwise, on U.S. interests.
Tim McVeigh isn't really a good comparison because he was an American citizen. He was treated from start to finish as a criminal. KSM was not.
I don't see why we have to treat foreign enemies the same as Americans, and I don't see why we have the right to do so. Even Nazi leaders were tried by an international tribunal, not by a national court system. Failing an international tribunal (I wish there was one that was credible), we should fall back on precedent from earlier wars, and that's not trying enemy leaders in federal court.
There needs to be some procedure, but it doesn't need to be the federal court system. Using our courts is bizarre, and for the reasons so many people have set out, inappropriate. It does not serve the aim of winning the war and it perverts our justice system by asking it to ignore its own rules for evidence and treatment of defendants.
There's a tremendous arrogance emanating from the President and Attorney General when they treat the courts as a rubber stamp for their decisions. KSM's conviction and execution is being treated as a given. I think the President revealed much with his gaffe when he said "when." This is supposed to be a showcase of how serious Obama is about terrorism, and a vindication of liberal ideas about how to handle the war.
That's very dangerous. The courts in this country are an independent branch, and they may prove it in how they handle this case.
"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?
Oh right, the Rs did the torture. But, this isn't political.
And, it's not like water boarding someone 183 times could also be a problem in a military tribunal. Naw. But, it's not politics."
No one cares that they waterboarded the worst human being in the world. You clowns picked the wrong poster boy for anti-torture. People are going to be surprised how well he was treated given who he is. It is a testiment to how stupid Holder and Obama are and how much of a bubble they live in that they think people are somehow going to be trouble that they waterboarded the mastermind behind 9-11.
Oh but we don't torture. And we didn't kill prisoners in Vietnam, shoot civilians in Korea or carpet bomb Japan and Germany. Oh the AMerican ideal. We just got this great country and defended it from our enemies by being such nice guys in war.
1jpb said...
I think that Miranda is used by many commenters because it is an easy and bright line concept that has been ignored in the instant situation.
The waterboarding/torture will clearly be a feature in the show as will the length of stay blah blah blah.
I believe many find this situation perplexing because it was unnecessary. The previous bumbling administration had clearly figured out that there was a significant difference in status between the people detained in Cuba and a criminal caught on U.S. soil. They seem to have understood that to bring the detainees into the criminal justice system would put the justice system in a bad light since the justice system was not devised to handle terrorism cases or war crimes. I believe a lot of conservative commenters would like to conserve a judicial system that has worked quite well without having to become so elastic that it would be a joke. Platitudes about how well the system works ignore the heightened use of technicalities to spring criminals and the bias of many in the system to exploit those technicalities. I gather a lot of writers here revere the law and take it seriously and though they might think Miranda is a joke they acknowledge its primacy in establishing the rights of the accused.
John,
I'm sure that there are plenty BHO supporters (ACLU types) who are pissed about the indefinite detention. But, I surely am not one of them, of course I campaigned for and donate money to McCain* so I'm not one of these let-the-terrorists-free libs.
Also, re classified material this is from Holder:
"Second, we can protect classified material during trial. The Classified Information Procedures Act, or CIPA, establishes strict rules and procedures for the use of classified information at trial, and we have used it to protect classified information in a range of terrorism cases. In fact, the standards recently adopted by Congress to govern the use of classified information in military commissions are derived from the very CIPA rules that we use in federal court."
You can see this and a lot more in the link Althouse has in her earlier Holder post.
*In the 2000 primary. Ha.
At 8:48 PM, the following comment was posted:
"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.?
The hard-right Republicans are showing their true colors, a real fascist streak. And I would say that it is ugly. But the more important thing is that it is un-American, weak and repulsive to what this country stands for. And an offense to reason and justice.
MUL said - The hard-right Republicans are showing their true colors, a real fascist streak. And I would say that it is ugly. But the more important thing is that it is un-American, weak and repulsive to what this country stands for. And an offense to reason and justice.
So what do you do if you're President? Does Bin Laden get Mirandized and sent to NY for trial? Hmmm?
Nicely put 1pjb,
But also include the flip side to this
I believe a lot of conservative commenters would like to conserve a judicial system that has worked quite well without having to become so elastic that it would be a joke.
Many of us would also like to see the battlefield not corrupted by the addition of defense lawyers and the requirement to read rights to any Jihadi who survivies capture.
Ritmo:
So I assume you believe that Holder should have answered that OBL should be afforded Miranda in the event of capture and that others captured in battle should be similarly treated? Or different for them? How to avoid the deadly fascist tag?
John,
My point about the water boarding was legal, not philosophical.
Surely, we can all agree that water boarding someone 183 times is a bigger problem for a prosecution in any venue, than Miranda could ever be. But, the focus here is on Miranda, because cons can't make an argument that implies that there could be a legal (in any trial venue) problem w/ water boarding someone 183 times.
In any system there are going to be some sort of rules. And, it's not like the judiciary wasn't already reaching in to Gitmo. Likewise, military tribunals are not some sort of slam dunk where anything goes. Where have you folks been?
This is so good to hear.
I had censured Lindsay because of his past behavior and for not being a real republican. I am somewhat reassured but still can't trust him. I will wait to determine if he is right for South Carolina values. He gives off a gay vibe and the concerns me greatly.
My British/Indian Husband and I are renting a remodeled barn in Vermont for New Years. The place is outside of Stowe, fabulous and very expensive. Thank you.
I thought the guiding precedent is Ex parte Quirin, where German saboteurs captured during WWII on American soil, no less, were tried by military commissions and sentenced to death. Prior to that Confederate saboteurs captured in Northern states during the Civil War were tried by military commissions and typically sentenced to death.
Does anybody know a good Con Law professor who can clarify the precedents?
I'm not a lawyer. And I doubt Maguro and Michael are either. But I've got a hunch that I understand the difference between a nation of laws and a nation of men. A nation seeking justice and a nation seeking vengeance.
Did you guys freak out about Miranda when the case was first decided, too?
For crying out loud, what more do you think Osama's going to willingly tell us to incriminate himself that we don't have on him already?
But wait, don't answer that. If your desire for vengeance is that acute, your faith in his guilt must be as strong, right? Or is your faith in government's ability to successfully prosecute that weak? Do you think the evidence that could be admitted is too weak? If so, I'd hate to learn how you come to make judgments on these sorts of things.
This is about bringing justice, not about spewing bile from the gut. But someone said they wanted to avoid a show and a spectacle that would come with a trial. I guess that's because they're already putting on enough of a show, by themselves - with the way they're acting.
Question I would have asked Holder:
"If we are going to start affording enemy sabateurs with all the rights of U.S. citizens under the Constitution, by what right would we ever send a cruise missile to destroy a suspected enemy position, an operation that may kill innocent people, and might kill suspected 'criminals' without giving them their day in court first?"
It's not just about whether we have to "mirandize" Bin Laden if we capture him....if we're required to afford him the legal right to a miranda warning, surely we're required to afford him a trial before trying to kill him. No police force can fire a cruise missile into a criminal hideout, especially without giving them a chance to surrender first.
I'd also ask Holder whether the government made a mistake by subjecting the German sabateurs captured in 1942 on our shores to a military trial and shooting them. And if that wasn't wrong, how is it that we need to afford sabateurs in 2009 constitutional rights we didn't afford them in 1942?
(These points are from Pat Buchanan's recent article.)
The maids did a fantastic job today.
The fabulous hardwood floors are gleaming.
Remind me to be xtra generous with their holiday bonus.
Thanks dolls.
Ritmo wrote:I'm not a lawyer. And I doubt Maguro and Michael are either. But I've got a hunch that I understand the difference between a nation of laws and a nation of men. A nation seeking justice and a nation seeking vengeance.
That's right, we're a nation of laws, not men, which means we shouldn't be leaving the decision as to whether an enemy combatant is tried as a criminal to whatever whim, political or otherwise, happens to grip the A.G. or president on any given day. It seems like some of these detainees are going to be tried in courts, and some in military tribunals. It has to be one or the other, for all of them. It can't depend just on whatever Holder or Obama think today. There has to be a principle that we can all understand. And their principle seems to be "will it work to our political advantage to try them as a criminal, or do we have too little evidence, so we need to try them in a military tribunal". Talk about forgoing the rule of law!
1jpb: Waterboarding is against the law. I think the 183 number refers to the number of times water was applied, not the number of times he was strapped to the board. Not to put too fine a point on it, but even one drop would be against the law. Our "alleged" terrorist was waterboarded. He is said to have confessed, but it is doubtful that anything he said was truthful because we all know that torture does not produce factual results. So our fearless prosecutors will be obliged to present evidence that our "suspect" was indeed involved in a conspiracy to commit a terrorist act. I am not sure how much evidence of this conspiracy they have gathered independently of his torture, but I should hope that it an awful lot. I agree that the torture matter is a much much bigger deal than the Miranda issue.
Just like Holder, Ritmo takes about 200 words to not answer a simple yes/no question. Lame.
The Christmas holiday will be an understated affair for my British/Indian husband and I. We prefer to make no big statements or be "seen". 24-29th in Madison, dindin with Althouse and Meade (vegetarian options a must crumputs) and then on to Vermont with the rare clumbers.
The long weekend in Vermont will consist of one day of skiing, long walks with rare clumbers, a day trip to Burlington and skipping pebbles on Lake Champaign. And if snow is on the ground making snow angels and throwing snowballs at each other and laughing and holding each other, similar to the movie Love Story.
Unless we are willing to release KLM, why are we having a trial?
It would be fascinating if we were forced to choose between releasing him or violating our precious words. A knuckle whitener on global TV.
Of course, Eric Holder is the genius who thought it would be a swell idea to pardon Marc Rich. We can trust him not to fuck this up.
Titus:
I had the good fortune to have shot pheasants this last weekend over a pair of Clumbers and it was a pleasure indeed to witness their stately pace, their pauses, their determination to seek rest. Lovely coats both.
Yeah right, MnMark! RIght on!
But just one question.
If your interest in maintaining a strict distinction between civilian and military prosecutions - complete with a digital decision tree for when we use either - is that acute, why not take up the legal limbo of the "War on Terror" as declared by Bush, with Bush himself? With Cheney?
The Republicans were the ones who started this disastrous precedent of prosecuting an action as if it were a war for propaganda purposes, but not really a war in the full sense of the word. And now that an administration that was elected to be less corrupt than they were is busy picking up the pieces of lost respect for our system of justice. Of course, that means that an Attorney General will have some discretion on deciding who will be prosecuted and how, as always, and not that such decisions would be left completely to "The Decider" and his puppeteer, as the previous duo had done - for reasons that were transparently 100% political and had not a wit to do with preserving respect for our system of justice.
We may go to Jazzman in Madison though and give crusties to the Sales Girls, who think they are amazing. Put them in their place and let them know how and what fabulous big city gays look like.
I do enjoy asking them where the Prada and Kiehl sections are in the store. And when they tell me they don't carry them showing my combo of disappointment and disgust.
That could be rewarding.
And just like George W. Bush, Maguro thinks the world owes him an oversimplified reduction of itself into terms that are understandable to him. Nothing else would be fair!
Many of us in Middle America are scratching our heads with the announcement that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four of his alleged underlings will be tried in New York civilian courts. After watching and listening to President Obama and Attorney General Holder justify the decision, the reasonable person is left with a very simple question: “Why?”
It’s easy to get lost in all of the political spinning and back-peddling taking place to justify this decision, but there is only one question that needs to be answered to determine whether or not these individuals should be tried in civilian or military courts. That question is whether the bombing of the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001 was an act of war or a crime. If the bombings were an act of war, then these individuals should be tried in military courts, period.
Unfortunately, President Obama and Attorney General Holder do not consider the bombing of Americans on U.S. soil an act of war, but a crime instead. This seems out of step with Middle America, which rejects the mental gymnastics required to arrive at the conclusion that the bombings were a crime and not an act of war.
Like many of the decisions made by President Obama, this one too is rooted in political expediency, rather than sound policymaking. President Obama has shamefully chosen to afford these terrorists all of the constitutional rights reserved to American citizens. These terrorists will now ironically and perversely cloak themselves in the very protections of the U.S. Constitution they are trying to destroy, and turn their trials into a media circus. They will portray themselves as victims of over aggressive interrogators and prosecutors, giving terrorists gasoline to pour on their fire of Islamic extremist hatred around the world as they continue to work to destroy this nation.
The techniques used by the CIA, FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security to keep this nation safe and bring these terrorists to justice will be in full display in civilian courts and in the media for the world to see, compromising the ability of these agencies to keep Americans safe now and for years to come.
President Obama and Attorney General Holder have placed New York in the crosshairs of the world’s highest profile assault on Islam, jeopardizing the safety of its residents and ripping the scabs off the wounds suffered by thousands of the survivors of loved ones lost on 9/11.
What really indicates that this is a political exercise and poor policy is the fact that these terrorists will be completely unable to get a fair trial in New York, since every person in this nation experienced the horror of 9/11 to one degree or another .
Further, the president and attorney general have given Islamic extremists exposure they couldn’t buy any where in the world—center stage in New York—to parade their message of hatred to the world.
With the past 12 months as its guide, Middle America is cynical about President Obama’s real reason for trying these terrorists in American civil courts. This administration has been looking into the rearview mirror for the past year, running against the failed policies of George Bush and Dick Cheney, rather than looking forward and putting solid policy solutions on the table for American families. In keeping with their modus operandi, President Obama wants these trials to be an indictment on George Bush and Dick Cheney, around whose neck he plans to hang the fruits of the spectacle that will be viewed by the world when these trials commence. 9/11 was an act of war and these terrorists should be tried in a military court, off of American soil, period.
A. Muser
http://americanmuser.wordpress.com
Wow Michael how exciting.
Whenever I take the rare clumbers into the woods their hunting instincts kick in. They are built low to the ground so they can get into the grass and get pheasants and partridge to get off their asses.
I took mine to a park last weekend and they got a partridge up. It was amazing I could hear the partridge "drum". Would loved to of had at gun and shot that bitch.
I knew it was Bush's fault. I just had a feeling and it's never wrong.
Ritmo...You want the USA to attain to perfect justice as if that is an ideal around here. Wrong.Our ideal is to Guard Our Land from enemies domestic and foreign. We own the place. We call it our private property and our individual rights. If you, or an AlQueda terrorist, wants to go to war to steal our land and our freedom, then we will finish the war any way we chose to so that we can resume our pursuit of life, liberty and happyness. Shame us all you want.We have done far worse things than you even know about. It doesn't work. Now how will you handle a problem like us American free people? Calling our fighting spirit fascist is cheap propaganda that misses reality by a mile.
1jpb - if it were up to me, Big Brother would be executed on live television. Yeah I just said it. DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER!!!!! DOWN WITH THE PARTY!!! You will not control my thoughts!
"I do enjoy asking them where the Prada and Kiehl sections are in the store. "
Is Titus a BS expert, or really, really (as in, last week) new money. Prada and Kiehl? I mean the stuff isn't awful, but if the point is to demonstrate true sophistication these are captital 'W' Weak.
Then maintain your fighting spirit all you want. But keep it far away from our system of justice and stop pretending that you can discern justice from vengeance, or law from safety. And read Benjamin Franklin sometime, for crying out loud. He was the one, after all, who realized the amount of faith it would take for the citizens to "keep" the republic. If they wanted it. Geez.
Ritmo - Way to dodge the question! Maybe Obama will appoint you AG after Holder gets canned.
And by the way, TG, did you just equivocate between me and an "al Queda" terrorist? And this comes from the mind you want to convince me I should trust on matters of justice? Not a very convincing approach. And as for what a "free people" decided, you seem to keep missing the answer on that one, too. But I suppose the people who can't get what they want will resort to saying that they are the free ones, right? Freedom means they get to forego due process when they want, right? Freedom means they pretend that this election wasn't decided democratically, right? Or that if it was, it doesn't count anymore, right? Or that the outcome wasn't good enough?
No wonder you feel impotent over the outcome of KSM's trial. But that's a different thing. You are wearing vengeance goggles and refusing to consider a matter of justice for what it is.
Maguro demonstrates the "moral clarity" of an islamist. Or a military-justice purist. But the flexibility of a jurist he seems to lack. Good thing he's not presenting the government's case. But he'd make a good Torquemada - that grand seeker of justice.
Eli: So you are saying this is a show trial.
So there are two justices. One that will be used to preen the prosecutor, and another where the evidence is less clear or more unsavory in it's providence.
This particular situation will be what it is. But the idea that law enforcement can prevent these things has been tried and shown to be a particularly grisly failure.
Derel
And BTW, I don't have a set or strongly-held position on these matters. But I've come to trust the Bush approach of "just allow us to turn on maximum vengeance and everything will be A-OK!" less and less. So if those who still defend and cling to the approaches of that discredited administration want to do any convincing, methinks they're going to have to try a bit harder. And more cogently.
I'm not convinced that the administration is right on this. But I think the opposition needs to be challenged a lot more.
What I see from this boondoggle is that Al Jazeera will have a field day with this show trial. I think Zero needs to realize that if the judge says KSM has to be released because he should never have been arrested, his Miranda rights were violated from the get-go, then KSM may have to be released no matter what Holder and Zero say. I also wonder if the witnesses that the feds call will dare to testify against KSM knowing that if they do they automatically get a fatwa against them, their family and all their loved ones. Al Qaeda could give the Mafia lessons in Omerta.
I also do not like the idea of the DOJ having the right to decide if future prisoners get military trials or civilian trials based on what Holder said there. That smacks a lot of the Nazi way of dividing those who will get the gas chamber from those who will not. Seems a lot like the same principle.
All in all the whole mess strikes me as yet another screwup by this screwed up administration.
Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?
Irrelevant. Lindsey presumes facts not in evidence, namely that KSM was an "enemy combatant," and that he was caught on a battlefield. But the US has caught terrorists and tried them all the time -- well over a hundred since 2001.
Can Lindsey give us a case in US history where a criminal caught somewhere on Planet Earth was tried by court-martial?
Ritmo...Funny that you refer us to Ben Franklin who was the colonial ambassador to King George seeking to resolve differences. He wanted to remain British and he had even gotten his son the Royal Governor's appointment in New Jersey from the King. Then he arranged the secret release of a letter to the King from another Governor planning to defeat the colonist's rights. The Privy Counsel verbakky treated Ben like you verbally treat American's for several hours and sent him home. Ben then became a staunch Patriot, and his son would not stand with him. The two never reconciled. Fighting has a cost. You see Ritmo, Ben understood that fighting together or being killed by the British Empire were the real choices for him once it was made clear that the King was at war with the Colonies. Only confusion had been his enemy until then because of his deep respect for the English ideals and civilisation like you push as the answer. Once he understood the actual depravity of England, he never again counseled moderation. Ben was our first fascist from your point of view.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
I realize a lot of these people are not in a position to be afforded rights. But neither are "War on Terrr" crusaders to be trusted on how to bring enemies to justice.
What the U.S. did in the past may or may not be relevant, atrocious or not. In an era of this much information though, the Soviet gulag ideal advocated upthread is not an option.
You want to restrict the openness of one's trial? You're going to have to be more convincing. The charge that we're losing a will for vengeance in our fighting spirit just won't cut it any more.
Could the AJ have been less prepared.
Q: "Could Bin Laden be interrogated upon capture or must he be read and afforded Miranda rights?"
A: "It depends."
Mr. Attorney General, let me thank you in advance for that clear guidance to the people who capture him. Or capture any other terrorist engaged in attempts to injure American citizens at home or abroad.
Senator Graham lied though. Holder is not a fine man. He is a hack, an embarrassingly ill prepared hack in this case.
Ritmo:
Since you don't want maximum vengeance with Bin Laden, does in between vengeance sound to you?
Or vengeance lite?
Sen. Graham did well in this appearance. Unfortunately, there are other times when he seems to much less the conservative and more a "Silk Stocking John Lindsay" countryclub Republican.
On the other hand, Holder appears to be a dithering politician in an appointed position explaining why we shouldn't believe our lying eyes and distrustful ears; instead accept his snake oil statements.
wv: siess is used for manure.
Big Mike: Ex parte Quirin held that saboteurs may, but were not required to, be tried by a military court. 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.
Why did we not declare war on La Cosa Nostra? Most of them were not US citizens, many of their crimes were acts of terrorism, and certainly trying them in military tribunals would have been easier than waiting for Elliot Ness to get them for tax evasion.
Can Lindsey give us a case in US history where a criminal caught somewhere on Planet Earth was tried by court-martial?
Ah, you can look at my 9:39 post, or, better yet go to Westlaw (or even Wikipedia) and look up "Ex parte Quirin."
Ritmo... We are not confused. It is not working to challege Americans to stop fighting the war with the Saudi Arabian Guerilla Army tha calls itself Al Queada. Justice is administered for us in our courts by our Attorneys and Judges and Jurors. Al Queada murderers cannot get justice from our courts. Holder and you know that. Telling us that we are cowards for not trying to do that impossible act is only a cheap trick. No one is listening to that Tokyo Rose type of propaganda anymore. You have a real problem.
see, this is what you get when you start responding to BSR.
You never get an answer. But boy do you get words. Lots and lots of words. A cascade of words.
Arcing across a robin's egg sky.
Insofar as we are engaged in a war, you can declare a war on the piddly little organization that calls itself "al Qaeda", even still.
Or you can go the full distance that Hoosier and others go and pretend that we're in a war with a billion plus individuals around the planet who practice a religion that has the misfortune of merely not having caught up to the five hundred year head-start that yours has on it as a civilization.
But if you want to have a better sense of clarity, you'll accept that the real war is within that religion - between adherents of it who are captivated by looking backward and antagonizing their traditional Western adversaries, and those who look forward, who admire the ideals this country espouses, and want to use that as a basis for bringing themselves into the modern fold. Because right now, on the global scene, they have few better examples from which to choose.
You go ahead and decide which side you are on in that fight. I already know where I stand.
Or you can continue deluding yourself into thinking that the false slogan of a propaganda war on a tactic is the way to go, the way to frame this. But if you are going to war with a political tactic, or with a political idea, instead of with the country of England 2040 years ago, you'd better start thinking about how your own tactics and ideas are actually different, and set a better example. Or not.
Shut up Miller. I want as few words as possible out of your mouth.
The techniques used by the CIA, FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security to keep this nation safe and bring these terrorists to justice will be in full display in civilian courts and in the media for the world to see, compromising the ability of these agencies to keep Americans safe now and for years to come.
There are other serious discussions of the problems raised by trying this in a civilan court, miranidizing only being one part.
See Andy McCarthy (who prosecuted the Blind Sheik in NY) in NRO here and here.
Holder, of course, in an Alinsky mode, refers to McCarthy (who, unlike Holder, HAS prosecuted an Islamist radical in civilian court) as a "polemicist" who says "inflammatory things for talk shows."
Ritmo Brasileiro = Montana Urban Legend = IGNORE
The more you rely on argument by assertion, TG, the more convinced I am that you are wrong.
Alex reveals his astounding forensics skills.
He is also irrelevant to this debate - and any other. And everyone knows it.
Your false either/or dichotomy won't work, TG. No one is saying that none of these people can be engaged by military means. We are arguing over why any assumption that trying a top-level AQ official or anyone else in a civilian court is condemned to disaster. As I said, I don't have a prejudiced view/prejudgment on this (unlike you), but your guys are not making clear and cogent cases. Just fulminating. And leaving "persuadables" less convinced. Like me.
Ritmo...Either I am wrong or you are wrong. Time will tell, and I can wait. You have asserted that Americans owe the world a perfect ideal just culture. We don't. We only owe you a fair warning, which you insist on calling assertion.
@FLS, I was about to log off and go to bed. If I can't get my work done tomorrow I'm going blame you.
Actually, in the case of the 8 German saboteurs I think that at least a couple of them held US citizenship -- you may wish to check on that.
I'm having a hard time making the leap of "al Qaeda is like the Mafia." Laying aside the citizenship issue, where I think you are factually wrong, there has to be a difference between an organization that breaks the law to get rich versus an organization that exists to do nothing but kill Americans, any Americans, as many as possible. A military commission is set up to handle the latter, the case of Zacarias Moussaoui suggests to me that the American judicial system is not.
The existence of suicide bombers breaks down the whole concept of terrorism as a legal matter. What is the appropriate punishment for a suicide bomber who has succeeded in his (or her, don't let's forget) mission?
We could both be wrong. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is the historian's fallacy. And we don't owe anyone perfection. But we owe ourselves an honest, open and fair system. If you think we can preserve that while forgoing trials as often as possible, it makes me think you believe civilian justice is as odds with honesty. It makes me think you believe our system of justice is at odds with breaking the enemies of America.
Now I don't want to believe that. Not just yet, anyway. But if you do, just say so and I guess I'll have to accept that there is nothing in this country worth saving as we're basically the same as al Qaeda in all the important aspects and that it only comes down to who wants to win more. But the question of who wants to win when we lose the terms of the war to our enemies doesn't seem to occur to you. I'm not sure why, though. It may be a philosophical consideration but it seems to be the core of what you think we're fighting them about.
Ritzy Brassiere, aka Montana Urban Legend, wrote (9:51): And now that an administration that was elected to be less corrupt than they were is busy picking up the pieces of lost respect for our system of justice.
Notwithstanding the fact that this gem is not even a complete or intelligible sentence, the underlying premise is ridiculous. The Obots are "picking up the pieces"? How is that? By forgiving Black Panthers who harass voters at the polls? By illegally firing an Inspector General who exposes corruption by an Obama contributor? By, as A Muser correctly points out, providing Al Qaeda, with discovery in a federal criminal court that lays bare U.S. security measures taken against terrorists?
And what's with the "vengeance" crap. How does wanting a terrorist and enemy combatant* convicted in a military tribunal instead of a federal court equate with vengeance? Is capital punishment less capital if meted out by a criminal court?
Ritzy's comments are just blather from an habitually contentious lefty who hasn't a clue about the issues or the law in the matter.
*No one disputes KSM's status as enemy combatant except fls, another clueless, habitually contentious lefty. (10:20)
Why are we scared? Valid or not, Miranda has become the boogeyman in popular culture. For years it was a constant in TV crime procedurals with bad guys getting off because they were not properly Mirandized. BTW, what was the technicality that allowed Bill Ayers to go free?
To my mind, the real issue is, as Andy McCarthy pointed out in the corner is the difference in rules on discovery. Can we deny a man on trial for his life the fishing expedition that discovery can be? And will information on sources, collaborators, and the like not be passed on to those who wish us dead?
But if you do, just say so and I guess I'll have to accept that there is nothing in this country worth saving as we're basically the same as al Qaeda in all the important aspects ....
See what I mean? What absolute bollocks!
Notwithstanding the fact that Hombraneus Homunculus (I'll refrain from calling him Hombraneus Masturbatorius out of respect for TG's presence here) nitpicks over trivialities from the administration while ignoring the larger point - the much greater corruption of the previous administration and those addicted to defending its approach on everything, does he have anything to say?
Of course he doesn't. He never does.
Notwithstanding the fact that I have a typo, "that", in the quoted passage, does Homunculus have a reason, a legal motive, for arguing for a tribunal? If it has nothing to do with vengeance than where are his fellow-travelers approaching this from?
Another one of those gems in his arsenal of unserious comments. Oh wait, the run-on sentence might confuse him. It might make him even more confused than he is used to. Drats!
Actually, that's perfect.
"Bollocks" you say! You absolute sex pistol, you! Sexy Hombre!
You should market your own muskrat-odored cologne.
What philosophical difference is there between a society motivated by vengeance and other prurient concerns rather than by justice, then?
Oh wait, you defended the rights of homosexuals in 1980s Texas - and still have a bitter taste in your mouth over that. Bad question.
So, the response to a charge of "show trial" and the resulting civilian precedents being created is... Don't worry, we guarantee a convictions?
Do you guys even understand the question?
Could we just bring it to the basic question or two: How is a predetermined outcome justice? And, how will putting our finger on the scale not set precedent unnecessarily.
This question has been considered before, by smarter folk.
I still don't get where Ritmo is coming from. Is it or is it not ok to use military tribunals? If so when? Does he or does he not realize that those being afforded rights under a military tribunal are not given the same rights as those afforded under our civil law. Is he or is he not ok with that? And when?
If he is not ok with it, then explain how Holder and Obama using tribunals whenever they can is somehow justifiable and explain how some people should, based on Holder or Obama's assertions be given fewer or more rights as needed.
If he is ok with them, then explain why, if they are used for the nameless jihadis, and there is no moral objection to using them and doing so isn't implementing vengeance, as opposed to justice, that somehow they can't be used on KSM or OBL or another high ranking Al Qaeda member?
THe left was up in arms about Bush establishing a military tribunal to deal with certain people captured in the war on terror, some on the battlefield and some not on the battlefield. But the left wasn't saying it was ok for Bush to try some people using tribunals, but not others. The whole idea of anything short of full blown rights was a moral affront to them. Holding them for an extended duration was an assault on our very soul and dimished us as a country. Now Obama/Holder can use tribunals when he wants or he can send them to kangaroo courts and suggest that they will be given fair trials even though an outcome is all but certain, or he can hold people indefinitely. It's all up to Obama/Holder.
Seems to me that if you can establish that military tribunals are constitutional and ethical, there is absolutely no reason to then suggest that we can't try people using them.
But where do you stand?
Holder must be a complete idiot, or else he thinks the entire American voting public are morons.
How could he be any LESS prepared to defend or explain the highest-profile decision of his short tenure? This decision impacts national security and sets legal precedent in civil criminal trials for non-citizen enemy combatants in a war that isn't ending anytime soon, no matter what Obama's decisions in Afghanistan and Iraq turn out to be.
Are ANY of Obama's important Cabinet appointments qualified and capable of doing their job? Geithner and Holder are certainly busts.
Of course, those smarter folk wouldn't include someone so clueless as elHombre, now, would they?
Hombre is the master(bator) of coming to the defense of a position clamored for by people with a clear motivation that he, himself, denies, and then pretends has nothing to do with the argument. "By the way!" the masturbator exclaims. "You don't need that motivation to request such and such! I may now declare that motivation beside the point. Eureka!"
It doesn't dawn on that dumb-ass that without certain motivation, the broad support for a certain move withers away and no one makes the argument for it anymore.
By the way, original name, elHombre. Did you not think that we would preceive that you are a man? Or that you are manly enough?
Clearly you know a basic word in Spanish, though. So you've got a skill that's not so rare in your neck of the woods to fall back on, perhaps as a way to make up for the piss-poor quality of your legalisms.
Is there any way to entice the pro-civilian trial group to answer the fundamental questions?
Dodge, dodge, dodge.
Wave your hands, point at something in the distance, the questions remain. Answer a couple.
MnMark - That's right, we're a nation of laws, not men..
A stupid slogan.
Actually, The People are sovereign over any law and the social contract they forged creating a Republic came well before the present "Sacred Parchment".
The Constitution starts with "We the People do Establish and Ordain" - followed by a few thousand words of verbiage. If The People wish it so, any law can be tossed on the bonfire. Even up to the whole "Sacred Parchment".
The fetish over proving how good and nice America is by creating new enemy rights is unsustainable.
The People are getting sick of a Ruling Elite that seems out to shaft them on jobs going to China, the whole cabal of NYC financiers that will never see a day in jail, their kids in debt because we bailed out reckless idiots from the greedy dumbass that bought a 500,000 house on income that could only sustain a 180,000 mortgage right up to the re-enriched Goldman Sachs exec who was sipping 100 dollar antique gin martinis in 2007, in trouble in 2008, and landed 30 million in bonuses in 2009 because inside DC clout had funneled billions in AIG bailout back to GS and triggered big bonus pay.
The People are sick of elite lawyers wanting terrorists and enemy soldiers protected by the Constitution and sick to know soldiers were unprotected from a raging Muslim Jihadi by PC that intimidated all his superiors and FBI investigators to ignore a dozen serious warning signs about the guy.
I think your side is the one that owes more answers.
For instance, why is a "show trial" assumed to be for the benefit of the accused?
I mean, you love to shock and awe the enemy with explosions and such (until he blows up a few dozen bystanders with an IED, I guess). But the spectacle of a trial is to make a mockery of us rather than an example of him?
Why?
Why don't your guys try actually answering a question for once and then we'll assume that your opposition deserves the respect it assumes to be entitled to. Seeing as how they're out of office and all and lost the presidency and majorities on both houses on, in part, such fundamental questions.
Speaking of just answering the question without dodging, I wear shorts when it's hot because: it's hot, my legs look just fine and women compliment in person even if they make fun otherwise.
See, that's not so hard.
I see Nazi sympathizer C-fud takes the opportunity to declare laws and the constitution to be worthless, which is in keeping with the "Just because!" spirit of the reasoning behind this entire thread.
Why do I not feel surprised?
It would be nice if Senator Graham didn't feel the need to point out what a "fine man" Eric Holder is while crushing him. Enough of this fraternal DC bullshit. As far as I'm concerned the Obama administration is at war with this country and I'd like someone on capitol hill to call them on it without pussyfooting around.
Ritmo...A last thought for you tonight. In war the aggressive and brutal attacking side wins. A careful evaluation of who is right and who is wrong and how we can judge the highest virtue attainable simply paralyzes the men we ask to do the fighting and dying for us. Such philosophical conundrums are only leisure time activities. Until the enemy surrenders that idealistic game is not relevant to the task at hand. Have you read Samuel Elliott Morrison's 16 vol. History of US Naval Operations in World war Two. That was an after action type of report that will further your understanding of how the American people act while at war. We elected our first black President, but he was elected to lead America and not to lead the world's offensive against the war like Americans.
"I mean, you love to shock and awe the enemy with explosions and such (until he blows up a few dozen bystanders with an IED, I guess). But the spectacle of a trial is to make a mockery of us rather than an example of him?"
Not sure who you mean by "you" there.
Maybe you're not the baked dude without a job down the street, so maybe I'm not the guy shooting a puppy because he wasn't patriotic enough.
Wave hands. Point at something in the distance. There is a question or two in dispute though.
That's a good, well-argued point, kathleen.
I mean, a few weeks ago, Bagoh20 told us of his willingness to offer his nuts for the sake of fighting terrorism. It was a very interesting argument, to say the least.
After all, if you can't castrate an al Qaeda operative during the course of an interrogation, what's the point of defeating them?
I think you're carrying the banner for the cause of gratuitousness as if that were the cause very well.
Well played.
How much more of this can the cons take? What will they do next?
Perhaps they can dress up in a bright color and hold up catchy signs at these hearings. How about...pink!
Ritzy Brassiere, aka Brazilian Samba Rhythm, aka Montana Urban Legend, wrote (Was it 11:23, or 11:47, or 11:29?): [ElHombre] nitpicks over trivialities from the administration while ignoring the larger point - the much greater corruption of the previous administration and those addicted to defending its approach on everything,....
"[T]he larger point"? Do you understand the word "previous"? Bush is gone, pinhead! I don't defend him, because I have noticed that. The largest and only point is what are the new guys doing?
What they are doing, for starters, is opting for an unprecedented prosecution in a venue with a higher standard of proof, discovery rules that jeopardize national security, and procedural rules that are impractical when dealing with non-military combatants.
Forgive me if I don't waste my time, or that of others here who already understand, trying to explain the legal problems to you. Like the other Obamalites who post here, you don't read for comprehension anyway.
BTW, are you aware that sock puppetry may be a sign of mental illness?
"This clip starts right after Graham clarifies and Holder asserts that there is NO CHANCE of KSM (or whatever the heck his name is) going free. That even if he is not convicted he will remain in custody.
So... that's not a trial."
Right.
It's a show.
I still don't get where Ritmo is coming from. Is it or is it not ok to use military tribunals?
Actually its simple, When Obama accuses someone of being an enemy combatant, tries them in military court and puts them away forever on flimsy evidence, its absolutely fine, because it's not Bush doing it. That (and show trials) will make the rest of the world love us.
And it really doesn't matter if the left uses quotes around war and doesn't think they're at war with AQ....because AQ thinks they're at war with you.
(tw) Obicemy - porn for fat folks
Here's one of my many problems with this situation.
If what was done to KSM, how he was handled post-arrest/capture was not done at the hands of a "military" officer, but rather a "police" officer, my suspicion is that any criminal law judge would nullify the prosecution, dismiss outright, as a shock to the conscience (waterboarding, holding the defendant incommunicado indefinitely...) Forget about just excluding his post arrest statements as involuntary and in violation of Miranda.
But the problem is, that CAN'T happen here. Given the situation no judge would do that.
The law will be forced to (in not just the respect, but many others) pretend that the rules it is using are the same as the rules it would use for any criminal defendant. But they cannot be.
In short, trying KSM will force our system of criminal law to shame itself.. to publicly proclaim blatent hypocracies and inconsistencies as thei opposite. Just the normal workings of the US criminal law justice system in just another case. (Because that's the whole point of having rule by law - consistent treatment under the law IS law, regardless of the content of the rules applied.)
Shame will be the only result for the system. It's not just the lies. But the specific lie of having to pretend he was judged under the same rules as any criminal defendant. This is the lie at the heart.. the lie that proves that there is no law here.
And it will all take place on a hugely public stage, comparable, probably only to the OJ trial.
Why must we shame ourselves this way? Why must we so shame the criminal law? The man will not be allowed to go free if found not guilty of all criminal charges. So why are we doing it? What will we gain from the shame?
While I still have just as much respect as ever for the fighting spirit, and hope it provides well for us in this matter, I will still have to assume that strategy is at least as important as aggression and brutality in this conflict, as in any other. And the enemy is persistent, in it for the long haul and not merely physical in nature.
Oh oh. I see Ritzy the sock puppet has dropped back into vitriolic unintelligibility again.
I hope it wasn't anything I said. LOL!
"The law will be forced to (in not just the respect, but many others) pretend that the rules it is using are the same as the rules it would use for any criminal defendant. But they cannot be."
See, that's weird, it's almost like we have a fundamental problem here.
Anyone from the other camp feel like addressing this?
Andrew McCarthy takes Holder down, point by dishonest point.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTE3ZGUzYzc5NzI2OWYxMWFlMjVhNDk3M2Q0YTlmMzk=
don't miss this part:
Holder: For eight years justice has been delayed — no longer, "It is past time to finally act."
AM: Holder, of course, does not mention the role of his firm and others in delaying and derailing the military commissions during their representation of America's enemies. Senator Kyl just confronted him with my contentions on that score (from this column). The attorney-general responded that I am a polemecist who says inflammatory things for talk shows, whereas he is concerned with facts. (I guess he means pertinent facts, like how he is not "scared of KSM.") I'm delighted to let people judge that one for themselves.
Hombraneus, stop being a pinhead. If you read for comprehension, as you seem to claim, you would have picked up on the crucial element of "its approach".
For starters, defending Bush's approach to prosecuting AQ does not require Bush to be in office.
Now, other than for higher standard of proof, everything else you bleat on about is an argument by assertion.
Since legally changing one's name is not a mental illness, I don't assume that changing one's name on-line is either. But your own alias may indicate some other type of shortcoming, as I discussed.
Now get a good night's rest and stop getting scared by all those shape-shifting libruls and Muslims and intellecshulls and homasekshulls. Good Boy!
Ritmo,
1) Are you for or against military tribunals? Why or why not? Can they be used, and when?
2)If they can be used, and ARE being used by Obama to try certain combatants, then why is there a need to try other combatants using a totally separate set of standards?
3) Does it make sense to afford MORE rights to someone like KSM than it does to afford rights to some shlub in Guantanamo?
4) Was the objection to bush using tribunals that he implemented them at all or that he used them on the wrong people?
5)If OBL was captured, though he has never set foot on American soil, but was involved in 9/11 which targeted american civilians, would we/should we try him using a tribunal or using our federal courts?
Wow. Will no one come forward and defend this on the merits?
That's, uhhh, salient.
1) No set position on this.
2) The GWOT cannot be prosecuted completely militarily, completely secretly, completely with maximum advantage to the government. Islamists should be defeated in various ways, in various venues, through various means, and without some sort of cowardice that assumes their imminent success otherwise.
3) I suppose not from a legal standpoint. From a political and moral standpoint, probably so.
4) The objection is to Bush thinking he had a handle on anything in this regard when it comes to a long-term strategy.
5)Probably civilian but I have no set, prejudged opinion on that.
6) The Geneva Convention allows people to be held for the duration of hostilities who are lawful combatants, but the Geneva convention does not allow them to have civilian trials with full rights? Should saboteurs and mercenaries be afforded more rights than those legitimatel captured in battle?
7) Was the US right or wrong in using military tribunals to try and execute Nazi saboteurs captured in the US before they could sabotage anything, and was the world right or wrong to try Nazi war criminals using tribunals, which actually afforded them fewer rights than those provided to those prisoners who faced military tribunals under George Bush? Or did the use of such tribunals destroy our soul as Americans?
Sorry. For 3) I should say: I suppose not from a moral standpoint. From a political and legal standpoint, probably so.
I'll get to 6 and 7 tomorrow. Listening to DA MAN (in Spanish) persistently substitute outrage and contempt for thought has worn me out and it's late.
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.
The law aside (yes, you must put the law aside to conduct this trial), it appears Holder's semi-brilliant strategy is to avoid key elements and evidence - so as to close such doors to the defense.
Holder is a fool, and there's no other way to put it. But the people who go along with this farce - his farce - are setting themselves up to be even bigger fools.
Shit like this, I'm sorry, I don't buy the whole Obama is smart anymore. It's dumb legally. It's dumb practically. It's dumb politically.
There are a few dozen people wearing in pink in San Fran who dig it. The Dems aren't a national party anymore.
8) Osama declared war on us in 1998. Can we define his attacks on us and our targets as acts of war? Congress authorized the use of the ar power to defend against attacks from Al Qaeda. Was congress wrong to do so?
9) Lincoln tried saboteurs during the Civil war using war commisions and FDR tried nazi saboteurs using war commissions and both times such actions were upheld by the Supreme court. Is there a fundamental difference between saboteurs of a nazi stripe and Al Qaeda, that would cause the venue to be changed to civilian courts?
10) Obama said about Nuremberg: "Part of what made us different was even after these Nazis had performed atrocities, we still gave them a day in court, and that taught the entire world about who we are but also the basic principles of rule of law."Did we in fact give them a day in court, or did we try them by using tribunals? Did Obama, invoking Nuremberg to advocate giving terrorists a day in court underscore that he is a fool since the argument presented completely undercuts his argument? Would Obama, do you think, try Nazis today in civil courts or using tribunals?
10) If tribunals that afforded fewer rights to the nazis than Bush afforded to those captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and during the war on terror "taught the world who we are and upheld the basic principles of the rule of law, then how can Bush be he worlds biggest nazi for using tribunals? Would those caterwauling against Bush for setting up tribunals similarly speak out against FDR for his use of tribunals?
11) If Nuremberg upheld the principles of the rule of law and if we tried saboteurs using tribunals ad not civilian courts in the past, and if the Supreme court upheld such rulings and if Obama himself uses tribunals where necessary (including on members of Al Qaeda who were accused of being part of the attack on the USS Cole) then explain why we can't try KSM or OBL in tribunals but must try them in civil courts?
Whoops, meant to say Would those caterwauling against Bush for setting up tribunals similarly speak out against Truman and the world for their use of tribunals.
"Lindsey "the human weasel" Graham - after bashing Bush and giving cover to Obama "
Kinda like C-fudd, except C-fudd's qualifications as "human" are somewhat debatable. He's got "weasel" covered like stink on shit, though.
"Nazi sympathizer C-fud" ... who voted for Obama. Well, the three of them have the same posture towards Joooos and Israel (probably along w/ritmo).
I just watched it at this late hour. You know, I dislike Lindsey Graham intensely, but he truly destroyed our blathering Attorney General. Starting at minute 3:14, what Graham said is EXACTLY what I feel about this process of trying KSM and others in federal courts.
It's the first time in 4 years (since 2006) that I have felt proud of a member of Congress.
Cheers,
Victoria
Ummm...re: Miranda rights...do they really exist anymore? There are a metric assload of cases in which, even though the suspect was not read his/her Miranda rights, the confession has been admitted into evidence. I've been involved in one of them. I was arrested as a teen for what at the time was a felony charge (later mitigated to a misdemeanor), and was never read any Miranda rights. The charge was possession of paraphernalia. I was underage and had a pipe that had been used to smoke pot in my car while speeding in the state of GA. At that time, it was a felony charge. I was never read any rights, Miranda or otherwise. But that had no effect on the case because, as the lawyer and judge so succinctly put it, "that's not really relevant". And yes, part of the case against me included me saying, on the side of the road after not being read my rights "yeah, sorry, a friend gave that to me, it was used to smoke pot tonight". So really...is this
"Miranda rights" thing that much of an issue, or is it just bullshit people are hiding behind to support their argument in this case?
Let's say that Holder gets a conviction. Then there will be an appeal to the Second Circuit court. What will they say about the lack of a Miranda reading, and the fact that the appellant was tortured(?). Would it suddenly be ok to do those things? Would it set a precedent? Kick it up the court system to the Supreme Court. How would they rule on those newly changes to court and law protocol.
There was a rumor about five years ago that when KSM was first caught he was asked some preliminary questions. His reply "I'm not saying anything until I'm in New York and have a lawyer."
After dunking a few times he went from judicial Sphinx to canary. Holder is finally acceding to his first request.
Myself, I can't wait for the spectacle. Ron Kuby for the defense, Code Pink sending him cookies, Manhattan in a three year traffic snarl, demonstrators, counter-demonstrators, breathless 24 hour news coverage, questions at each presidential presser, yum, yum, ..and in the background... double-digit unemployment, an out-of-control deficit, dithering on Afghanistan, health-care debacle, the feckless Stimulous,
Cap and Trade,...the prefect storm.
rhhardin said:
"The danger to our legal system is in trying to convict the guy in spite of resulting procedural errors in Federal court."
Spot on. This case would set precedents that could harm all our due process rights.
Jiminey Christmas, Holder can't even bullshit well.
He sounds like a guy plucked from his night manager job at the local convenience store and made CEO.
Good Lord. I expected at least some intelligent obfuscating and Standard Bureaucratic Blather. But this? How embarrassingly vacant.
Some of the commenters on this post did a better job answering the questions.
outrageously unqualified for his job is better than my "about four levels below the skill sets required" for the AG job.
This creepy little pretender should be off in Zug working for Marc Rich whom he got the liar under oath to pardon at the last second of an ill-starred melodrama about nine years ago.
Imitating Dear Leader is as close as this freak will ever get to real notoriety. Otherwise he is just pathetic.
Synova said...
Eli... When Timothy McVeigh was arrested was he mirandized? Provided a lawyer? Was he guaranteed his Constitutional rights? If, for some reason, he was NOT convicted, would he have been locked up for life ANYWAY?
I'm not sure what your point is. I assume the answers are (1) yes, (2) yes if he was poor, (3) yes, and (4) no. That's pretty much the American criminal justice system 101.
Whether KSM should be dealt with using the criminal justice system is another question.
12 trillion dollars in debt and counting.
Yes, I trust the Harvard and Yale elites who run the govenment to handle this case perfectly.
What could go wrong?
The fact that we are even discussing whether enemy combatants, captured on a battle field in far away countries, should be mirandized and given the same trials and rights as American citizens (or even persons "arrested" in America for crimes/acts which took place here) is truly absurd.
When you capture the enemy on the field of battle you hold him as a POW until the war is over. Part of the problem is we're so PC we can't say out loud what the problem is and who the enemy is. They don't have any trouble declaring that they are at war with us.
They know Alinsky better than Obama. Force the enemy (us) to play be impossible rules (our own). Except these are not our rules or anyone elses. No one give enemy combatants or soldiers trials in civilian courts.
He's lying. So is Obama.
Mr. Holder and the current administration did not give these individuals their day in court and be read their Miranda rights
Such hypocrisy!
As the song goes-
"If you can't lie any better than that, you might as well tell the truth."
Eli Blake is correct insofar as federal prosecutors having a respectable record of convictions in trying terrorists. He seems to forget, or thinks the rest of us have forgotten, that treating terrorism as a law enforcement matter was SOP through all of WJC's administration, and GWB's up until 09/11/01. Remember that Clinton was offered Bin Laden, but refused because he didn't believe a conviction could be gotten.
Anybody remember how that worked out? Not that we are keeping score, but Khobar Towers, USS Cole, US Embassy bombings, WTC I, WTC II. Lib Dems have been explicitly arguing for a return to that SOP, consequences be damned.
Holder is perfect at his job. He is an obsequious "place holder" effectively insulating Obama operation from dealing with an Attorney General with a mind or ethical requirements of his own. John Ashcroft had guts and he stood up to the political forces surrounding the Administration of Justice at the Federal Level. 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.
How scary is it that Eric Holder doesn't know how bin Laden should be handled if he were captured tomorrow? These are the people that said getting bin Laden was all-important, that anything else was just a distraction. And they don't even know what to do with him.
I feel especially bad for the people in our military. They must feel completely jerked around right now. What a clusterfuck.
Miranda is not likely a serious issue by comparison
LOL. So now Miranda is no biggie.
So even if he's acquitted, their going to keep him locked up?
And these guys think they're morally superior to the previous administration?
Hello TRundgren
Is that you?
Chip Ahoy wrote: Must we dance this hora ad infinitum?
Great metaphor. This is why I read the comments.
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.
I hadn't quite seen that, but I think you are right. Excellent point!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा