What has Holder so rattled is that it is someone the Obama Administration can usually count upon as an ally who is being so mean to him.

Folks, the real reason for the decision to use the civilian court instead of a military forum is the left's persistent goal of devaluing the military in general in relation to the civilian in general. This goes all the way back to the Vietnam War. The military is the least left-dominated institution in our society, so it is in the left's interest that it be discredited.

Eric Holder IS Amateurish and Unprepared

Like so many on the Left he can only handle adulation.

"Eric Holder Looks Amateurish and Unprepared"

He looks like the kind of Guy that does not pay His taxes.

I find it pretty surprising that Eric Holder did not know if there was a legal precedent for what they want to do in this particular case because one would think that would be one of the first things they would have been looking into. Clearly past practice is not a concern of the Obama Administration and people need to be very concerned about what is going with this legal case and in this country. When people are doing the kinds of things that have never been done before one must look very closely at what the consequences of those actions might be.

Holder is wrong as hell. The unspoken truth of the matter is that the administration is using this case as an excuse to splash shame and blame on the Bush administration without getting their hands dirty. It's a political witch hunt they believe they can innocently pursue without any political blowback.

But Holder's main goal - and Obama's, let's just come right out and say it - is nasty political retribution that has nothing at all to do with the defendants, and everything to do with political grandstanding. It's vicious partisanship at its worst, and it's one of the hallmarks of Obama's poor leadership.

It never occurs to them, in public at least, that the decisions made by the Bush attorney were carefully and thoughtfully examined in advance by the same Justice Department that Holder represents, with Congressional oversight all the way.

Treating 9/11 as a simple criminal matter requires a naive misunderstanding of legal precedent, and a total disregard for the sincerity of the Bush administration. You can say you disagree with Bush if you want to, but you can't say that he didn't do everything in his power to get it right without being a partisan asshole.

The best part was Graham asking Holder about previous trying of a combatant in federal court. Before Holder could stumble his way to a definitive answer Graham answered for him. To Patrick's point, Holder didn't know of any precedent??? Wow, just wow.

Patrick "I find it pretty surprising that Eric Holder did not know if there was a legal precedent for what they want to do in this particular case..."

Yeah especially considering another Holder quote when he claimed he looked at "all possible options" when making the decision.

If that's the case he obviously looked at the Supreme Court directed, Congressionally passed and signed by the President Militray Tribunals.

Given that one would think he would have looked into their history.

I guess not. But hardly surprising given he didn't look into, or completely ignored Marc Rich's past.

Eric "studiously unaware of critical facts" Holder

Besides Holder not knowing of any legal precedent what I find even more shocking is how Obama has already prejudged this case (and he absolutely did when he gave his opinion that KSM would be convicted and executed) which I think gives a defense attorney a potential first line of attack because he has definitely tainted the jury pool with that ill-advised statement. It is also a fact that this administration has said as plain as day that if the charges against KSM were dismissed or if he was acquitted that he would still not be released! How the hell is this in the best traditions of our civilian criminal justice system? How can they even pretend to be taking the moral high ground with this action? If this is going to be a show trial in the best traditions of Stalin than how is this morally superior than the military tribunal process which has been used in the past by our nation for just this purpose?

If they want to use our cherished and time honored system of justice than they better be prepared to protect that institution and if KSM and any of his co-conspirators walks than they need to be prepared for that eventuality and all that would entail. It would undoubtedly spark some serious outrage among the American public that is for sure. And have they even considered the potential long term safety implications for members of the jury and the judge that will preside over this case? It is mind-boggling to think of how many things can go wrong with this utterly stupid plan.

It's sad that such and important cabinet position can be held by someone clearly in over his head.

Fortunately, he can watch and learn from his more learned and professional colleagues.

Like Tim Geithner.

Or his own boss, for that matter.

"The county's in the very best of hands...."

This just gets better and better. Well, not for President Obama and his Administration.

Uh, haven't we had 8 years to plan how we would handle OBL????

This administration is contemptable,

I listened to that exchange yesterday. It was truly pathetic. It solidified my own suspicions that Holder, like Geithner, is taking marching orders that he knows damn well is wrong, but they each coveted the job so much, they'd have sold their souls for it.

Graham later said that this sends a pretty clear message to all would-be terrorists: Attack a military target and, if caught, you'll go before a military tribunal. Attack civilians and you'll get a free lawyer, Miranda rights and a civilian court. And if you're really lucky it'll be in San Francisco.

Does Obama administration think by giving these terrorists full constitutional rights and trying them in our civil court system, it will make them morally superior to the Bush administration in the eyes of the public?

Or are they overlooking what will happen when the public is made to relive 9-11 while listening these terrorists gloat about their roll in the deaths of thousands of Americans?

The public will know that the only reason these terrorist have this platform is the Obama administration. It doesn't even matter if in the end KSM and the rest of his gang are found guilty and sentenced to death, Obama has given them the opportunity to speak their hatred for America and in turn for them to grow to hero status in the Middle East.

I predict by the end of the trial the Bush administration will be viewed with more favor by the general public than the Obama administration. And if there is another major terrorist attack in this country, you can kiss the Democratic party goodbye.

.... the only confusion is whether he is staggeringly bad at his actual job or staggeringly bad at hiding the fact that he is eschewing the important responsibilities of his job for political gain ...

You have to choose only one of those?

Now I'm confused.

Not.

Truth is the abjectly corrupt "Democratic" potty activist, Herr Holder, is staggeringly inept AND staggeringly bad at hiding that he is eschewing any responsibility to his oath of office for political -- and when it's opportune (from Marc Rich, eg) -- for material gain

It's obvious what's going on here. Khalid Sheik Mohammed is brown. Eric Holder is brown. Lindsey Graham is, suprise!, a Georgia Cracker. Whiter than white bread. Probably a slave holder in a previous life if not this one. Do I have to draw you a picture?

That's right it's RACISM!

And none of you geniuses as Wizbang saw that which is proof enough that you're all racists, too. And hypocrites.

Peace.

Obama's already attempted to give himself 'plausible deniability' should this stunt backfire by claiming that "he had been informed of Holder's decision" - the 'clarification' that he'll later make is that decision was Holder's. He'll make a show of 'correcting the mistake' then Holder will then meet with friends under the proverbial bus.

The msm has their back. Last night ABC reported that the "mistakes" on recovery.com were so small, don't even worry about it, move along. Then Charlie sternly reported that Bush administration folks were being "investigated" by the feds, frown, frown.

"That is really the crux of this matter."

Naw. It really isn't. Bringing the terrorists to justice is the crux of the matter - something Bush and the Republicans failed to do.

All of this chatter is just a freakish sideshow put on by the frightened right, who fear another big smackdown is headed your way. Your political party and its former leaders will be on trial as well.

Justice will prevail. And it's gonna hurt.

Vic

Vic, it's going to hurt "O" and the liberal democrats that support this insanity. I hope it goes on through the 2010 and on to 2012 because, it will be hung around "O" and liberals like a millstone. People will be so sick of the circus and they will be reminded who brought it to town. If I was a candidate in the coming elections I would be thanking "O" for all the ammo I would be able to use against the liberals.

Your political party and its former leaders will be on trial as well.

For once you're right, and that's the real reason KSM is being given the same rights as the people he helped kill and tried in Federal court. Under questioning yesterday Holder admitted that even if KSM is acquitted he would still be held indifferently as an enemy combatant. Such a statement proves that the Obama administration is running a show trial for political purposes, not unlike the Nazi show trials of the early 40's.

Trying KSM in Federal court has noting to do with the rule of law or justice as evidenced by the fact that Holder says other detainees will be tried in military courts. Thus, the Obama administration is admitting that military courts also fulfill the requirements for the rule of law and justice.

Unlike Hitler, Obama won't be able to control the direction or the outcome of this show trial. If intelligence resources and methods are compromised you can bet Cheney and others are going to make Obama pay a political price far beyond any gain Obama can get from this show trial. This will go down as another stupid move by Obama.

rld - You're ignoring the Sarah Palin factor. Palin is the gift social conservatives gave progressives in the 2008 election - and it's the gift that keeps on giving year after year after year - election after election after election. Sarah Palin will give wins to the Democrats through 2016, if not longer.

It's obvious many who are commenting on this post didn't watch the video. I can't blame you - it's sad to read these blog posts day after day and then click on the link or watch the video and realize that the facts don't support the position the author has taken in their article. I can't blame you.

But the fact is that the video clearly shows Graham barking up the wrong tree.

Graham's line of questioning reveals the flaws the Bush administration engineered into the prosecution form the very start. Claiming that the criminals who were part of 9/11 are "war criminals".

We engaged in a war in Iraq. 9/11 criminals are not 'war criminals' -- that was just a ruse - a lie - used by the Bush administration. 9/11 took place before the war started, and it has been shown that 9/11 had no connection to Iraq or Saddam Hussein.

Trying these criminals in a military tribunal as POWs is not justice. It's a sham.

Granted, many feel the 9/11 criminals don't deserve justice.

That's not how our system works.

And we had to take power away from the Bush administration in order to bring these criminals to justice.

But notice this -- Bush never tried these criminals in a military tribunal. Perhaps he never intended to.

Why didn't he? Perhaps he knew all along that he couldn't?

Graham is a monkey swinging from a tree, trying to distract the other monkeys.

Despite the monkey shines, justice will prevail, and the criminals will be brought before a jury of New Yorkers.

Bush's ruse is over. Justice will be done - despite Bush's ruse and despite the noise from the right. Justice will be done.

Vic

"For once you're right, and that's the real reason KSM is being given the same rights as the people he helped kill and tried in Federal court"

Have a banana. KSM is not a POW, he's a criminal.

Vic

Eric Holder proclaims that THIS trial will show the world we're serious about justice!

Then under questioning admits that even if KSM is acquited we're gonna to detain him for the rest of his life as an "Enemy Combatant".

In our American system Acquital = "You're free to go!".

Is KSM the only one to be "treated" to this brand spanking new concept of "Justice"?? Or are WE also to "enjoy" the prospect of such treatment??

We were never at war specifically with Iraq or Afghanistan, we are at war with Terror and those who support it. Therefore anyone who performs an act of terror against the United States is an enemy combatant, if they are captured they are POW. 9/11 was the straw that broke the camels back and finally drew us into action against the same terrorists who have been carrying out attacks for decades against US interests around the world.

Sidenote: "Graham is a monkey swinging from a tree, trying to distract the other monkeys. " I say the same thing about Eric Holder or Obama and I'm a racist... why is that?

Have a banana. KSM is not a POW, he's a criminal.

Neither the Bush administration nor the Obama administration ever classified KSM as a POW. However, both the Bush administration and the Obama administration classify KSM as an enemy combatant as they do other detainees. According to Holder, other detainees will be tried in military court. Thus, the only reason for KSM being tried in Federal court is for political purposes regardless of the danger that puts the people of New York in or the danger of exposing intelligence resources and methods.

Vic, you'll enjoy Obama's Nazi show trial of KSM, at least until it starts damaging Obama politically, then it will suck for you and Obama, but it will be out of his control. Now that's justice.

" 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. "

-

Heckuva job, Holdie.
er, eh, it depends, uh....sounds like your boss talking.

"According to Holder, other detainees will be tried in military court."

Other detainees, not the 9/11 criminals.

Nice ruse. It didn't work.

It's really simple. They committed a crime in our borders. They will be tried for their crimes. A jury of New Yorkers will weigh verdict.

Pretending the 9/11 criminals were POWs was not justice. Lying never is. No matter how badly Bush and Cheney (and you and me) want to see these guy swinging from the end of a rope, we cannot let terrorism undermine the tenets we hold dear.

We are not free if American justice is perverse.

We will remain free, despite the criminal acts of these asses, and justice will prevail.

Bush didn't change that. You can't change it either.

Vic

I don't find it suprising at all that the main priority of the left liberals is "blaming Bush" rather than prosecuting a terrorist. Their main concern is putting out for everyone to see all the confidential and secret documents we have gathered to prevent more terrorist attacks, but our pretend leader doesn't think that is as important as trying to embarrass GWB. What a disgrace. Eric Holder and Hussein Obama have set a course for hundreds of thousands of American deaths on US soil AGAIN!
Madalyn

Vic states: "9/11 criminals are not 'war criminals'"

Then what do you make of Holders statement?

"Prosecuting the 9/11 defendants in federal court does not represent some larger judgment about whether or not we are at war. We are at war, and we will use every instrument of national power - civilian, military, law enforcement, intelligence, diplomatic, and others - to win."

I'll look forward to VIC's comments when this "show trial" blows up in Barry's face.

Of course VIC will blame Bush. After tall, that's standard procedure.

Other detainees, not the 9/11 criminals.

Yes, other 9/11 criminals, as you call them, will be tried in Military Courts. Holder has publicly stated that Military courts will be used where there's a week case. The pabulum about where the crime was committed is just for you weak minded lefties.

Pretending the 9/11 criminals were POWs was not justice.

Obviously, you don't know what POW means or you wouldn't keep repeating your stupid remark. Neither the Bush administration nor the Obama administration has called any of the detainees POW's. However, Holder has specifically call KSM an enemy combatant and used that same term for the other detainees. Are you saying Holder is wrong?

We are not free if American justice is perverse.

And yet you support Obama's Nazi show trial of KSM. A trial where the defendant will be held as an enemy combatant even if he's acquitted of the charges that define him as an enemy combatant. Hitler would be so proud of this administration.

Your political party and its former leaders will be on trial as well.

So, in other words, the reason for moving the KSM trial to civilian jurisdiction has nothing to do with the speedy and efficient application of justice, but is merely political payback. We already knew this, but thanks for admitting it outright.

But now that this is all out in the open, if Holder and the Narcissist-in-Chief want to put previous adminstration officials on trial for how the conduct the GWoT, this is something I'd really like to see. In case you haven't been paying attention, none of the former Bush admin officials have backed down from challenges and from vigorously defending their actions, and I'm thinking of Liz and Dick Cheney here. So, yeah, go ahead, drag them into open court, charge them with specific crimes and let the world hear what they have to say in their own defense. My guess is that if the Democrats go ahead with this, they are going to have another Oliver North debacle on their hands. It's going to blow up in Obama's face and the sheer magnitude of his incompetence will be obvious to all. Again.

So, be careful what you wish for, Vic old boy, you just might get it.

Attorney General Holder Shocked that Lindsay Graham is a Moron

http://thelonggoodbye.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/mountain-path-autumn-wallpaper-attorney-general-holder-shocked-lindsay-graham-is-a-moron/

J. Madison,

Great link. It really demonstrates the lack of comprehension among liberals and why nothing more than promising Hope and Change is needed to herd them in any direction.

The point Senator Graham was making is that treating enemy combatants as domestic criminals means military commanders have to inform them of their rights on the battlefield before questioning them or all the evidence they provide can't be used against them in court. If a commander thinks an enemy combatant might have valuable military information he has to choose between preserving the case against the enemy combatant, or interrogating him for information that could save the lives of our soldiers. As Graham pointed out, never in our history has a military commander had to make such a decision. Obviously, Obama and Holter haven't thought through all the consequences of giving KSM a show trial.

VIO:

9/11 criminals are not 'war criminals' -- that was just a ruse - a lie - used by the Bush administration.

Sen. Obama in September 2006:

The irony of the underlying bill as it's written is that someone like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to get basically a full military trial with all the bells and whistles. He will have counsel. He will be able to present evidence. He will be able to rebut the government's case, because the feeling is that he is guilty of a war crime and to do otherwise might violate some of our agreements under the Geneva Convention.
I think that's good that we're going to provide him with some procedure and process. I think we will convict him, and I think he will be brought to justice.

Vic, Obama alleged that KSM was a war criminal in 2006. Does that make him a member of the Bush Administration?

Re "KSM is not a POW, he's a criminal"

Actually he is an illegal combatant and a criminal.

I only caught a little of Holders testimony. However when he was ask why he didn't accept KSM confession, he state terrorist don't make decisions where they are prosecuted, he does. O.K. talking about being egotistical. Fine it is Holder's decision and his judgment in this case was horrible. Our Attorney General has shown himself as being highly egotistical and having very poor judgment.

mac lorry "The point Senator Graham was making is that treating enemy combatants as domestic criminals means military commanders have to inform them of their rights on the battlefield before questioning them or all the evidence they provide can't be used against them in court."

More importantly, it's now official, when the military captures someone on the battlefield the first words out of the bastards mouth will be; "I want a lawyer."

He clams up, and unlike previously, the military and the Nation losses whatever intelligence that could have been gained.

vic "It's really simple. They committed a crime in our borders. They will be tried for their crimes. A jury of New Yorkers will weigh verdict."

I come not to bury vic, but to prais... oh wait... call him an asshole. But educate him as well.

Hey dipshit, I'd suggest to look up how a U.S. Warship, like the bombed U.S.S. Cole, or a U.S. Embassy, like those bombed in Africa stand within international law.

With the slightest modicum of intellectual curiosity you may, I stress may, learn both are regarded as sovereign U.S. territory.

As in, within our borders asshole.

But you won't look, won't learn and remain ignorant to live, and rant incoherently, another day.

And BTW vic "And we had to take power away from the Bush administration in order to bring these criminals to justice. But notice this -- Bush never tried these criminals in a military tribunal. Perhaps he never intended to.

WOW, Bush was eligible for a third term and you guys had to "take" his power away?

Who knew?

That said, if Bush never intended to try the TERRORISTs and ENEMY COMBATANTS [not criminals] how do you explain why obamalama STOPPED the KSM military tribunal in May this year?

How do you "not intend" to do something but not only do it, but do so with the full blessing of the Supreme Court, Congress and the President after the Military Commissions Act was passed in 2006?

32 House Democrats voted yes for the Military Commissions Act, are they bastards in your eyes vic?

Something that seems to be missed in this discussion is that a Prisoner of War is explicitly defined in law by the Geneva Conventions. Prisoners of War are guaranteed certain rights, since they are acting under the (somewhat oxymoronic term) "rules of war". These conventions apply to uniformed soldiers acting under the orders of a legally constituted belligerent power.

This group of defendants fall outside these treaties and are explicitly excluded from the protections they afford prisoners of war. They are "illegal combatants" and are entitled to all the rights and protections of spies. Which is to say no rights at all. They can be legally shot, they can be enthusiastically interrogated (that would be "tortured" for you girls on the left), and the ones that survive all that can be detained without trial until the end of hostilities.

They can be convicted by military tribunal and convicted without legal representation using hearsay evidence. We don't even owe the press an explanation.

It would all be quite legal. Under the Geneva Conventions, these people are legally treated as scum who have no rights whatsoever.

It's only the partisan beer-goggles and the arrogance of the Obama administration that leads us to the gentle ministrations of a public celebrity trial in the New York federal court.

Most everybody (78%, if memory serves) sees it for what it is - a political show trial.

More importantly, it's now official, when the military captures someone on the battlefield the first words out of the bastards mouth will be; "I want a lawyer."

Unless we, you know, just shoot them first. And since these nutjobs aren't representing a nation-state with appropriate military costuming--I'm all for that.

Problem solved.

One question--what happens when the jury starts receiving threats from Al-Q against them or (more likely) their families? Unlike the Mafia, they don't care if they get caught.

And don't think these terrorists aren't adverse to a little blackmail.

how do you explain why obamalama STOPPED the KSM military tribunal in May this year?

That's so go, I had to bump that.

That's correct...KSM could have been hauled into military court months ago.

Why not? Why not? Why not? Why not? Why NOT?

Something that seems to be missed in this discussion is that a Prisoner of War is explicitly defined in law by the Geneva Conventions.

I haven't, which is why I said above, they should just be shot--point blank.

Fuck their "rights".

My point exactly.

Love the way the left tries to devalue Sarah Palin. They can't find anything specific to pinpoint, so they just throw sh*t and hope it sticks. Sorry jerks, she is way too classy for you bums! Find someone who deserves your scorn, kind of like holder, obama, pelosi, reid, etc. They are more worthy of being declared unfit than Sarah.
Madalyn