“There was not a political component to my decision,” Holder told Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.).
SAY WHAT? Let's just check out the truth of that statement.
Holder listed five areas of “misinformation” that has been raised in the public debate since his announcement that he was bringing the terrorists to NYC for trial.
“First, we know that we can prosecute terrorists in our federal courts safely and securely because we have been doing so for years,” he told the committee.
So safety and security is NOT a concern? Why then will the taxpayers have to ante up $75-$100 million PER YEAR (according to Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY) to beef up security (in addition to the cost of the trial, legal team, housing etc.) And we have to do this even though the necessary security is already in place and paid for at Gitmo.
“Second, we can protect classified material during trial.” Holder said the Classified Information Procedures Act establishes “strict rules and procedures” for using classified information in trials, and it has been used in various terrorism cases.
OH, yeah, we have carefully protected classified information which is why an attorney for a terrorist from the first World Trade Center bombing was put under indictment for passing classified information to the terrorists... real secure. Oh yeah, and wasn't it classified information that was provided during discovery at another trial that made Bin Laden and Al Quieda aware of how they were being tracked?
“Third, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will have no more of a platform to spew his hateful ideology in federal court than he would have had in a military commission.”
Holder noted that Mohammad – in appearing before military commissions last year – “declared the proceedings an inquisition, he condemned his own attorneys and our Constitution, and professed his desire to become a martyr.” While his rants were heavily covered by the media, “few complained at that time that his rants threatened the fabric of our democracy.”
And if Mohammed does rant and rave, “I have every confidence that the nation and the world will see him for the coward he is. I’m not scared of what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has to say at trial, and no one else needs to be afraid, either,” Holder said.
Excuse me, Mr. Holder, do you seriously believe that American Citizens do not want to give this vile creature a very public platform from which to spew his putrid vitriol BECAUSE WE ARE AFRAID???? Mr. Holder, perhaps it is you who should be afraid, very afraid... about keeping your AG job.
“Fourth, there is nothing common – there is nothing common – about the treatment the alleged 9-11 conspirators will receive.” Holder said he expects prosecutors to seek “the ultimate and most uncommon penalty for these heinous crimes” – the death penalty.
Being Texan, I guess I don't find it quite so uncommon to give the death penalty to the worst murderers. However, that does not justify bringing this circus to our shores when they can receive the "ultimate and most uncommon penalty" right there, safely tucked away at Gitmo.
“Finally, there are some who have said that the decision means that we have reverted to a pre-9/11 mentality, or that we don’t realize that this nation is at war.” Not true, Holder said: “I know that we are at war. I know that we are at war with a vicious enemy who targets our soldiers on the battlefield in Afghanistan and our civilians in the streets here at home.”
Holder said he has personally witnessed the devastation of war – when he recently accompanied President Obama to Dover Air Force Base to witness the return of soldiers killed in the line of duty in Afghanistan; and “in the faces of the families who have lost loved ones abroad”; and in the daily intelligence reports he views each day.
Sorry, Mr. Holder, I don't buy it. You spent a couple of hours at Dover AFB and that is suppose to convince us that you understand that we are at war while you are determined to try war criminals in a civilian court? Mr. Holder, do you have ANY understanding what is required to fight a war?
ATTY GEN. HOLDER: “One thing I would say: that, with regard to those people who are captured on the battlefield, we make the determinations every day as to who should be Mirandized, who should not. Most are not Mirandized. And the people who are involved in that decision involve not only lawyers and agents but also military personnel who make the determination as to who should be Mirandized. But again, the notion that a conviction of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would depend on his getting Miranda rights is simply not accurate.”Let me get this straight... Soldiers capture a terrorist on the battlefield and they, along with lawyers and agents determine if the captured terrorist should be Mirandized? You propose that our soldiers stop and what... radio their superior officer so he can give a call to the lawyers and agents to determine if Miranda is required?
I am not the only one that didn't buy this BS... PATRIOT SALUTE to Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) for his questioning of AG Holder.
GOTCHA!
The video clip is worth the watch... but you can read the transcript by clicking on "Jump for More Info and Links" TIP: Turn the sound down and let the video load until almost finished (while you are reading all the other good stuff) and then pull the bar back to the beginning, less streaming problems that way.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
By Devlin Barrett, Associated Press
Washington (AP) - President Barack Obama predicted that professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be convicted, as Attorney General Eric Holder defended putting him the U.S. civilian legal system.
In one of a series of TV interviews during his trip to Asia, Obama said those offended by the legal privileges given to Muhammed by virtue of getting a civilian trial rather than a military tribunal won't find it "offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him."
Obama quickly added that he did not mean to suggest he was prejudging the outcome of Mohammed's trial.
Reuters: “I take great exception to the decision to give short shrift to the military commissions and to put the five most heinous criminals and war criminals into court in New York City,” an emotional Alice Hoagland, whose son Mark Bingham died on hijacked United Flight 93, told Holder. “It will give these ugly people, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh especially, very eloquent access to all the media sources in the United States.”
SOURCES
CNS NEWS
CNS NEWS
NPR
The NPR article (excerpt below) is interesting in that it has the typical liberal slant and the only thing they find to criticize is that Holder was not prepared for the question.
In one of the highlights of Wednesday's Justice Department oversight hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, attempted to put Holder on the spot with the question: would U.S. officials need to Mirandize Osama bin Ladin if it captured him, including telling the al Qaeda leader that he had the right to remain silent?
Holder essentially said no, not necessarily. It would depend on the tack the U.S. government decided to take after capturing the terrorist leader. Graham clearly wasn't persuaded by Holder's answer.
The exchange started with Graham stumping Holder with a question one would have thought the attorney general would have been prepared for.
TRANSCRIPT OF SEN. GRAHAM QUESTIONING AG HOLDER
The NPR article (excerpt below) is interesting in that it has the typical liberal slant and the only thing they find to criticize is that Holder was not prepared for the question.
In one of the highlights of Wednesday's Justice Department oversight hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, attempted to put Holder on the spot with the question: would U.S. officials need to Mirandize Osama bin Ladin if it captured him, including telling the al Qaeda leader that he had the right to remain silent?
Holder essentially said no, not necessarily. It would depend on the tack the U.S. government decided to take after capturing the terrorist leader. Graham clearly wasn't persuaded by Holder's answer.
The exchange started with Graham stumping Holder with a question one would have thought the attorney general would have been prepared for.
TRANSCRIPT OF SEN. GRAHAM QUESTIONING AG HOLDER
GRAHAM: Can you give me a case in United States history where a (sic) enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?
ATTY GEN. HOLDER: I don't know. I'd have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I've made --
SEN. GRAHAM: We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I'll answer it for you. The answer is no.
ATTY GEN. HOLDER: Well, I think --
SEN. GRAHAM: The Ghailani case -- he was indicted for the Cole bombing before 9/11. And I didn't object to it going into federal court. But I'm telling you right now. We're making history and we're making bad history. And let me tell you why. If bin Laden were caught tomorrow, would it be the position of this administration that he would be brought to justice?
ATTY GEN. HOLDER: He would certainly be brought to justice, absolutely.
SEN. GRAHAM: Where would you try him?
ATTY GEN. HOLDER: Well, we'd go through our protocol. And we'd make the determination about where he should appropriately be tried.
ATTY GEN. HOLDER: I don't know. I'd have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I've made --
SEN. GRAHAM: We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I'll answer it for you. The answer is no.
ATTY GEN. HOLDER: Well, I think --
SEN. GRAHAM: The Ghailani case -- he was indicted for the Cole bombing before 9/11. And I didn't object to it going into federal court. But I'm telling you right now. We're making history and we're making bad history. And let me tell you why. If bin Laden were caught tomorrow, would it be the position of this administration that he would be brought to justice?
ATTY GEN. HOLDER: He would certainly be brought to justice, absolutely.
SEN. GRAHAM: Where would you try him?
ATTY GEN. HOLDER: Well, we'd go through our protocol. And we'd make the determination about where he should appropriately be tried.
SEN. GRAHAM: Would you try him -- why would you take him someplace different than KSM?
ATTY GEN. HOLDER: Well, that might be the case. I don't know. I'm not --
SEN. GRAHAM: Well, let --
ATTY GEN. HOLDER: I'd have to look at all of the evidence, all of the --
SEN. GRAHAM: Well --
ATTY GEN. HOLDER: He's been indicted. He's been indicted already. (Off mike.)
SEN. GRAHAM: Does it matter if you -- if you use the law enforcement theory or the enemy combatant theory, in terms of how the case would be handled?
ATTY GEN. HOLDER: Well, I mean, bin Laden is an interesting case in that he's already been indicted in federal court.
SEN. GRAHAM: Right.
ATTY GEN. HOLDER: We have cases against him. (Off mike.)
SEN. GRAHAM: Right, well, where would -- where would you put him?
ATTY GEN. HOLDER: It would depend on how -- a variety of factors.
SEN. GRAHAM: Well, let me ask you this. Okay, let me ask you this. Let's say we capture him tomorrow. When does custodial interrogation begin in his case? If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?
ATTY GEN. HOLDER: Again I'm not -- that all depends. I mean, the notion that we --
SEN. GRAHAM: Well, it does not depend. If you're going to prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent.
The big problem I have is that you're criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we'd have mixed theories and we couldn't turn him over -- to the CIA, the FBI or military intelligence -- for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now we're saying that he is subject to criminal court in the United States. And you're confusing the people fighting this war.
What would you tell the military commander who captured him? Would you tell him, "You must read him his rights and give him a lawyer"? And if you didn't tell him that, would you jeopardize the prosecution in a federal court?
ATTY GEN. HOLDER: We have captured thousands of people on the battlefield, only a few of which have actually been given their Miranda warnings. With regard to bin Laden and the desire or the need for statements from him, the case against him at this point is so overwhelming that we do not need to --
SEN. GRAHAM: Well, it does not depend. If you're going to prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent.
The big problem I have is that you're criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we'd have mixed theories and we couldn't turn him over -- to the CIA, the FBI or military intelligence -- for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now we're saying that he is subject to criminal court in the United States. And you're confusing the people fighting this war.
What would you tell the military commander who captured him? Would you tell him, "You must read him his rights and give him a lawyer"? And if you didn't tell him that, would you jeopardize the prosecution in a federal court?
ATTY GEN. HOLDER: We have captured thousands of people on the battlefield, only a few of which have actually been given their Miranda warnings. With regard to bin Laden and the desire or the need for statements from him, the case against him at this point is so overwhelming that we do not need to --
SEN. GRAHAM: Mr. Attorney General, my only point -- the only point I'm making, that if we're going to use federal court as a disposition for terrorists, you take everything that comes with being in federal court. And what comes with being in federal court is that
the rules in this country, unlike military law -- you can have military operations, you can interrogate somebody for military intelligence purposes, and the law-enforcement rights do not attach.
But under domestic criminal law, the moment the person is in the hands of the United States government, they're entitled to be told they have a right to a lawyer and can remain silent. And if we go down that road, we're going to make this country less safe. That is my problem with what you have done.
You're a fine man. I know you want to do everything to help this country be safe, but I think you've made a fundamental mistake here. You have taken a wartime model that will allow us flexibility when it comes to intelligence gathering, and you have compromised this country's ability to deal with people who are at war with us, by interjecting into this system the possibility that they may be given the same constitutional rights as any American citizen.
And the main reason that KSM is going to court apparently is because the people he decided to kill were here in America and mostly civilian, and the person going into military court decided to kill some military members overseas. I think that is a perversion of the justice system.
ATTY GEN. HOLDER: What I said repeatedly is that we should use all the tools available to us: military courts, Article III courts. The conviction of Osama bin Laden, were he to come into our custody, would not depend on any custodial statements that he would make. The case against him, both for those cases that have already been indicted --- the case that we could make against him for the -- his involvement in the 9/11 case --
SEN. GRAHAM: Right --
ATTY GEN. HOLDER: -- would not be dependent on Miranda warnings --
SEN. GRAHAM: Mr. Attorney --
ATTY GEN. HOLDER: -- would not be dependent on custodial interrogations. And so I think in some ways you've thrown up something that is -- with all due respect, I think is a red herring.
SEN. GRAHAM: Well --
ATTY GEN. HOLDER: It would not be something -- (inaudible) --
SEN. GRAHAM: With all due respect, every military lawyer that I've talked to is deeply concerned about the fact that, if we go down this road, we're criminalizing the war and we're putting our intelligence-gathering at risk. And I will have some statements from them to back up what I'm saying.
SEN. LEAHY: Senator Graham, I --
SEN. GRAHAM: My time is up. I look forward to talking to you.
ATTY GEN. HOLDER: Sure.
SEN. LEAHY: And I --
SEN. GRAHAM: We can -- there are some issues we can agree on.
ATTY GEN. HOLDER: One thing I would say: that, with regard to those people who are captured on the battlefield, we make the determinations every day as to who should be Mirandized, who should not. Most are not Mirandized. And the people who are involved in that decision involve not only lawyers and agents but also military personnel who make the determination as to who should be Mirandized. But again, the notion that a conviction of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would depend on his getting Miranda rights is simply not accurate.
No comments:
Post a Comment