Ever seen an Attorney General squirm before? Senator Lindsey Graham questioned Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder on Holder's idiotic decision to give the 9/11 master-mind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, constitutional rights. Graham slices and dices Holder into tiny little pieces by hammering home the point that once you give constitutional rights to terrorists, they must be given Miranda rights, be given an attorney, and be told that they have the right to remain silent, etc.
Graham gives Holder plenty of opportunity to explain himself, but he beats around the bush, bumbling and mumbling none answers. Holder can't even say how Osama bin Laden would be treated if captured, after Graham asks him if bin Laden should be read his rights if captured. Holder even discloses that they have read Miranda rights to terrorists captured in the battle field of the now banned term, "War on Terror."
This isn't the only incidence in which Eric Holder was soft on terrorism. As the Deputy Attorney General for former President Bill Clinton, he orchestrated the pardon of the F.A.L.N. terrorists. Holder also let loose on-the-run fugitive financier and Clinton contributor, Marc Rich, who was indicted for evading more than $48 million in taxes, and charged with 51 counts of tax fraud, as well as running illegal oil deals with Iran during the 1979-1980 hostage crisis.
Eric Holder's actions in giving terrorists, enemies of war, constitutional rights is criminal.
Below is the video of the exchange that took place on Wednesday, November 18, 2009, followed by partial written text:
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R-S.C): Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?
ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I don't know. I'd have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I've made --
GRAHAM: We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I'll answer it for you. The answer is no.
HOLDER: Well, I think --
GRAHAM: The Ghailani case -- he was indicted for the Cole bombing before 9/11. And I didn't object to it going into federal court. But I'm telling you right now. We're making history and we're making bad history. And let me tell you why.
GRAHAM: If bin Laden were caught tomorrow, would it be the position of this administration that he would be brought to justice?
HOLDER: He would certainly be brought to justice, absolutely.
GRAHAM: Where would you try him?
HOLDER: Well, we'd go through our protocol. And we'd make the determination about where he should appropriately be tried. [...]
GRAHAM: If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?
HOLDER: Again I'm not -- that all depends. I mean, the notion that we --
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.
Posts
2 PLEASE LEAVE COMMENTS HERE:
The main question that I have, and haven't heard asked is: Why is an enemy combatant entitled to have Miranda rights? They are not a citizen of this country and have in fact, attacked it. We are awarding (imposing on) them our system of justice without their being a citizen of the U.S.
There is no "good" answer to that question. Obama says it's to improve our standing in the world. That doesn't hold water, though because both Obama and Holder admitted that they wouldn't let him loose if he wasn't convicted.
They also said that his conviction was basically a forgone conclusion, which is a violation of due process (innocent until proven guilty).
He's a war criminal being given the same Constitutional rights that you and I enjoy. He either is treated as a war criminal, or he's given full Constitutional rights. He can't split the difference.
I believe he will get off because he wasn't read his rights and his admittance was "under duress."
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your input!