I've written two pieces this week on Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try terrorists in New York. In the first, I argue that Holder and President Obama don't understand Terrorism. In the second, I point out that when we have tried terrorists in courts in the past, we have unintentionally given intelligence to terrorist still overseas.
Today I want to look at a couple of quotes from Eric Holder's testimony this week before the Senate. In this testimony, AG Holder is trying to defend his decision to try terrorists in New York. I think there were two very important things to come out of this testimony. Here is the first. For those of you who don't like FOX News, I apologize, but I wanted to show this statement by Mr. Holder in his own words.
I am not a fan of Senator Lindsey Graham. However, he did his homework, and really took the Attorney General apart in this clip. Thanks to Moe Lane at Red State for initially posting this.
Again, there is a very specific point that is important here. Sen. Graham asks Mr. Holder what precedent there is for this decision. Mr. Holder can't answer him, and isn't even prepared for the question. That means the AG didn't know what precedent there was, and made this decision based on other considerations that had nothing to do with precedent.
AG Holder has said this week that this will be a slam dunk case. If this case is suppose to show that we are willing to give terrorists the world over the benefit of the doubt, and try them in civilian courts, how can this be a slam dunk? Nothing in a civilian court is guaranteed. Eric Holder has said that if the terrorists are acquitted, they will not be released into the country. If a judge orders them released, how can the AG not release them into our country? Eric Holder has also said that if for some reason he doesn't get a conviction, he has other charges that he can try them on to get a conviction. Does this sound like the US showing the world how we stand behind our civilian court system? Also keep in mind that the same day Holder announced KSM would stand trial in New York, he announced that the men behind the USS Cole attack would face a military tribunal. None of these statements, or the ones I provide clips for above make any sense if the goal is to get a civilian conviction from these terrorists.
However, if the AG's goal is to put the previous administration on trial, they suddenly make perfect sense. Any good defense attorney will know that if he doesn't have a good defense, he should put the U.S. Government on trial, and try to get his client's off that way. Both President Obama and AG Holder know this. So it looks to me like the simplest answer is that they aren't concerned with the outcome of the trial. I am sure in their minds they have already gotten a conviction. What they are really concerned with is putting President Bush and his administration on trial. This political stunt may well backfire on them.
Today I want to look at a couple of quotes from Eric Holder's testimony this week before the Senate. In this testimony, AG Holder is trying to defend his decision to try terrorists in New York. I think there were two very important things to come out of this testimony. Here is the first. For those of you who don't like FOX News, I apologize, but I wanted to show this statement by Mr. Holder in his own words.
I believe this clip is important because it rejects a defense of Mr. Holder I have heard a lot this week. A number of people defending his decision have said, "We aren't really at war right now." Holder destroy's that argument with this quote:
I know that we are at war. I know that we are at war with a viscous enemy that targets our soldiers on the battlefields of Afghanistan and our civilians on the streets here at home.
I am not a fan of Senator Lindsey Graham. However, he did his homework, and really took the Attorney General apart in this clip. Thanks to Moe Lane at Red State for initially posting this.
Again, there is a very specific point that is important here. Sen. Graham asks Mr. Holder what precedent there is for this decision. Mr. Holder can't answer him, and isn't even prepared for the question. That means the AG didn't know what precedent there was, and made this decision based on other considerations that had nothing to do with precedent.
AG Holder has said this week that this will be a slam dunk case. If this case is suppose to show that we are willing to give terrorists the world over the benefit of the doubt, and try them in civilian courts, how can this be a slam dunk? Nothing in a civilian court is guaranteed. Eric Holder has said that if the terrorists are acquitted, they will not be released into the country. If a judge orders them released, how can the AG not release them into our country? Eric Holder has also said that if for some reason he doesn't get a conviction, he has other charges that he can try them on to get a conviction. Does this sound like the US showing the world how we stand behind our civilian court system? Also keep in mind that the same day Holder announced KSM would stand trial in New York, he announced that the men behind the USS Cole attack would face a military tribunal. None of these statements, or the ones I provide clips for above make any sense if the goal is to get a civilian conviction from these terrorists.
However, if the AG's goal is to put the previous administration on trial, they suddenly make perfect sense. Any good defense attorney will know that if he doesn't have a good defense, he should put the U.S. Government on trial, and try to get his client's off that way. Both President Obama and AG Holder know this. So it looks to me like the simplest answer is that they aren't concerned with the outcome of the trial. I am sure in their minds they have already gotten a conviction. What they are really concerned with is putting President Bush and his administration on trial. This political stunt may well backfire on them.
1 comment:
When watching news I've found FOX news reports more facts than other stations that often won't even cover a story. You need to watch several stations and NOT limit yourself to a single station. Also know the difference between news commentators (Maddow, Oberman, Mathews, Hannity, ORiely) vs news people like Bret Bair who present facts and back away from personal opinion. I saw Bret refuse to answer an "opinion" question while doing an analysis on a news story with a talk show host. The host realized he was wrong, briefly acknowledged why Bret would not answer.
Post a Comment