Posted on 11/18/2009 10:38:56 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Senator Lindsey Graham, of all people, destroys Our Attorney General (and Obama) on their idiotic decision to fight this war as a law enforcement issue:
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.
Dan Karipides at Wizbang isn’t buying it. He doesn’t believe Holder is this much of an amateur:
Which unfortunately leaves the second option. That, as Jay Tea suggested earlier, the administration plans to use the trial to go after Bush, Cheney, and the evil-Republicans-that-torture. Perhaps they were still counting on a public environment where such a tactic would be cheered. What Holder was truly unprepared for was anyone questioning the decision in the first place.
Bingo! And there you have it. This Administration is so cocky….so arrogant…they just could not believe that a decision like this would be questioned.
You first have to start off with the old truism that “conservatives think liberals are stupid; liberals think conservatives are evil.”
With that in mind, the Obama administration’s actions suddenly make perfect sense.
To them, the trial of the accused terrorists is merely a means to an end. And that end is, to them, a greater justice that must be served.
Some critics are asking questions like “what if they are not convicted?” What would happen if a jury finds — for whatever reason, such as mistreatment of the defendants at the hands of the government during their years of pre-trial detention — that to convict them would be unjust?
That doesn’t matter.
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net ...
I agree. Eric Holder’s ego was brought down a couple of notches.
Uhhh . . .
Let me think.
Holder is a complete joke, only rivaled by Janet Reno in incompetence.
Oh man, Graham does. He slams him!!
It would be interesting if someone organized another Tea Party in New York City to protest the trials. Last April 15th several thousand showed up for the Tax Day demonstration.
How many would come out now, I wonder?
The definition of “show trial”
**************************************EXCERPT*********************************
posted at 1:36 pm on November 18, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Jim Geraghty transcribes an exchange this afternoon between Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Attorney General Eric Holder on the administration’s commitment to the federal court system. Holder had previously insisted that the federal court system gave the government its best opportunity to convict Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, although he failed to explain how he reached that conclusion. When Grassley challenges Holder to explain how the administration would react to an acquittal or dismissal of the charges, Holder says it wouldn’t change anything:
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa: “I don’t think you can say that failure to convict is not an option, when we have juries in this country.”
Attorney General Eric Holder: I have thought about that possibility. Congress has passed legislation that would not allow the release of these individuals in this country. If there is not a successful conclusion to this trial, that would not mean that this person would be released into this country…
Grassley: My understanding is that if for some reason he’s not convicted, or a judge lets him off on a technicallity, he’ll be an enemy combatant, so you’re right back where you started.
Not only will we be right back where we started, it will expose the federal trial as nothing more than a show trial. Show trials are conducted by despots and dictators to give only a thin veneer of legality to political detentions and executions. If the state isn’t prepared to abide by the decision of the court, including dismissals and acquittals, then the use of the trial system is worse than useless. It demeans the federal system needed for Americans to seek unbiased justice.
Lest we forget that dismissals could be a big problem with a KSM trial, Andy McCarthy reminds us of the Moussaoui trial and its circus atmosphere:
More importantly, though, Senator Durbin and the attorney general fail to point out that the Moussaoui trial was a three-ring circus, that the district judge actually tried to dismiss the indictment, and that we don’t know what would have happened had Moussaoui not surprised everyone by pleading guilty. When the Court of Appeals reinstated the Moussaoui indictment, it also said it was sensitive to the trial judge’s concerns and would look very carefully to ensure that the government made available to Moussaoui all the information he needed to present his defense. What would have happened if Moussaoui had continued to press his demand for access to classified information and testimony from al-Qaeda captives like KSM? We don’t know.
If Moussaoui is their shining example of how well the civilian courts handle international terrorism cases during wartime, they’re in trouble.
In fact, Jon Kyl used Andy’s columns to rebut Holder during his testimony. McCarthy helped with the trial of the 1993 World Trade Center terrorist attack, exactly the kind of trial Holder wants to conduct again, but Holder dismisses Andy as a polemicist who just wants “fodder for the talk shows.” One might think that Holder would have more respect for a man with a lot more experience at handling the prosecution of terrorists than Holder himself has.
As James Joyner also concludes, it’s impossible to see Holder’s assertion that the US will detain KSM no matter what the court finds as anything other than an endorsement for “a show trial and a sham.”
OK, but to what end. He will still be AG and the thugs will still be coming to NY.
Is Graham right though?
Does prosecuting KSM in Federal court, necessarily imply that KSM is entitled to all constitutional rights afforded to U.S. citizens.
Or can the court distinquish between rights afforded U.S. citizens and rights afforded non-citizen military combatants?
the administration plans to use the trial to go after Bush, Cheney, and the evil-Republicans-that-torture.
See #11....they aren’t really concerned about that.
#11 may be right, they have never missed an opportunity to blame Bush. But until they do, that is speculation.
However, my question still stands, is Graham right?
For later.
This is a call for Holder to resign or be fired; he either is displaying complete ignorance of the legal and logical effects of this decision, or he seeks to give a war criminal a stage and an easy opportunity to be acquitted and is therefore endangering the U.S. public and making a mockery of our civilian courts. In either case, he is utterly unqualified to serve as a U.S. attorney, let alone AG.
Flawless performance by Lindsey.
Destroyed is right
War and Crime are two entirely different things.
It is monumental insanity to conflate the two. If you fight a war with lawyers, you will lose and the world will laugh at your foolishness.
Agreed....this whole thing is about nailing Bush and Cheney and they can’t do that by Military Tribunal!! It’s all about blame and pay back!!
Holder and Obozo both need to be impeached for this and all the other lies and crap they’ve done!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.