There he sat in all his smugness as America’s Jiahadi’s friend before a Congressional hearing to explain the Obama Administrations position on bringing 5 of the worst from Guantanamo to stand trial.
When Holder was pressed on the “criminalization of the 9/11” perpetrators and the possibility that something could go wrong (as in most criminal trials) he just cannot answer the simple question.
Direction testimony:
KOHL: Mr. Holder, last week you announced that the department will bring to Guantanamo detainees accused of planning the 9/11 attacks to trial in federal court in New York, as we've talked about this morning. On Friday you said that you'd not have authorized prosecution if you were not confident that the outcome would be successful. However, many critics have offered their own predictions about how such a trial might well play out.
One concern we have heard from critics of your decision is that the defendants could get off on legal technicalities, in which case these terrorists would walk free. Does this scenario have any merit? If not, why? And in the worst case scenario that the trial does not result in a conviction, what would be your next steps?
HOLDER: Many of those who have criticized the decision -- and not all -- but many of those who have criticized the decision have done so, I think, from a position of ignorance. They have not had access to the materials that I have had access to.
They've not had a chance to look at the facts, look at the applicable laws and make the determination as to what our chances of success are. I would not have put these cases in Article III courts if I did not think our chances of success were not good -- in fact, if I didn't think our chances of success were enhanced by bringing the cases there. My expectation is that these capable prosecutors from the Justice Department will be successful in the prosecution of these cases.
KOHL: But taking into account that you never know what happens when you walk into a court of law, in the event that for whatever reason they do not get convicted, what would be your next step? I'm sure you must have talked about it.
HOLDER: What I told the prosecutors and what I will tell you and what I spoke to them about is that failure is not an option. Failure is not an option. This -- these are cases that have to be won. I don't expect that we will have a contrary result.
Obama, as well as Holder, have both publicly stated KSM is guilty and that he will receive the death penalty. Remember when Nixon blurted that “Manson was guilty” and the next day Manson stood up and held the LA times front page to the jurors about Nixon’s declaration of guilt? The mistrial for the publicity tainting almost caused a mistrial.
AP story:
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 through 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."
Eric Holder was then reminded that under the Obama administration's law-enforcement approach to terrorism, if we capture Osama bin Laden the first things we'll have to do are read him his rights and get him a free lawyer. When Lindsay Graham pointed this out to Eric Holder in yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Holder feebly responded that maybe we wouldn't have to Mirandize bin Laden because the evidence against him is "overwhelming."
Then today Pat Leahy went on record to defend Holder and the Obama Administrations decision to try KSM and Osama in civilian court with this:
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the chairman of that committee, said that arguments raised by Republican senators about whether bin Laden would be afforded Miranda rights if he were captured was a "red herring."
"The red herring that my friend [Sen.] Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was covering is not realistic," Leahy said during an appearance on "Washington Journal" on C-SPAN.
"For one thing, capturing Osama bin Laden -- we've had enough on him, we don't need to interrogate him," Leahy added.
So, there you have it. If we capture Osama bin Laden we will not need to interrogate him! Never mind that he approves all operations that are of any significance and is the “head of the snake” for the body known as Al quada. No, no interrogation needed here and oh by the way, let him keep his laptop while were at it.
No comments:
Post a Comment