Posted on 11/19/2009 11:05:20 AM PST by 2nd amendment mama
In a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder attempted to defend his indefensible decision to provide Khalid Sheik Mohammad and four other 9/11 terrorists with all of the rights afforded to American citizens by putting them on trial in our federal court system -- mere blocks away from Ground Zero in New York City.
Holder was grilled repeatedly about his stated rationale, at times grappling to justify his own tortured logic. We’ve put together some of the most telling moments from the hearing in transcripts, all of which are edited for length.
Early on, Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.) asked a simple question that Holder obviously wasn’t prepared to answer.
SEN. HERB KOHL: In the worst case scenario and the trial does not result in conviction, what would be your next steps?
A.G. ERIC HOLDER: Failure is not an option.
KYL: You have repeatedly said that your decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Article III courts is because that is where you have the best chance to prosecute… How could you be more likely to get a conviction in federal court when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has already asked to plead guilty before military commission and be executed?
HOLDER: The determination I make of where I think we can best try these cases does not depend on the whims or desires of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. … I have decided Article III courts are the best place to do that. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not making this decision. The attorney general of the United States is making this decision.
SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY: I don’t see how you can say that failure is not an option when you’ve got juries in this country.
HOLDER: If -- if there were the possibility that a trial were not successful, that would not mean that the person would be released into our country.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: Here’s my concern. Can you give me a case in United States history where an enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?
HOLDER: I don’t know. I’d have to look at that. I think that, you know the. . . the determination I’ve made. . .
GRAHAM: We’re making history here Mr. Attorney General. I’ll answer it for you: the answer’s no. The Ghelani case, he was indicted for pre-nine…for the Cole bombing before 9/11 and I didn’t object going into federal court. But I’ll tell 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? … When does custodial interrogation begin in his case? If we capture Bin Laden tomorrow would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?
HOLDER: Again, I’m not… it all depends.
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, there are 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 did tell him that would you jeopardize the prosecution in a federal court?
HOLDER: We have captured thousands of people on the battlefield, only a few of which have actually been given their Miranda warnings.
GRAHAM: … 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.
Sounds to me like he’s jumping to conclusions...
Ues I’m learning restraint also.
However, now the talking heads are saying that all this talk out of Justice abd the WH may well get the charges dismissed due to inability to get an impartial jury.
Sounds like the 'trial' is a farce.
What a gong show. His lawyer will have weeks of testimony on how his client was tortured. Evidence obtained via this method will be thrown out.
I see no chance at all that KSM will have a conviction (that will be upheld) in NYC. None.
I believe the primary reason that Obama wants the trial in NYC is that the extra publicity will give him the ability to knock the economy off of the front page almost at will.
The rest of the stuff about the USA getting weakened, made a joke of and intelligence compromised, is just gravy.
You’re right.
If Rodney King could get away with it, why not KSM?
Are we the new Soviet Union now?
Now I ain’t a lawyer not do I play one on TV but aren’t all these comments likely to be used by the defense to argue that the case is prejudiced and the client cannot possibly get a fair trial anywhere?
[wirh restraint] For your sake, Holder, they better convict. Because if he gets off - let’s just say it isn’t gonna be pretty.
You and me both, sis...great God Almighty!
Heard on Rush that former AG Ashcroft was quoted as saying he does NOT!
Which would leave only one person who does--the Fascist, Commander-in-Least.
Will be interesting to see how this plays out!
Court will convict KSM?
How “fair” will this trial be if the outcome is already known?
2. When they're acquitted, we will release them into the general public.
3. We will then allow them to become naturalized American citizens
4. They will then be made Democrat voters.
5. They will then win local elections with the help of Acorn, fraud, and bribery
6. One of the terrorists will then run for President.
Kinda like the movie; The life and Times of Judge Roy Bean.
It seems to me that this statement by Holder will play into the hands of KSM’s attorneys. This goes against “Innocent until proven guilty”.
This whole thing is absolutely a farce.
OK, what happened to “presumed innocent”?
The defense can now claim an unfair trial, since the “fix is in” as to a conviction.Announcing a show trial publicly is unwise.
I think KM will walk, and collect damages, which may be the point of all this in the first place.
Exactly the point, dumbass! Doh!!!
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.