Lindsay Graham (Yeah, I Know) Destroys AG Eric "Nation Of Cowards" Holder On Civilian Trials For Terrorists UPDATE: Leahy Says We Don't Need To Interogate Bin Laden

I'm second to no one in my loathing of Lindsay Graham's style of 'make a deal and get something done' politics but my guess is he's a hell of a lawyer.

There are a lot of knocks on Eric Holder but no one really thinks he's a stupid man. Misguided? Sure. Diagnosably retarded? No. Watch this exchange between Graham and Holder. Graham leaves Holder stammering like a fool.

Here's the crap Holder is trying to sell that Graham won't let him get away with...Holder says, 'we don't need to question bin Laden because we have so much evidence already so we won't question him for a statement, therefor Miranda doesn't apply'.

Graham nails him with the fact Miranda isn't just about 'the right to remain silent'. It's also about an affirmative right to an attorney.

The fight is about when does a "military capture" become a "civilian arrest" and when and how do all the rights that come with a civilian arrest and trial attach. Right now there are no answers because as Graham points out, the Obama administration is making it up as they go.

Guess who is going to get involved in that question at some point. The courts. Given the arc of cases since 9/11 is anyone 100% sure (hell, 50% sure) that a court won't throw out a conviction or even a bar a trial on any number of 6th Amendment grounds?

Holder is left babbling like a fool about these basic questions.

I'd be interested in what the lawyers here have to say about Graham's style of questioning. My guess is they wouldn't want their client on the other side of it.

Graham did this during the Sotomayor hearings. He walked her down a path where there was absolutely no doubt she was incompetent and lying. Unfortunately at that point Graham's political instincts overrode his legal training and he let her off the hook. Worse still, he then voted for her but his questioning left her, like Holder, in shreds.

I found the above video at The Corner. To make up for swiping it, I commend this post to you. McCarthy has been all over this and as someone who actually convicted terrorists (the first WTC bombers), he knows the drill and the limitations of the Obama approach.

UPDATE:

Oy.

If the U.S. captures Osama bin Laden, there's no need to interrogate him, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Thursday.
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 amount to 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.

First, we don't need whatever intel OBL might have? Really?

Second, the walk back on this will be, 'sure we'll let the CIA at him for awhile but we don't need that intel to convict him'. Here's the thing, there's no proof that you can do this and then go to a civilian court. Just because Obama wants to create a distinction between custody and questioning by military/intelligence agencies and civilian ones doesn't mean the courts will buy it. Again, given the arc of these cases in the courts, there's every reason to believe that KSM and his ilk will likely win on at least some procedural grounds, maybe even acquittals.

Third, okay, this maybe the case with OBL, but what about lesser known but as dangerous terrorists? How does Obama want captured terrorists dealt with? Commanders in the field need to know and "Present" isn't an option.

Right now his approach is, "we'll review and make a decision later". Well, the US civilian court system doesn't work that way. All the protections that come with it start the second you are in custody, not when the executive feels like it.

Anyone want to take a stab at the Equal Protection arguments to begin with just for shits and giggles? Or the 5th, 6th and 8th Amendment fights?

There is simply no basis in law for Obama and Holder's theory here. It's simply a political decision divorced from law.

Posted by: DrewM. at 10:30 AM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 don't they lose the argument by deciding to use commisions for some and law enforcement civilian courts for others?
so what the heck?
and interrogation? don't they lose that argument , don't they also having a problem with retaining renditions?

Posted by: willow at November 19, 2009 10:36 AM (GkYyh)

2 also have* a problem as they kept rendition

Posted by: willow at November 19, 2009 10:37 AM (GkYyh)

3 Reposted from the Headlines thread with apologies:

AG Holder is in the unenviable position of trying to justify a
political decision with a legal argument. That is largely the reason
why he looked like a retard yesterday.

Of course the fact that he is, in fact, a retard helped...

What IS of concern to the administration is how to energize the base of
young Obama voters who stayed home in New Jersey and Virginia two weeks
ago and get them to turn out to vote and keep Congress in Democrat
hands next year. IMHO they've read the tealeaves and have determined
that bringing back the Bush/Cheney bogeyman is the best way to do that
and that a high profile "show trial" of KSM and the others is the best
way to resurrect said bogeyman.

Justice, Rule of Law, and
National Security all be damned- they need to hold on to Congress to
hold on to power. That is all that matters.

Posted by: Nighthawk at November 19, 2009 10:38 AM (OtQXp)

4 They aren't just criminalizing acts of war. They are criminalizing political disagreements (i.e. Bush administration policy).

They know exactly what they fuck they're doing and they're going to do it anyway.

Which I predicted. Not cause I'm smart. Cause they are predictable.

This post written by the ghost of Alger Hiss.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at November 19, 2009 10:39 AM (WvXvd)

5 Graham verbally slapped Howard Sprague silly.

Posted by: TheQuietman at November 19, 2009 10:40 AM (1Jaio)

6
The fact that Grahamnesty is fully capable of tearing down these shitballs, and yet refuses to do so, is the most disappointing thing about him.

Posted by: Dang Straights at November 19, 2009 10:41 AM (Haq+B)

7 Remember the Seinfeld "Two Face" episode? That's Graham--why can't he be this way all the time? That train of argument with Holder was simple, focused and easy for a layman to follow.
Brilliant.
Of course, tomorrow, he'll want to cede control of all CO2 emissions to the UN, but that was brilliant.

Posted by: Bob Dole at November 19, 2009 10:41 AM (B+qrE)

8 Isn't it obvious? We've got to put a show trial on to demonstrate how just and fare our system is!

Posted by: Bald Ninja at November 19, 2009 10:41 AM (4pdbX)

9 While Holder is a fool, we must all realize this problem falls squarely on the shoulders of President Obama. After all, the terrorists are in the custody of the military and subject to military courts no matter what Holder says. The only way for these terrorists to be transferred from the custody of the military to civilian custody is by order of the Commander in Chief.

Posted by: Ken at November 19, 2009 10:41 AM (9RNdO)

10 Holder was owned and operated by the Graham Cracker!

Posted by: rick at November 19, 2009 10:41 AM (7U33r)

11
Thisiswhathappenswhenyouhaveacollegefacultyrunningthegovernment.

Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 10:42 AM (z37MR)

12 Away with you, sock.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at November 19, 2009 10:42 AM (B+qrE)

13 I'm not a lawyer, but I do enough expert witness testimony as part of my job to know that this is very effective cross examination that left him nowhere to hide. Holder's problem is he is trying to sell BS and Graham brought this out in the open for all to see.

Posted by: RM at November 19, 2009 10:43 AM (GkYyh)

14 Shannon Love at Chicagoboyz website wrote an excellent article regarding the constitutional dangers of this...
http://tinyurl.com/yeucoyq

Posted by: Huckleberry at November 19, 2009 10:43 AM (s2bW4)

15
It's come to a point where we applaud our representatives for, you know, doing their jobs.

Hooray, Lindsey Graham!

And, later, we'll get all wet when an (R) in Congress says a few nice things about Conservatism.

Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 10:45 AM (z37MR)

16 Let's face it.

This is the kind of arrogant incompetence that we get when an administration takes power and is never held accountable for their actions.

I find myself in a very unusual moral position between seeing this terrorist killed by hook or crook....The way Holder and his master are doing it now where they both are flat out saying that KSM will be executed no matter what.
And the other side of the now, unpalatable side of the coin, where I'm thinking that maybe KSM ought to go free so as to keep our justice system in tact and "unchanged" to where all American citizens would be subject to the "new rules" of our justice system that would have to occur to get a guilty conviction.

I can only hope that the administrations quest in putting Bush and our intelligence forces on trial (which is obviously a big reason to do this charade)backfire in a severe, unrecoverable way for these Elitist traitors.

Posted by: Drider at November 19, 2009 10:48 AM (HaJD9)

17 I'm second to no one in my loathing of Lindsay Graham's style of 'make
a deal and get something done' politics but my guess is he's a hell of
a lawyer.

As I said in the previous thread, let's not give this douche too much credit. In this case ANY credit is too much. He helped McLame castrate the Military Commisions act in 2005 and gave the terrorists more "rights" in military court than our own service men have.

He is grandstanding here playing lawyer for the cameras. I will repeat the truth:

Remember what "hearings" are for. They are there to give the participants more camera exposure and free rhetoric time.

They mean NOTHING. Its the actions you have to watch.

Posted by: Vic at November 19, 2009 10:48 AM (CDUiN)

18 from Huckleberry's article;
They will have to overturn the requirement for Miranda warnings. They will have to overturn the Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination. They will have to overturn the right to face one�s accusers and to examine all evidence and evidence gathering methods.
Even if the courts throw out his conviction, the government will never allow him to go free, so we will toss out protection against double jeopardy if they try to convict with a military tribunal, and toss out the right of no imprisonment without trial if they don�t.
Our system of justice relies on precedent and equality of procedure. The same rules apply to every civil trail. We can�t say that it�s okay to deny the right against self-incrimination in one person�s trial while saying it�s okay in another. If the courts overturn the rights of one individual accused, it must overturn the rights of all of them.

Posted by: willow at November 19, 2009 10:49 AM (GkYyh)

19 I never cared much for Lindsay Graham but this was poetry.
Holder looked like an incompetent boob. This trial will end in disaster.

Posted by: MPFS Indentured Fish Stick to the State at November 19, 2009 10:50 AM (iYbLN)

20 You could could almost hear the uhhh... as Lindsey would thrust his pelvis up against Eric's backside. Over and over again. Oh the pain!

Posted by: conscious, but incoherent at November 19, 2009 10:52 AM (kn+jW)

21 Graham is dead on about this - what happens directly after being taken into custody re:mirandizing and interrogation, specifically any information obtained as a result of said interrogation and its subsequent admissibility in court, is key. IOW's, what Graham is asking Holder, which he doesn't answer (and can't btw and remain AG), is that they will have to Mirandize EVERYONE that is taken into custody either on the battlefield or anywhere else in order to protect the possibility that they may be tried in US courts. Otherwise, any information obtained through interrogation is inadmissible, plain and simple. That's why this policy is so silly and dangerous.

Someone else may have said this, but I have a bad feeling that this is going to backfire on Obama badly and that good people will be killed as a result of this policy. Imagine how Obama gets reelected when a few hundred hostages are killed as a result of some sleeper cell "bargaining" for KSM's release while in NYC. Dangerous times folks, dangerous times.

Posted by: volfan at November 19, 2009 10:53 AM (lF49h)

22 "I'd be interested in what the lawyers here have to say about
Graham's style of questioning. My guess is they wouldn't want their
client on the other side of it."

As a court reporter I have watched the best and the worst of cross-exes. This is the best: superb strategy and dramatic execution with perfectly calibrated emotionalism. Devastating. Lawyers are dreaming about Lindsey tonight.

Posted by: PJ at November 19, 2009 10:53 AM (Qpxxz)

23 This is not going to end well. Yeah, go ahead and say it: "Ya think?"

Posted by: Old Sailor at November 19, 2009 10:54 AM (/Ft4q)

24 Posted on an earlier thread, and deserving of a repeat:

http://bit.ly/3AsfhK

Posted by: Winston Smith at November 19, 2009 10:54 AM (MFbfZ)

25 Obama and Holder are going to end up looking like fools when this "trial" starts.

Posted by: GarandFan at November 19, 2009 10:54 AM (ZQBnQ)

26 On the other hand, Lindsey will probably turn around and vote to have the case tried in Federal Court. If there were such a vote, of course.

Posted by: Winston Smith at November 19, 2009 10:56 AM (MFbfZ)

27 This is not going to end well. Yeah, go ahead and say it: "Ya think?"
Trying KSM in NY. What could possibly go wrong?

Posted by: MPFS Indentured Fish Stick to the State at November 19, 2009 10:56 AM (iYbLN)

28 Lawyers are dreaming about Lindsey tonight. --- Bad imagery

Posted by: Jean at November 19, 2009 10:57 AM (vb5IK)

29 Graham is neither conducting direct or cross-examination here.

That's a fair point but he could also easily turn some of those speeches into questions (at least on cross where he could lead a bit).

Also, he knew Holder (also a political animal) would filibuster in answering some of those questions. In a courtroom he could have forced a witness to answer and the effect would have been even more devastating because we all know what those answers are.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 19, 2009 10:57 AM (FCWQb)

30 I wonder if Holder's law school practiced affirmative action, allowing an incompetent to both get in and then graduate, so that he could then benefit from affirmative action on the job to get to where he is now.
He doesn't seem to understand his own profession very well.

Posted by: Smarty at November 19, 2009 10:57 AM (v/j2M)

31 Imagine how Obama gets reelected when a few hundred hostages are killed
as a result of some sleeper cell "bargaining" for KSM's release while
in NYC

Hello!

Posted by: ACORN at November 19, 2009 10:57 AM (NtiET)

32 Lindsey is great , except for that whole bi - polar thing he's got going on .

Posted by: awkward davies at November 19, 2009 10:58 AM (wb68R)

33
Obama and Holder are going to end up looking like fools when this "trial" starts.

The SRM will be in full damage-control spin and coverage mode for these c*cksuckers. It's inevitable. And they'll lead with "it's BOOOOSH'S fault!" meme.

Posted by: Dang Straights at November 19, 2009 10:58 AM (Haq+B)

34 They aren't just criminalizing acts of war. They are criminalizing political disagreements (i.e. Bush administration policy). They know exactly what they fuck they're doing and they're going to do it anyway.
Yeah, I agree with you on this. Too bad they didn't think about this situation logically - even "politically" logically. This KSM trial will backfire on them - badly. In fact, I think the Wookie should start real estate shopping in Chicago while her hubby figures out where to build the presidential library, such as it will be.
You can be damn sure "fly-over" country will not be pleased with this show trial and even blue area, like NYC won't like it either, seeing as they were Ground Zero for KSM's attacks.
It won't be long before Republican/conservative pundits and politicans start hammering at this decision, including what should be so blatantly obvious: KSM's plan also involved an attack on the Pentagon - not a civilian target like the WTCs. This was an act of war and KSM was not a citizen, or even an USPER. KSM was caught in a foreign land.
If anything screams for military trial, it's this.
And when the civilian trial starts fucking this cat, Obama is going to be left holding the tail. Good-bye. Hope you enjoyed your four years. You Democrats in Congress? Hope you enjoy solid blue electorates, or you'll be out on your ass as well.
Our economy is starting to look like Japan in the 1990s (no economic growth, savings rate growing, consumer spending down, easy credit from banks) and in a couple of years, Washington will look like 1994 with a Republican takeover in Congress.

Posted by: Blogluddite at November 19, 2009 10:58 AM (fDWFP)

35 Again, I don't see how this case doesn't get thrown out on a pretrial motion. Which is good in that KSM and his flacks won't get access to discovery, but bad in that he likely goes free while his case gets appealed up the ladder. Best case scenario, the Supremes rule (5-4, natch) that the case never should have gone to civillian court, and remand it back to the military.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at November 19, 2009 10:59 AM (z4es9)

36 KSM trial =epic fail

unless of course they get the venue changed....to Chicago

{shudder}

Posted by: jadedinga at November 19, 2009 11:00 AM (Uc/xV)

37 Lindsey Graham is great at fileting the incompetent candidates that he's about to wholeheartedly endorse.

Posted by: Cicero at November 19, 2009 11:00 AM (+AEJn)

38 Actually, unfortuneately Holder was correct. Miranda is only about questioning. Once someone is in custody and before that person is questioned, that person must be read the Miranda rights. The right to an attorney is only available to someone who is being questioned or in a legal proceeding. I arrest people frequently and never Mirandize them unless I am going to question them. No questioning, no Miranda.
At a person's initial appearance, the Magistrate instructs the defendant on their rights, but by that time, at least at the federal level, they have already either been assigned an attorney or have their own.
However, Osama will have to be questioned for his intelligence value, not for any prosecution, and it appears that Lindsey Gramnesty missed that.

Posted by: Federale at November 19, 2009 11:01 AM (QZ/te)

39 I'll grudingly give kudos to Lindsay for his performance yesterday.
Next on his docket:
- Cap'n'Trade AGW bill: National economic suicide for an issue that is ahoax. Might as well just burning the money in a giant hole.
- Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Republican suicide in order to sound compassionate. Might as well just purge 10% of Republican voters from the rolls.

Posted by: Huckleberry at November 19, 2009 11:01 AM (s2bW4)

40 Soon our men and women in uniform will be required to carry around "Miranda cards" (of the type I'm told some police carry that has the warnings printed on it) with them on the battlefield. "We've done away with rifle qualifications soy'all can spend more time practicing your Miranda warnings."
I keep hoping one day someone will jump out and yell "Gotcha!" and this will all be a joke and we'll go back to acting like asociety that gives a damn about preserving our civilization, but it looks like we'll have to wait three more years to end this joke.

Posted by: aggiebc at November 19, 2009 11:01 AM (xhPKT)

41 Obama and Holder are trying a little parlor magic here. They want everyone to focus on what happens to KSM. The real threat is what happens to our ability to defend ourselves and conduct "contingency operations" during the trials of the other little fish.

Posted by: Jean at November 19, 2009 11:01 AM (07n82)

42 Can someone photoshop a Miranda warning onto a JDAM or Hellfire, please?

Posted by: Jean at November 19, 2009 11:02 AM (1bQOq)

43 Where in the hell are they going to find a jury of KSM's peers? Will there be any Jews on the jury? I doubt it.

Posted by: MPFS Indentured Fish Stick to the State at November 19, 2009 11:02 AM (iYbLN)

44 Graham;...has an enemy combatant been tried in a civilian court in US.
Holder's answer? well i dunno I'll have to look into that?
really? really? But we're going todo it, even though i admit i'm ignorant?

Posted by: willow at November 19, 2009 11:02 AM (GkYyh)

45 27 Obama and Holder are going to end up looking like fools when this "trial" starts.
Does it really matter? The people that voted for Obama will not care. Hell the guy could seriously use the Constitution as a rolling paper for a huge joint and they would applaud.

Posted by: Mr. Pink at November 19, 2009 11:03 AM (SqAkN)

46 @aggiebc: In three more years, we won't remember this day.

Posted by: Old Sailor at November 19, 2009 11:03 AM (/Ft4q)

47
Soon our men and women in uniform will be required to carry around "Miranda cards"

For a while the Army had "stress cards" that they carried around in basic. If the mean old Drill got in your face and upset you, you could play your Stress Card and get a timeout. Un-fucking-believable. You probably aren't too far off, lord knows there's too many JAG officers running around.

Posted by: Dang Straights at November 19, 2009 11:03 AM (Haq+B)

48 Who wants to be on that jury? Imagine spending the rest of your life looking over your shoulder, waiting for the psycho Islamic murdering prick who thinks that he'll finally get laid (by goats, but that's what they are into) if he kills juror from the KSM trial.

Posted by: NJConservative at November 19, 2009 11:04 AM (/Ywwg)

49 Graham;...has an enemy combatant been tried in a civilian court in US.
Holder's answer? well i dunno I'll have to look into that?

Wait a minute, Holder is the AG. Wouldn't you expect that the AG would have researched this little nugget before making a decision?

Posted by: MPFS Indentured Fish Stick to the State at November 19, 2009 11:04 AM (iYbLN)

50 WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE OVER THE PRESIDENT'S 'VERDICT FIRST, TRIAL SECOND' PRONOUNCEMENTS?
How does the defense not move for dismissal onday one of the trial? How does the government prove there is no bias when the President of the United States announces not only the verdict but the sentence before the trial?
The Constitution is in danger, my friends.

Posted by: Jones at November 19, 2009 11:05 AM (JL3qV)

51 Hey PJ do court reporters make good money?

Posted by: Mr. Pink at November 19, 2009 11:06 AM (SqAkN)

52 Hey Eric,How did thatbarbed cock of satan feel? That was just a taste of what your future holds.

Posted by: conscious, but incoherent at November 19, 2009 11:06 AM (kn+jW)

53 Again, I don't see how this case doesn't get thrown out on a pretrial motion. Which is good in that KSM and his flacks won't get access to discovery.

Joe, I don't see anything good about this being the nutjob now has "our" rights.
I'm not a lawyer but does this not scream...precedent?

How can we give someone our rights and then deny them a great portion of those rights to get the outcome we want and expect it not to change the rules for everyone, which it should.
We are witnessing the first steps of replacing our justice system with a Kangaroo court, so these politicians can consistently get the outcomes they want when they put us on trial.Wonderful.

Posted by: Drider at November 19, 2009 11:06 AM (HaJD9)

54
Does it really matter? The people that voted for Obama will not care.

You know what, I was sitting next to a brother on the PnR this morning, and he was talking to someone on the phone about this. His exact words were "do it just like the Chinese, shoot them in the back of the head and charge them for the bullet." I was stunned. This KSM thing is going to bite them in the ass, it has already started to do so.

Posted by: Dang Straights at November 19, 2009 11:07 AM (Haq+B)

55 How did Stedman get to be AG?????

Posted by: Chuck at November 19, 2009 11:08 AM (WSEFQ)

56 I'm sorry but Holder may be the dumbest cocksucker in this whole cocksucking administration. The Affimrative Action dimwit actually said the following:
"Here's the crap Holder is trying to sell that Graham won't let him get away with...Holder says, 'we don't need to question bin Laden because we have so much evidence already so we won't question him for a statement, therefor Miranda doesn't apply'."
A fucking 3rd grader should be smarter than that. Of course Bin Laden would be questioned. It doesn't A FUCKING GENIUS to figure this FACT out.
We catch Obama and we don't ask him who, what, where and when?? We just catch him for his past crimes against the U.S. and don't ask him any questions?
Who the FUCK does HOLDER think he's fooling?
Oh. The MSM.

Posted by: gus at November 19, 2009 11:08 AM (Vqruj)

57 Who wants to be in the jury pool?

I assure you a Fatwah awaits you and your family. Such wonderful incentives.

Posted by: Techie at November 19, 2009 11:09 AM (cxW4X)

58 I sure have had my problems with Graham in the past, but this was an epic smackdown. Monumental ownage.

Posted by: Reggie1971 at November 19, 2009 11:09 AM (b68Df)

59 Well spoken, #55, Drider. So, how close are we to a constitutional precipice?

Posted by: Old Sailor at November 19, 2009 11:10 AM (/Ft4q)

60 Racist cracker.

Posted by: iowahawk at November 19, 2009 11:10 AM (veL4N)

61 Graham;...has an enemy combatant been tried in a civilian court in US. -- I don't think Graham asked that question without knowing the answer, and Holder knows the answer as well.

Posted by: Jean at November 19, 2009 11:10 AM (tJF9l)

62 Look, dammit! I'm a former military and federal prosecutor. Anybody who has connections to Graham or Kyl get them to sponsor legislation immediately to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear and determine these terror trials. The Constitution vests Congress with the sole power to determine the subject matter jurisdiction (that is, the power) of the federal courts. They can giveth and taketh away. This move would have good results no matter the outcome: 1. it would get the Dems on record as voting for or against a SKM trial in Manhattan; and 2. it just might pass--putting Obama in a box. So, peeps, let's get on this. My US rep's are Schumer, Gillibrand and a lib congressman. I got nuthin'. Tried to contact Graham's orefice but they told me I wasn't a consituent so they kind of blew me off.

Posted by: slade at November 19, 2009 11:10 AM (XsHAM)

63 So the President orders a change of venue and then pronounces the defendant guilty. WTF?

Posted by: BigJohn at November 19, 2009 11:11 AM (vxaS5)

64 Has anyone speculated on the political impact of this show trial in NY. Could it cost the Dems a Governor and Senator?

Posted by: Jean at November 19, 2009 11:11 AM (tJF9l)

65 The right to an attorney is only available to someone who is being questioned or in a legal proceeding.

Federale,

You as a federal officer can't just arrest someone and throw them in a cell indefinitely and not provide them with access to counsel as long as you don't ask them a question.

If that were the rule, people could be arrested, thrown in a cell and held there indefinitely so long as no one asked them a question.

However, Osama will have to be questioned for his intelligence value,
not for any prosecution, and it appears that Lindsey Gramnesty missed
that.

Is anyone sure that a court won't say, 'wait, you guys held him for 5 years and are just bringing him to court now?" The administration will say, that was different and the clock starts...now.

There's no basis in law for that. A court could very well argue that KSM was denied his 6th Amendment right to a speedy trial. There's only one remedy for that.

Also, the question is about going forward with lesser known terrorists. OBL and KSM are known commodiites but what about the next #3 guy in AQ or just a foot soldier.

As a battlefield commander, what do you do with them to preserve the options that Obama says he wants? It's great the Holder says there's a protocol for deciding what track to go down, but what happens in those first few minutes could impact that decision which will be made months/years later.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 19, 2009 11:11 AM (FCWQb)

66 And here I was thinking Alberto Gonzalez was our first affirmative action Attorney General.

Posted by: DelD at November 19, 2009 11:11 AM (rC+/c)

67 Well, if they've got full Constitutional rights, even non-citizens outside the US, don't we need a court order before we listen to enemy communications, even on the battlefield?

This silly political decision is Pandora's Box, and, once it's opened, everything falls apart (or it will once lawyers begin pushing those precedents to their limits).

Posted by: nickless at November 19, 2009 11:12 AM (MMC8r)

68 45
Where in the hell are they going to find a jury of KSM's peers? ...

Posted by: MPFS Indentured Fish Stick to the State at November 19, 2009 11:02 AM (iYbLN)A jury of KSM's true peers would acquit him.

Posted by: Nighthawk at November 19, 2009 11:14 AM (OtQXp)

69 This prosecuting stuff is an inexact science. It doesn't matter anyway because I'm holding a jobs fair next month.

Posted by: B.Hussein Obama at November 19, 2009 11:14 AM (GhHQb)

70 Anybody who has connections to Graham or Kyl get them to sponsor
legislation immediately to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to
hear and determine these terror trials.

Slade,

They did that with the Military Commissions Act and the Courts took the case anyway.

That inconvenient part of the Constitution is a dead letter because the judges say so. So shut up, the law (like the science) is settled.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 19, 2009 11:15 AM (FCWQb)

71 Yeah, nickless, once we go down this path, how do we back-up and set
things straight? Am I wrong to envision a crisis worse than our worse
nightmare? This whole thing pus us and or military in complete peril.

Posted by: Old Sailor at November 19, 2009 11:15 AM (/Ft4q)

72 51

I agree - Graham should have nailed him on that response alone. Interestingly, Graham kind of went easy on him, he could have nailed him so hard that Holder disappeared under the table sucking his thumb and assuming a fetal position, but he must have felt pity for him.

Posted by: volfan at November 19, 2009 11:17 AM (lF49h)

73 Your Honor. I'm just a simple hyperchicken from a backwood asteroid,
but if it pleases the court....

Posted by: Lindsey "Futurama" Graham at November 19, 2009 11:18 AM (rC+/c)

74 Hey, the jury system seemed to work out well for me, at least the first time. The second, not so much. But I did get away with double murder.

Posted by: OJ Simpson at November 19, 2009 11:18 AM (iYbLN)

75

Who wants to be in the jury pool?

I imagine if selected for the jury there will be a handsome little book deal at the end.

Posted by: bulwark at November 19, 2009 11:18 AM (jvrmc)

76 Solid questioning. Pandering to the cameras is just like pandering to a jury so I won't fault him for that. He does a good job.

Posted by: brak at November 19, 2009 11:18 AM (+6Y7G)

77 Any cop or first year law student KNOWS youhave to administer Miranda in any custodial interrogation. Anything obtained from a custodial interrogation where Miranda has NOT been administered is FRUIT OF THE POISON TREE and will not be admitted in a court of law in the U.S. As a matter of fact, any evidence obtained as a result of any illegal activity as deemed so by case law that has been set as precient by SCOTUS is fruit of the poison tree and will also be excluded unless the State can show that the information would be obtained regardless of the illegal activity from which they got it. See a problem here with federal Courts and Combatants? Seems Holder does not. Was he an affirmative action product? I am getting more skeptical of any benificiary of AA. BO and Holder have proven that AA lets idots get degrees they cannot even begin to live up to!

Posted by: rightzilla at November 19, 2009 11:19 AM (rVJH4)

78 What juror would write a book? You would have to hide for the rest of your life.

Posted by: MPFS Indentured Fish Stick to the State at November 19, 2009 11:20 AM (iYbLN)

79 Graham is my senator and every time I decide to vote against him he pulls a stunt like this! Vote for him...vote against him....

Posted by: Joseph Brown at November 19, 2009 11:21 AM (mumWu)

80 81 What juror would write a book? You would have to hide for the rest of your life.
Posted by: MPFS Indentured Fish Stick to the State at November 19, 2009 11:20 AM (iYbLN)
If I was a juror, I'd write a book about it.

Posted by: Salmon Rushdie at November 19, 2009 11:21 AM (kn+jW)

81 I wanna give a shot out to Chuck Schummer! Thanks Chuck for all your hard work on my healthcare bill. Now this news today of KSM's aquital is shocking to us all. We need to retry him in a military tribunal.

Posted by: Obama at November 19, 2009 11:21 AM (SqAkN)

82 He walked her [Sotomayor ] down a path where there was absolutely no doubt she was incompetent and lying. Unfortunately at that point Graham's political instincts overrode his legal training and he let her off the hook.
So we should hope that Sen. Graham isn't on the jury.

Posted by: andycanuck at November 19, 2009 11:22 AM (2qU2d)

83 71 45 Where in the hell are they going to find a jury of KSM's peers? ...
Posted by: MPFS Indentured Fish Stick to the State at November 19, 2009 11:02 AM (iYbLN)
A jury of KSM's true peers would acquit him.
Posted by: Nighthawk at November 19, 2009 11:14 AM (OtQXp)

Of course they would because he believe onkly in Sharia law and under sharia law any non muslims testimony is reduced in credibility by 50%....oh...and ladies???? FAGEDABOUDIT!

Posted by: rightzilla at November 19, 2009 11:22 AM (rVJH4)

84 Does anyone practice in NYC and have a reference to a summary of current bench, and the judges likely to get this trial.

Posted by: Jean at November 19, 2009 11:23 AM (Scxfk)

85 Obama and Holder know exactly what they are doing.

Putting these animals in civilian court is basically a huge middle finger to Bush/Cheney and the War on Terror. A bone tossed to the leftist anti-America base of the democrat party.

While I don't doubt that Obama and Holder are affirmative action punks, these fuckers are smart enough in this instance to know exactly what they are doing.

Fuck them. They should be in prison.

Posted by: Dave at November 19, 2009 11:23 AM (Xm1aB)

86 I give Graham a "D". I would have said that Holder was incompetent if he didn't already know whether to Mirandize Bin Laden if captured tomorrow. I would have asked for Holder's resignation.

Posted by: wHodat at November 19, 2009 11:24 AM (+sBB4)

87
#81

you pretty much become a potential target by being selected,might as well make something from the deal

Posted by: bulwark at November 19, 2009 11:24 AM (jvrmc)

88 I thought it was quite telling when Holder responded that HE makes the juridicional decisions, not KSM......a simple school yard turf war. These people are as trailer trash as can be.

Posted by: rightzilla at November 19, 2009 11:25 AM (rVJH4)

89 #89

+1

You have to wonder though if the Republicans are holding off with that kind of language in a public forum so as not to let the rest of the world know that our senators are actually shitting themselves knowing just how incompetent and therefore dangerous Obama and Holder are.

Posted by: Dave at November 19, 2009 11:26 AM (Xm1aB)

90 Well considering Graham will vote to legalize anyone in this country illegally KSM will become a citizen soon anyway so this entire conversation will become moot.

Posted by: Mr. Pink at November 19, 2009 11:27 AM (SqAkN)

91 Graham;...has an enemy combatant been tried in a civilian court in US.
Holder's answer? well i dunno I'll have to look into that?
really? really? But we're going todo it, even though i admit i'm ignorant?
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on t.v., but Lindsay absolutely eviscerates Holder who is like a deer in headlights. Good on him. I've always thought that Graham was best when he's dealing with judiciary issues (ie. the Alito confirmation, Sotomeyer, and now this).
As Andrew McCarthy said this a.m. on the Laura Ingraham show, every lawyer bases decisions on precedent. Supposedly, Holder had done a lot of "careful consideration and research" before he made this decision to try KSM et al in civillian court. Yet as McCarthy pointed out, he couldn't justify this decision with any precedent as Graham so eloquently pointed out. McCarthy said no lawyer would ever do something like this without precedent in just an every day courtroom, and the fact that you have The Attorney General of the United States (who's suppose to be an expert in the law)doing this proves it is purely political. Both he and Laura agreed that this decision is going to bite the Obama administration in the butt when the U.S. ends up being the one on trial, not KSM.
This you-tube vid should be front page news, but unfortunately, I don't see that happening.

Posted by: runningrn at November 19, 2009 11:29 AM (qP2BK)

92 Graham's cross-examination was decent although his target was easy pickens.'

Personally, I wish the voters of South Carolina would make Lindsey an assistant prosecutor in a South Carolina country somewhere. He'd do a decent job at that.

Posted by: Dave at November 19, 2009 11:29 AM (Xm1aB)

93 county, not country

Posted by: Dave at November 19, 2009 11:29 AM (Xm1aB)

94
#89

I wonder how much of the evidence Holder says we have against bin laden would be allowed in a civilian court.

Posted by: bulwark at November 19, 2009 11:31 AM (jvrmc)

95 Where in the hell are they going to find a jury of KSM's peers? ...
Shouldn't be too hard, Afghanistan, Pakistan, The West Bank, etc.
As far as sitting on that jury, those people are going to get old and perhaps lose their livelihood. This trial is going to be interminably long. I can't even imagine how much that is going to cost NYC--to be on high alert with all that security for years. Not only that, but would anyone choose to go to NYC as a tourist with all that going on? Unbelievable.

Posted by: runningrn at November 19, 2009 11:32 AM (qP2BK)

96 How does the defense not move for dismissal onday one of the trial?

Undoubtedly they will. I'll say the chances of it being granted are around 50:50.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 19, 2009 11:32 AM (XUgp7)

97 Running, It was simply stunning , how ignorant He is shown to be!
i actully gasped at it.
.

Posted by: willow at November 19, 2009 11:34 AM (GkYyh)

98
I'm not a lawyer, but I do enough expert witness testimony as part of
my job to know that this is very effective cross examination that left
him nowhere to hide. Holder's problem is he is trying to sell BS and
Graham brought this out in the open for all to see.
And it's notable that our fucking AG was too stupid to see it coming. Now, it helps to have the facts and law on your side (Holder has neither) but a decent lawyer should have seen the angles.

Yikes. Every day the question goes from "are they stupid or evil?" to "are they even more stupid and evil than I thought they were yesterday?"

Posted by: tachyonshuggy at November 19, 2009 11:34 AM (yUybe)

99 I'm starting to wonder if this will happen, or if it will be like the closing of Gitmo, postponed while they--hey, look over here, something shiny!
Whose cooperation do they need? New York doesn't want this circus, there are some really rocky legal issues that could derail it...I really wonder.

Posted by: Mama AJ at November 19, 2009 11:36 AM (Be4xl)

100 Where in the hell are they going to find a jury of KSM's peers?
The Columbia University faculty.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at November 19, 2009 11:36 AM (B+qrE)

101 Graham voted to confirm Holder. Now he gets to look all prosecutorial genius by questioning the idiot he voted for in the first place. Holder worked for the lawfirm in D.C. who reps a bunch of detainees. Graham and the rest of the rhinos who voted for him are reaping the whirlwind now. Congratulations to Graham, and now, watch as Bush and Cheney and half the CIA are gutted in front of inquiring minds. Yeah, he's a real fucking genius, alright.

Posted by: mikeyslaw at November 19, 2009 11:36 AM (QMGr1)

102 running i know Schumer asked for 75 million for security costs.

Posted by: willow at November 19, 2009 11:36 AM (GkYyh)

103 Show trials tend to come back and bite you.

Posted by: Lavrenti Beria at November 19, 2009 11:37 AM (5aa4z)

104 As far as sitting on that jury, those people are going to get old and perhaps lose their livelihood.

Naaa. It'll be jury of unemployed and retirees with nothing else to do. Anyone else in the pool will be smart enough to get themselves disqualified during Voir dire.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 19, 2009 11:37 AM (XUgp7)

105 106 running i know Schumer asked for 75 million for security costs.
The trial of KSM is about one three letter word, J-O-B-S.

Posted by: Joe Biden at November 19, 2009 11:38 AM (SqAkN)

106 Apparently, Obama's only problem with al Qaeda is that they aren't unionized.

Posted by: nickless at November 19, 2009 11:38 AM (MMC8r)

107 How fucking stupid are some of you people.
If these people are being tried in Civilian court, they are by law afforded ALL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. If they are afforded all Constitutional Rights, they HAVE to be Mirandized. IT IS HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT. These men would have NO IDEA what their RIGHTS are or were, because we have never made such a MORONIC decision before. There was never a reason to MIRANDIZE on the battle field
ERGO and here is the big finish.
If they were no Mirandized, their RIGHT WERE VIOLATED. They were not informed of their right to SILENCE nor their RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY. Whether they were interrogated or NOT, we are REQUIRED to tell them what RIGHTS THEY HAVE.

We did not.
They walk.
It's as simple as that. Holder is a fucking moron.

Posted by: gus at November 19, 2009 11:38 AM (Vqruj)

108 Mikeyslaw, I've always been curious about who was paying the bills? pro bono ACLU? how would Ifind out?

Posted by: willow at November 19, 2009 11:39 AM (GkYyh)

109 Typical, even though Lindsey Graham knew the rapist and when the rape would happen he waits until after the rape happens to come out swinging.

There is only Truth and the American Way; too many Lawyers raped Justice.

Posted by: syn at November 19, 2009 11:39 AM (ZjEOd)

110
#104

I was wondering about the peer thing,can he insist on muslims sitting on the jury or the exclusion of women?

Posted by: bulwark at November 19, 2009 11:40 AM (jvrmc)

111 Question.
Does anyone know if in fact the military has indeed tried any terrorists in their custody?
Yes, I know they are sitting on them to gain info, but has there been any trials or tribunals?
I'm not aware of any.
Which could be part of the problem.

Posted by: HH at November 19, 2009 11:40 AM (+jvXp)

112 Shit! Just when I was going to declare myself the duly elected official of one (or several (more votes the better don't you know))of the ghost congressional districts where all of the jobs were both created and saved, the good and awesomely competentbastards running the website go and purge the database of all of the fictional districts.
I could have been a contender!

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at November 19, 2009 11:41 AM (r1h5M)

113 From now on Holder will only answer pre chosen questions. Lindsey knew the rule "don't ask a question you don't know the answer too". The O and his peeps will never let this happen again.

Posted by: jAYNE at November 19, 2009 11:42 AM (i+AQb)

114 Obama and Holder thoroughly beclowned themselves yesterday. Will it matter? Probably not.

Posted by: rawmuse at November 19, 2009 11:42 AM (AH8nd)

115 Does anyone know if in fact the military has indeed tried any terrorists in their custody? KSM already plead guilty at his.

Posted by: Jean at November 19, 2009 11:44 AM (5ddCw)

116 Does anyone know if in fact the military has indeed tried any terrorists in their custody?
Yes, I know they are sitting on them to gain info, but has there been any trials or tribunals?
Countdown to when Holder or Obama says something condescending about how the military couldn't handle it...

Posted by: Mama AJ at November 19, 2009 11:44 AM (Be4xl)

117 Obama and Holder know exactly what they are doing.

Actually, I believe they're completely clueless. They THINK they know what they're doing, but clearly they've not thought through all the different angles.

Suppose the judge, recognizing the Obamunists game plan for what it is and how dangerous it will be, is a tad irked they want to use his court for said political spectacle?

Suppose that judge were to simply grant the defense's first motion to dismiss citing chapter and verse of whatever applicable statutes led him to the conclusion.

The Obamunists believe that's not going to happen.

If you get an older judge nearing retirement, who doesn't give a shit about political pressure or their career anymore, anything can happen.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 19, 2009 11:46 AM (XUgp7)

118

While Holder is a fool, we must all realize this problem falls
squarely on the shoulders of President Obama. After all, the terrorists
are in the custody of the military and subject to military courts no
matter what Holder says. The only way for these terrorists to be
transferred from the custody of the military to civilian custody is by
order of the Commander in Chief.

Posted by: Ken

Dear Ken,
Nothing falls squarely in the shoulders of Obama. The buck stops everywhere else.
Sincerely,Kansas

Posted by: kansas at November 19, 2009 11:46 AM (mka2b)

119
Countdown to when Holder or Obama says something condescending about how the military couldn't handle it...

They've already played the 'Bush and the military took 8 years to try them' card. Except that cocksucker Holder worked at the firm that represented the Gitmo terrorists, and their motions were the ones holding up the trials. Cocksuckers.

Posted by: Dang Straights at November 19, 2009 11:47 AM (Haq+B)

120 As problematic is the failure of the Senate to probe how Holder had any say in this whatsoever. As an enemy combatant sequestered on a military base, KSM was under military jurisdiction. He was beyond the Justice Department. Only Obama as head of both Justice and the Military could have made the executive order to transfer custody. Thus Obam'a disclaimer that this was entirely Holder's decision is disingenuous to the extreme. But I have no doubt Holder begged for the chance to put the CIA and our military on trial, promising Obama huge PR rewards and MSM coverage of past Republican practices, all in front of a selected liberal judge. This mono fixation on Bush is ideological in nature, revealing a true hatred of all things conservative.

Posted by: pat at November 19, 2009 11:48 AM (BvvsZ)

121 And for the record, the argument that Graham was making did not require an attorney, just a literate adult who is has read the Constitution and has perhaps watched a few TV crime shows. There were lay people yesterday screaming about this decision all over, including myself.

Posted by: rawmuse at November 19, 2009 11:49 AM (AH8nd)

122 On Laura's show, she also played the clip of Holder when someone at yesterday's hearingconfronted him with McCarthy's opinon, that the right venue to try KSM et al. is in military tribunals not in civillian courts. Holder said something like "Well, that's easy to say in order to score political points on tv and radio shows, but this is not the time for ptolemics. The American way is to have jury trials, blah, blah, blah." McCarthy said something like "Well, is the American way putting terrorists in prison (which I did) or is it defending them and getting them pardons (which Holder did)."

Posted by: runningrn at November 19, 2009 11:49 AM (qP2BK)

123 The military tried German spies during WW2 and hung them.

Posted by: Mr. Pink at November 19, 2009 11:49 AM (SqAkN)

124 Drew:

I believe what the courts did vis a vis the subject matter jurisdiction clauses of the Military Commissions Act was determine on an ad hoc basis that federal habeas petitions would continue to be heard in the courts as this is an ancient writ later codified by law to be a unique tool in the courts. The federal courts did not rule that Congress lacked the power to strip the courts of SMJ on the issue of trials proper. Even our SCOTUS would probably rule that no district judge could overrule Congress' declaration that no trials would occur.

Slade

Posted by: slade at November 19, 2009 11:50 AM (XsHAM)

125 Holder may not be stupid, but he sure looks like his knowledge of American History and Law is lacking.

Posted by: kansas at November 19, 2009 11:50 AM (mka2b)

126 "I worry about you Eric -- you may fold under questioning! Ya stutterin' prick, ya."

Posted by: Alex at November 19, 2009 11:51 AM (yMe+s)

127 On US soil.

Posted by: Mr. Pink at November 19, 2009 11:51 AM (SqAkN)

128 I posted this video on my facebook page last night for all my libtard friends to see with the following headline "Holder admitsthat he will stage a show trial by testifying that even if KSM is acquitted or gets off on a technicality he will still be detained as an enemy combatant. Rather than demonstrating the strength of our judicial system (as is claimed) this trial will undermine the very foundations of it"
The legal implicationsthat follow from Holder'stestimonymake the hamfisted handling of this issueby the Bush administration look deft and masterful by comparison.I cannot see how anyone but the most radical leftist can watch this clip and not be deeply disturbed.

Posted by: muggedbyreality at November 19, 2009 11:51 AM (eUGzR)

129 Swinging to the right before the next election, Grahamnesty? FAIL

Posted by: Truman North at November 19, 2009 11:52 AM (e8YaH)

130 Actually, I believe they're completely clueless. They THINK they know what they're doing, but clearly they've not thought through all the different angles.
I've worked with people like that. They plugged in an alarm clock once so now they are a fully qualified electrician. They built a treehouse for their kid so now they are a capenter. The fixed a clogged a drain with Drano so now they are a plumber.
They THINK they know what they're doing. After all, how hard could it be? It takes a heavy dose of immaturity to think that way.

Posted by: Alex's Cabin at November 19, 2009 11:52 AM (8RZx+)

131 Did KSM actually kill anybody himself? Aha! Neither did CharlesManson. So, in order to get the best perspective on the KSM trial, we should hear from the prosecutor in the Manson trial.
What have you to say about all this, Vincent Bugliosi?

Posted by: FireHorse at November 19, 2009 11:52 AM (Vl5GH)

132 They've already played the 'Bush and the military took 8 years to try them' card. Except that cocksucker Holder worked at the firm that represented the Gitmo terrorists, and their motions were the ones holding up the trials. Cocksuckers.
Dang, you are so right, I admire your perspicacity. Yesterday, Andrew McCarthy said that Holder's firm defended 18 of those scumbags so he should really recuse himself from this whole thing. He also said that those defense lawyers filed so many motions and delays that only 3 of the terrorists have been tried in military tribunals. So for Holder to decry the glacial pace of "justice" because of the Bush administration and tout that the Obama administration is moving things forward after only 8 months is completely disingenuous, at best. Oh and the thing you are the most right about is how you ended your comment. You are such a wordsmith--heh!

Posted by: runningrn at November 19, 2009 11:54 AM (qP2BK)

133 Drew:
One mo' thing: whereas certain federal district judges read the Military Commissions Act as not divesting them of subject matter jurisdiction to hear habeas petitions, that proceeding is initiated by the filing of a defense petition; it gets before the court that way. If Congress were to act now and decisively in stripping the federal courts of the power to even hear KSM trials, it would bind the EXECUTIVE too. It would be illegal for Holder and his cronies to even initiate a federal grand jury proceeding to obtain the indictment in the first instance. Even Holder wouldn't do this patently illegal maneuver.

Posted by: slade at November 19, 2009 11:55 AM (XsHAM)

134 #135 What have you to say about all this, Vincent Bugliosi?
These days, he's probably agree with Administration on KSM. I remember Bugliosi wrote a book (can't recall the title off-hand) where he said that basically the Supreme Court botched Bush vs. Gore and selected Bush as the President.
If there's two things that Leftism can kill quickly in one's mind, it's ethics and logic.

Posted by: Kratos (on the back of Gaia, scaling Mt Olympus) at November 19, 2009 11:56 AM (9hSKh)

135 There are a lot of knocks on Eric Holder but no one really thinks he's a stupid man.
I do. I can't think of a single "smart" thing Holder has ever said or done, while I can can uickly come up with a number of really stupid things he's proudly backed and said.
Why do people seem so quick to ascribe intelligence to people who demonstrate none, just because they have wormed their way into high positions or been able to gain acceptance into "elite" institutions? I find this perplexing.
Maybe people have just formed some sort of respect for the intellect of people who do stupid things and then look like fools when they fail to justify them in public? I don't get it. I just don't get it.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at November 19, 2009 11:57 AM (A46hP)

136 Graham is good. Too bad he's not on our side.

Posted by: ahem at November 19, 2009 11:58 AM (Ldu+P)

137
Starting to think the best thing for the country would be if the court lets KSM walk on day one. Rather see that than the leftist trash destroy CIA and our military by putting them on trial instead in this kangaroo court. Not to mention the backlash against Wee Wee and AG cocksucker.

Posted by: Dang Straights at November 19, 2009 11:58 AM (Haq+B)

138 Didn't KSM personally behead Daniel Pearl? Yes, I think he admitted that one on video.

Posted by: rawmuse at November 19, 2009 11:58 AM (AH8nd)

139 running i know Schumer asked for 75 million for security costs.
The trial of KSM is about one three letter word, J-O-B-S.
Yup, NYC is going broke, but let's just raise the taxes on the rich to pay for the KSM trial. If I lived in NYC and made any kind of money, I'd get the heck out of Dodge. Did you see that some big boxing match between Floyd Mayweather and that Philippino dude (I'm blanking on his name) will not take place in either NY or NJ because of....wait for it....the high tax rates! Heh!

Posted by: runningrn at November 19, 2009 11:58 AM (qP2BK)

140 Didn't KSM personally behead Daniel Pearl? Yes, I think he admitted that one on video.
Yes, he did. The Pearl family came out right away and denounced this decision.

Posted by: runningrn at November 19, 2009 11:59 AM (qP2BK)

141 As far as technique, Graham nailed it. Keep giving the witness rope, let the witness hang himself and then give a gentle nudge to help the swing.

Damn it I said something nice about Graham, I have to go wash in bleach now.

Posted by: alexthechick at November 19, 2009 11:59 AM (8WZWv)

142 Did KSM actually kill anybody himself?
Daniel Pearl.
Next.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at November 19, 2009 12:00 PM (B+qrE)

143 Graham is good. Too bad he's not on our side.
Heh!

Posted by: runningrn at November 19, 2009 12:00 PM (qP2BK)

144 Ptolemics? Yes indeedie RunningRn, Ptolemics are exactly what we get from the great Imperial Edifice with their "bad news dump" each Friday afternoon.
The Great Ptolemy tells us what we need (and are allowed) to know. In the meantime, the unwashed populace will continue to have the Great Ptolemy dump "bad news" all over us for the next three years.
On a happier note, it was good to see that Senator Graham has not entirely forgotten his prosecutorial chops. He still knows how to ask a question. But he disappears all too often into the great Senatorial fog of compromise and good fellowship. Still, an occasional glimmer of intelligence on the part of any Senator is good to see.

Posted by: Happy Fellow at November 19, 2009 12:00 PM (w6nDa)

145
Mr.Pink

The Nuremburg Trials were a military tribunal as were the trials of the Lincoln co-conspirators.

Posted by: bulwark at November 19, 2009 12:01 PM (jvrmc)

146 Why do people seem so quick to ascribe intelligence to people who demonstrate none, just because they have wormed their way into high positions or been able to gain acceptance into "elite" institutions? I find this perplexing.
I hate to sound all conspiratorial and racist, but I really do believe both Holder and Obama are two of affirmative action's finest examples.

Posted by: runningrn at November 19, 2009 12:01 PM (qP2BK)

147 Well, if they've got full Constitutional rights, even non-citizens
outside the US, don't we need a court order before we listen to enemy
communications, even on the battlefield?

The lefties were arguing just that over the "domestic wiretapping". The calls originated overseas, ended overseas, yet passed through telecom equipment in the US -- lefties say warrants are needed.

Meanwhile, of course, they say that NO WARRANT is needed to search a shipping container coming into a port. Which is correct, yet incompatible with their stance on communications.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at November 19, 2009 12:02 PM (ZJ/un)

148 On Sen. Graham's first point, of "has there been a time in history...", wouldn't John Walker Lindh qualify for this? I know it's the same war, but this was an American picked up as an enemy combatant, but then tried in court for his crimes.

Posted by: tunakermit at November 19, 2009 12:03 PM (f97Hn)

149 I have commented on this issue before, and for my efforts, I have received attack philosophy.

Quite simply, you cannot illegally kidnap people, hold them for years, deny them the right to a speedy trial and due process. Maybe water board them a few times and find out what they ate at Jack In the Box the night before. Then claim that the information you glean, largely unsubstantiated and uncorroborated, was worth whatever torture you applied-thus justifying it.

And like Graham says, what we have done at Gitmo, would get tossed out of civilian court so fast it would embarrass the government beyond measure. That's why Obama is at a stalemate. You can't try them, look stupid when forced to release them. You can't simply release them and look careless and arrogant, and you can't hold them indefinitely without trial. Nobody even wants the miscreants.

Gitmo is a fucking disaster. It is one of the purest and most asinine ventures I can think of since the Japanese civilian internment camps. I cannot wait to see what the government eventually does because no matter what they do, they are fucked. And as they say, if you know it is unavoidable you might as well sit back and enjoy it.

Posted by: Dumb As A Rocks of Box at November 19, 2009 12:03 PM (wCzzW)

150 27 Obama and Holder are going to end up looking like fools when this "trial" starts.

Posted by: GarandFan at November 19, 2009 10:54 AM (ZQBnQ)
They don't care. Their intention is to make a mockery of our system and make the US look foolish. Anything that removes trust and dignity from American institutions is right in line with their intentions.
This junta is organized towards nothing but destroying our system. If they have to look like idiots in the process (which is just par for the course for them, anyway) then so be it. These people are political suicide bombers who are looking to take our system down with them.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at November 19, 2009 12:03 PM (A46hP)

151 I heard that Subway is introducing a new ham sandwhich. They're naming it "The Holder."

Posted by: runningrn at November 19, 2009 12:03 PM (qP2BK)

152 They THINK they know what they're doing. After all, how hard could it be? It takes a heavy dose of immaturity to think that way.

Lots of smart people assume that simply being smart is enough. A nuclear physicist assumes that his skills are prefectly sufficient to, e.g., fix the wiring in his house. Later, when the EMTs pronounce him dead from massive electrical-shock trauma, it's too late to realize that smarts aren't everything. Skill and experience must exist alongside raw IQ. In fact, raw IQ is much less valuable than people think it is in most cases: it's like saying that any Joe Schmoe can win the Indy 500 if only he's driving the fastest car.

The Democrats have had a fetish for "intellectuals" going back for over a hundred years. They absolute love getting "experts" to sign on to whatever wild-eyed idea they have at any given time. How could it be a bad idea? Smart people support it! Their disdain for average folks is part and parcel of this fetish for "intellectualism" -- just look at the abuse they heaped on W. and Palin, and how much of it was directed at the (perceived) lack of intelligence. Yet when we witness at the hapless stumblings of Obama and his brain-trust...silence follows. How could this happen? They're smart!

Well, it turns out that what you need is not abstract intelligence so much as competence. Plenty of Hahvahd PhD's can't even change a tire or fix a leaky toilet; and the value of these abilities spikes in direct proportion to how badly you need them at any given time. The world can get along without brainy astrophysicists for a good long while; it wouldn't last long without good plumbers.

Posted by: Monty at November 19, 2009 12:03 PM (4Pleu)

153 Under Article I, Section 8[11] of the Constitution, only Congress is authorized: "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water."

If the Miranda rights were ordered by the administration without congressional authorization, are they unconstitutional?
A big loophole already and the trial hasn't even started

Posted by: harleycowboy at November 19, 2009 12:04 PM (JKGfQ)

154 "For one thing, capturing Osama bin Laden � we've had enough on him, we don't need to interrogate him," Leahy added.
There's stupid.
There is criminally negligent stupid.
Then there is the senior senator from Vermont. Wow.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at November 19, 2009 12:04 PM (B+qrE)

155 If I'm an AF JAG and I am asked to okay a kill shot on bin Laden, I wonder why I would after hearing Holder's scuffling around. It sounds to me like the JAG would be executing a suspect, not erasing a terrorist.

Posted by: spongeworthy at November 19, 2009 12:04 PM (rplL3)

156 Does anyone know if in fact the military has indeed tried any terrorists in their custody? KSM already plead guilty at his.
Really? What trial? Because if that happened, why wasn't he sentenced to death or life imprisonment? Thus negating this whole sham in NY.
Must have been something I missed.

Posted by: HH at November 19, 2009 12:05 PM (+jvXp)

157 Here is my take on it. The outcome of the trial has been preordained by The One, so Constitutional Rights will be bestowed upon KSM, then promptly compromised.

That precedent having been set, so shall it be for all of us.

Posted by: rawmuse at November 19, 2009 12:06 PM (AH8nd)

158 I hate to sound all conspiratorial and racist, but I really do believe both Holder and Obama are two of affirmative action's finest examples.

Posted by: runningrn at November 19, 2009 12:01 PM (qP2BK)
Nothing conspiratorial or racist about it. You merely speak the truth. Affirmative action kills and these two are perfect examples of how.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at November 19, 2009 12:06 PM (A46hP)

159 Gitmo is a fucking disaster. It is one of the purest and most asinine ventures I can think of since the Japanese civilian internment camps. I cannot wait to see what the government eventually does because no matter what they do, they are fucked. And as they say, if you know it is unavoidable you might as well sit back and enjoy it.
You really are dumber than a box of rocks. As a child of parents who were both interned, you have no sense of history. The civilians who were interned were never guilty of any crimes against America. The guys in gitmo were. So right away your premise is flawed. The fact these terrorists have only had 3 military tribunals so far is because of liberal asswipe defense attorneys who have delayed prosecutions. If you think these show trials are going to accomplish anything but put the U.S. and the Bush administration on trial, you are sadly mistaken. I feel sorry for you because you really are stuck on stupid. You are a clueless F-tard.

Posted by: runningrn at November 19, 2009 12:07 PM (qP2BK)

160 HH:
Question.
Does anyone know if in fact the military has indeed tried any terrorists in their custody?
Yes, I know they are sitting on them to gain info, but has there been any trials or tribunals?
I'm not aware of any.

You've been living under a rock or depending on the MSM. Every person held at Gitmo has had at least one hearing to determine whether there's cause to hold them. Many have been released because the tribunal did not believe there was enough information.
Some of those released have since been killed on the battlefield, which suggests the tribunals erred on the side of innocence.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at November 19, 2009 12:07 PM (ZJ/un)

161 I've yet to see a single glimmer of intellect from the president. There is literally no evidence to support ascribing a high or even moderate level of intelligence to Obama.

Posted by: Truman North at November 19, 2009 12:07 PM (e8YaH)

162 slade,

Section II of Stevens' Hamdan opinion.

The MCA of 05 specifically pulled jurisdiction.

Stevens got around it by saying it didn't explicitly cover cases in the courts so it was irrelevant. Of course that let the court rule, wreck havoc and then it was immediately applied to any other detainee, regardless if they were in the system or not.

Posted by: DrewM. at November 19, 2009 12:08 PM (FCWQb)

163 Quite simply, you cannot illegally kidnap Americans people, hold them for years, deny them the right to a speedy trial and due process.

Fixed that for you.

We can do whatever the fuck we want with enemy combatants taken on the field of battle, up to and including summary execution. Your bleating about what's "illegal" or not obscures the fact that the Geneva Accords do not carry the weight of law, and do not burden the US as to our actions in the field. We choose to abide by the Accords; we are not bound to.

American citizens have the right to due process in civilian courts, not enemy aliens.

You, sir, are a credulous douchebag. A feckless chump, a gulllible pigeon ripe for the plucking. Someday, you may find yourself at the mercy of these Jihadi swine; I hope you can explain your theories of crime and punishment, and enjoy the sound of their laughter as they cut your fucking throat.

Posted by: Monty at November 19, 2009 12:08 PM (4Pleu)

164 Gitmo is a fucking disaster. It is one of the purest and most asinine ventures I can think of...
Please tell us why and what you would do with captured terror suspects and illegal combatants. Specifics, please.

Posted by: spongeworthy at November 19, 2009 12:08 PM (rplL3)

165 On Sen. Graham's first point, of "has there been a time in history...", wouldn't John Walker Lindh qualify for this? I know it's the same war, but this was an American picked up as an enemy combatant, but then tried in court for his crimes.
John is an American citizen. None of these terrorists are.

Posted by: runningrn at November 19, 2009 12:08 PM (qP2BK)

166 @152 Lindh is a US citizen, with wealthy parents.

Posted by: rawmuse at November 19, 2009 12:09 PM (AH8nd)

167 Purple Avenger:

Actually, I believe they're completely clueless. They THINK they
know what they're doing, but clearly they've not thought through all
the different angles.
They have a Plan. And if you have a Plan, everything goes according to the Plan, right?

Remember the shrieks from the left that Bush didn't have a Plan? I guess their outrage was sincere -- they really, really do have that level of faith in the mere existence of a Plan.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at November 19, 2009 12:10 PM (ZJ/un)

168 I am looking to sell a movie script.

Captured terrorists are flying over the ocean headed for trial. The pilot jumps in his chute. CIA blames terrorists for shooting down plane.

Good plot?

Posted by: wHodat at November 19, 2009 12:11 PM (+sBB4)

169 Posted by: Rob Crawford at November 19, 2009 12:10 PM (ZJ/un)
Andrew McCarthy thinks these guys are going to live to regret this decision when they get shellacked by public opinion. He was wondering who is advising them to do this. Laura said "Bill Ayers."

Posted by: runningrn at November 19, 2009 12:11 PM (qP2BK)

170 Thanks runningrn. Your inability to see beyond your ego, your belief that you are all knowing, validates the first line in my post. Sweet.

Gitmo detainees have all been convicted, is that what you are saying?

Unlike you, I do not feel the urge to call names. I outgrew that sometime after the playground, but by all means indulge yourself.

Posted by: Dumb As A Rocks of Box at November 19, 2009 12:12 PM (wCzzW)

171 Your bleating about what's "illegal" or not obscures the fact that the Geneva Accords do not carry the weight of law, and do not burden the US as to our actions in the field. We choose to abide by the Accords; we are not bound to.
Additionally, terrorists are not signatories to Geneva. We have no responsibility to honor Geneva with regards to terrorists even if we continue to honor them towards other signatories.

Posted by: Truman North at November 19, 2009 12:12 PM (e8YaH)

172 19 RINOS love this guy.

Hatch on FN this a.m. said "I like Holder" just disagree about trial. Like he was talking about a restaurant he didn't like.

I guess Hatch liked the FALN terrorist bombings, Mark Rich pardon, and all of the jihaddi defenders......

Who are these people.

They should all apologize to the American people for voting for him, and today they will step right up and vote for Hamilton

Posted by: non_dhimmie at November 19, 2009 12:12 PM (cFwGO)

173 And like Graham says, what we have done at Gitmo, would get tossed out of ******civilian court******* so fast it would embarrass the government beyond measure.
Hey, genius...spot the key words.
Are you following the argumetn at all? These enemy combatants should be subject to military tribunals as they are ENEMY COMBATANTS. Got it?
The whole premise behind Guantanamo was to ensure they did not reach the civilian courts becasue of the very circus we are now going to face. Is this so effing hard to follow?

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at November 19, 2009 12:13 PM (B+qrE)

174 #153: Your handle is appropriate.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at November 19, 2009 12:13 PM (ZJ/un)

175 Posted by: Dumb As A Rocks of Box at November 19, 2009 12:03 PM (wCzzW)
You should watch the Steven Crowder video on Gitmo so you can educate yourself a little. And quit insulting boxes of rocks. You really pissed me off.

Posted by: runningrn at November 19, 2009 12:13 PM (qP2BK)

176 Starting to think the best thing for the country would be if the court lets KSM walk on day one.

That's the conclusion I've come to. It thwarts Obama/Holder's dis-ingeniousness about what the trial is really about and allows the civil process to maintain the fig leaf of "blind justice" necessary to maintain general civil order in the country. People need to have some (minimal) faith that the civil courts aren't completely corrupt and bowing to political pressure.

I'd rather see KSM beat this set of charges than see the Obamunists corrupt the whole civil legal system for their ideological carnival.

Its not like KSM walks out the door, since there's a gazillion other charges he could be tried on, but it would be a major black eye for the Obamunists.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 19, 2009 12:14 PM (XUgp7)

177 Patterico, who got it from Greenwald, which may just be the Chaos that someone's been predicting 'round here:
[Holder:] Courts and commissions are both essential tools in our fight against terrorism . . . On the same day I sent these five defendants to federal court, I referred five others to be tried in military commissions. I am a prosecutor, and as a prosecutor, my top priority was simply to select the venue where the government will have the greatest opportunity to present the strongest case with the best law. . . . At the end of the day, it was clear to me that the venue in which we are most likely to obtain justice for the American people is a federal court.
In other words, "I looked myopically at the issue of best venue and didn't notice the political, legal, or logistical issues."

Posted by: Mama AJ at November 19, 2009 12:15 PM (Be4xl)

178 As a lawyer, I found Graham's questioning effective, but honestly, I thought he went fairly easy on him. When Holder responded to his question about when he would Mirandize Bin Laden by saying "it depends," I would have asked Holder:
"Mr. Attorney General, we could be capturing Bin Laden as we speak. Do you mean to tell me that the only direction that has been given to people who may take him into custody about how to deal with the issue of custodial interrogation is 'IT DEPENDS'???"
This is genuinely frightening stuff.

Posted by: Leeotis at November 19, 2009 12:15 PM (4skUZ)

179 Yeah, nickless, once we go down this path, how do we back-up and set
things straight? Am I wrong to envision a crisis worse than our worse
nightmare? This whole thing pus us and or military in complete peril.

Yeah, I'd hate for that to happen

Posted by: Barack Obama at November 19, 2009 12:15 PM (yUybe)

180 Posted by: Dumb As A Rocks of Box at November 19, 2009 12:03 PM (wCzzW)
Oh, and while you're at it, why don't you educate yourself about the internment camps. You have no fricking idea. My family was there.

Posted by: runningrn at November 19, 2009 12:15 PM (qP2BK)

181 Insert Picture of the Joker grabbing Leahy by the neck and pushing a knife against his face from Dark Knight

Posted by: jp at November 19, 2009 12:15 PM (DFDtC)

182 160Really? What trial? Because if that happened, why wasn't he
sentenced to death or life imprisonment? Thus negating this whole sham
in NY.
Must have been something I missed.
Yes, it's something you missed -- and your ignorance renders its existence null and void.
The trial -- before a military tribunal as established by Congress -- began and then was shut down by -- I believe -- order of Obama.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at November 19, 2009 12:16 PM (ZJ/un)

183 I'd be interested in what the lawyers here have to say about Graham's style of questioning. My guess is they wouldn't want their client on the other side of it.

I'm not really a lawyer, but I play on TV.

But before I can answer that question, I need to spend a night at a Holiday Inn Express.

Posted by: B. Obama at November 19, 2009 12:16 PM (4iIhs)

184 Truman North at November 19, 2009 12:07 PM (e8YaH)
That is why I call him DUUUH WON.
DUUUH for lack of any common sense and DUUUH won the election over common sense hence DUUUH WON.

Posted by: harleycowboy at November 19, 2009 12:17 PM (JKGfQ)

185 @121
Actually,
I believe they're completely clueless. They THINK they know what
they're doing, but clearly they've not thought through all the
different angles

Spot on. This disconnect is the central theme of this administration. If you have never been challenged, and have only ever been told how brilliant you are for doing any little thing, even if only at a mediocre level, then this is what you get. You could see the self-esteem leaking out of Holder in real time. Reminded me of the Wicked Witch melting.

Posted by: pep at November 19, 2009 12:18 PM (5GcKk)

186 Gitmo detainees have all been convicted, is that what you are saying?
I am not saying that. I'm saying that these men were picked up on the battlefield engaging illegally. A lot of these people were released, and what you have left now are the worst of the worst. If you would like, why don't you adopt some of those innocent detainees and have them go live with you and your family. Really, you are unbelievable. I will waste no more words or time on you.

Posted by: runningrn at November 19, 2009 12:18 PM (qP2BK)

187 I just watched the video. Is it customary to have a stammering, clueless fuck as the US Attorney General? Maybe it's not an important position anymore as all matters are decided by The Omniscience in the White House.

Posted by: t-bird at November 19, 2009 12:19 PM (FcR7P)

188 Gitmo is a fucking disaster. It is one of the purest and most asinine ventures I can think of...

Please tell us why and what you would do with captured terror suspects and illegal combatants. Specifics, please.

Spongeworthy, he will get back to you.It will take time to research "Liberals old, worn out mantras" and get back to you.

And yes, I'm saying that he has no clue on how to answer you because he heard that line somewhere and it sounded like it...fit.

Posted by: Drider at November 19, 2009 12:19 PM (HaJD9)

189 Bill Bennett applauded Graham this morning, referencing his former service as a military attorney in the Air Force.

There is simply no basis in law for Obama and Holder's theory here. It's simply a political decision divorced from law.

Bennett bets that Holder will be forced to reconsider this political decision.

Pat Buchanan bets that otherwise, Obama becomes a lame duck now.

Posted by: Cletus at November 19, 2009 12:19 PM (+CLh/)

190 Additionally, terrorists are not signatories to Geneva. We have no
responsibility to honor Geneva with regards to terrorists even if we
continue to honor them towards other signatories.

Actually, even if they WERE signatories, by targeting civilians, failing to wear distinctive insignia (hiding as civilians), committing false surrender and many, many other acts, they're not protected by the Geneva Conventions.
We're actually doing damage to the Geneva Conventions by giving these animals room and board -- we're rewarding war crimes with a status equivalent to a burglar, while a fundamental premise of the GCs is that sides that commit war crimes as a matter of policy are no longer protected and may (arguably SHOULD) be executed upon capture.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at November 19, 2009 12:20 PM (ZJ/un)

191 So let me get this straight, Rob Crawford. KSM was held by the military, never came to trial, because of Obama and Congress, and is now going to see justice in NYC?
Care to site something to that proposition?

Posted by: HH at November 19, 2009 12:21 PM (+jvXp)

192 I wouldn't want to be on that jury.

Posted by: Salman Rushdie at November 19, 2009 12:22 PM (2jywx)

193 Check out the post at Chicagoboyz.net by Shannon Love. She explains how over time and Appeals Court rulings upholind the Martial Law tactics used against KSM, will bring into our Civilian Justice System: Martial Law

Posted by: jp at November 19, 2009 12:22 PM (DFDtC)

194 HH@160

Link to a lefty site reacting to it. http://tinyurl.com/y8w9c5d

Posted by: Jean at November 19, 2009 12:23 PM (7K04W)

195
Dumb as a Rocks of Box

Khalid was not "illegally kidnapped" he was arrested in Pakistan and turned over to U.S. authorities

Posted by: bulwark at November 19, 2009 12:23 PM (jvrmc)

196 Pat Buchanan bets that otherwise, Obama becomes a lame duck now.
Holy hell. I agree with Pat Buchanan.
I feel dirty.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at November 19, 2009 12:23 PM (B+qrE)

197
Captured terrorists are flying over the ocean headed for trial. The Before the
pilot jumps in his chute., he aims the plane for a Somali pirate ship. CIA blames terrorists for shooting down
plane.

yeah, now it's better.

Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 12:24 PM (jVldi)

198 Simply beyond stupid.

Posted by: soozer at November 19, 2009 12:24 PM (OnRdm)

199 Now officers in the field will not know how to best question captives. Do they use standards based on military law, or civil law?
Whichever one they choose, they might retroactively be subject to punishment of some kind if the captive ends up in the opposite legal system.
The result? Paralysis on the ground, and likely more dead American soldiers when important intelligence is not uncovered.

Posted by: Truman North at November 19, 2009 12:27 PM (e8YaH)

200 Is it customary to have a stammering, clueless fuck as the US Attorney General?

Posted by: t-bird at November 19, 2009 12:19 PM (FcR7P)
That requirement was traditionally for the SecState. The cancer of extreme stupidity has metastasized and now infects all positions of the executive branch. Thanks, Affirmative Action.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at November 19, 2009 12:27 PM (A46hP)

201 Hey, look on the bright side, maybe this will get Miranda overturned.

Posted by: Hotspur at November 19, 2009 12:27 PM (c158/)

202 Holy hell. I agree with Pat Buchanan.
I feel dirty.
Jesus, go get yourself scrubbed down with a stiff brush

Posted by: Truman North at November 19, 2009 12:28 PM (e8YaH)

203 If Lindsey Graham were to burst into flames, I wouldn't waste the time to piss on him.

Posted by: Barbarian at November 19, 2009 12:28 PM (EL+OC)

204 So let me get this straight, Rob Crawford. KSM was held by the military, never came to trial, because of Obama and Congress, and is now going to see justice in NYC?Care to site something to that proposition?

I dispute the proposition that he's going to "see justice in NYC". Proper application of the law would have given him justice long ago -- determine he's a member of al'Qaeda and execute him on those grounds alone.
Anyway, from 2007, reports of KSMs combatant status review. The current news has swamped stories about the more recent tribunal, and I'm having trouble locating them, but they're out there.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at November 19, 2009 12:29 PM (ZJ/un)

205 Holder is on the other side!

Posted by: dfbaskwill at November 19, 2009 12:29 PM (ympAm)

206 I remember Bugliosi wrote a book (can't recall the title off-hand)
where he said that basically the Supreme Court botched Bush vs. Gore
and selected Bush as the President.
I thought it was Alan Dershowitz who wrote the book you're describing. He, at least, has some cred in constitutional law. Bugliosi, not so much.

Posted by: OregonMuse at November 19, 2009 12:30 PM (hoowK)

207 Please tell us why and what you would do with captured terror suspects and illegal combatants. Specifics, please.

Summary battlefield executions per the Geneva Conventions. I'm OK with that.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 19, 2009 12:30 PM (XUgp7)

208 Dammit, why does formatting only work about half the time?!

Posted by: Rob Crawford at November 19, 2009 12:30 PM (ZJ/un)

209 Holder is on the other side!

Yep.

He either did pro bono work to defend jihadis or took jihadi cash for it.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at November 19, 2009 12:31 PM (ZJ/un)

210 I don't think thatHolder isstupid.
I know he is.

Posted by: Bender at November 19, 2009 12:31 PM (FDZUn)

211 I wonder how many enemy combatants with be shot trying to escape now.

Posted by: wrg at November 19, 2009 12:31 PM (7t+Ws)

212
Because the italics are cocksuckers.

We shoulda bombed them instead of the Nips.

Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 12:32 PM (jVldi)

213 Holy hell. I agree with Pat Buchanan.

I feel dirty.

Jesus, go get yourself scrubbed down with a stiff brush

--- I still have some DS2 around here, if you feel you still need it.

Posted by: Jean at November 19, 2009 12:32 PM (vb5IK)

214 IMHO they've read the tealeaves and have determined
that bringing back the Bush/Cheney bogeyman is the best way to do that
and that a high profile "show trial" of KSM and the others is the best
way to resurrect said bogeyman.Justice, Rule of Law, and
National Security all be damned- they need to hold on to Congress to
hold on to power. That is all that matters.

Posted by: Nighthawk at November 19, 2009 10:38 AM (OtQXp)
This is quite a damning assessment, not even of Holder and Obama, but of the voters they are trying to reach.
They are going to pervert the rule of law and bring show trials to the US to make the ignorant and easily misled believe that we are pursing the WoT in a just manner. And keep in mind, once the government is allowed to proceed in such a fashion it might not be quite so easy to put the genie back in the bottle.As Churchill noted of the NAZI leadership, we'd be better off legally and morally just shooting captured jihadis.

Posted by: 18-1 at November 19, 2009 12:33 PM (7BU4a)

215 ""This mono fixation on Bush is ideological in nature, revealing a true hatred of all things conservative American""

There you go.

Posted by: Berserker at November 19, 2009 12:33 PM (gWHrG)

216 Now officers in the field will not know how to best question captives.

Ummm...sharp NCOs will make sure no "captives" make it to officers if we get to that point. Shot trying to escape, blew himself up with a grenade when we had him surrounded, took poison, etc, etc.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 19, 2009 12:33 PM (XUgp7)

217 Rush just played a 2006 clip of Obama supporting the military tribunal for KSM.

Wonder if he mentioned to Holder that he was for tribunals before he was against them...?

Posted by: jadedinga at November 19, 2009 12:34 PM (Uc/xV)

218 "I'm sorry Mrs. Leahy..there was no way for us to know that OBL had all the details on the plot to assassinate your late husband. We just didn't think it appropriate to ask him, since our standing in the World was at stake". - Eric Holder, 2010

Posted by: Captain Obvious at November 19, 2009 12:34 PM (DYYHe)

219
Ummm...sharp NCOs will make sure no "captives" make it to officers
if we get to that point. Shot trying to escape, blew himself up with a
grenade when we had him surrounded, took poison, etc, etc.

Which will result in a shocking expose in the NYT, Congressional hearings, and show trials that end in the sharp NCOs being sentenced to death for war crimes.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at November 19, 2009 12:34 PM (ZJ/un)

220 He either did pro bono work to defend jihadis or took jihadi cash for it.
Holder may not be very bright, but like any lawyer he's cunning as hell when it comes to getting paid. Now he's going to grandstand and pander to the leftist trash with this show trial, bashing the U.S. at every opportunity. He'll be set for life on the book and lecture tour or with a big lefty firm.

Posted by: Dang Straights at November 19, 2009 12:35 PM (Haq+B)

221 I hope we incorporate a complex three day class on this mess into the service NCO academies and allow our future small unit leaders draw their own conclusions.

Posted by: Jean at November 19, 2009 12:35 PM (QeLzv)

222 Our only hope is the IRS. Nobody fucks with them.

Commit some terrorist act, receive all the rights and privileges of US citizenship, be welcomed into the US, etc. I'm sure nobody has any problem with that.

But if you committed or conspired to commit 'man-made disaster' for some promise of compensation and you didn't report it on your 1040, you are toast. Not even God-bama can save you.

Posted by: t-bird at November 19, 2009 12:36 PM (FcR7P)

223 As Churchill noted of the NAZI leadership, we'd be better off legally and morally just shooting captured jihadis.

Posted by: 18-1 at November 19, 2009 12:33 PM (7BU4a)
But for the loss of intelligence information I think that would be the best approach.

Posted by: Nighthawk at November 19, 2009 12:36 PM (OtQXp)

224 2006 clip of Obama supporting the military tribunal for KSM

I've yet to see an Obama position with anything longer than a 6 month expiration date.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 19, 2009 12:36 PM (XUgp7)

225 And what is this mountain of evidence against bin Laden??
Who is there to testify against him?
The only real evidence we have is hearsay. We have no direct witnesses, we have no eyewitnesses, we have no physical evidence that ties him to the attacks. We have enough evidence for history and commonsense, we already know for a fact that bin Laden was in charge, but court trials are NOT about facts, they are about legally admissible evidence. And most of the evidence against him -- whether obtained by enhanced methods or not -- is not admissible under current court rules.

Posted by: Bender at November 19, 2009 12:36 PM (FDZUn)

226 Bennett bets that Holder will be forced to reconsider this political decision.
And call it delays, working out the details, copy and past from the closing Gitmo claims.

Posted by: Mama AJ at November 19, 2009 12:37 PM (Be4xl)

227 Pat Leahy must be dumb, right? You know, a stupid person. An idiot. A person of very low intelligence. Because if Sarah Palin said something 1/100th as that prick Leahy did about OBL, surely she would be called stupid for it.

Posted by: Reggie1971 at November 19, 2009 12:37 PM (b68Df)

228 Which will result in a shocking expose in the NYT...

Headline: "NYT reporter tragically killed during crossfire in firefight with terrorists"

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 19, 2009 12:37 PM (XUgp7)

229 Lindsey Graham is a dick.

Posted by: Katie Couric at November 19, 2009 12:38 PM (DtTM9)

230 Leahy is an ass. No wonder Cheney told him what he could do to himself.

Posted by: Blogluddite at November 19, 2009 12:39 PM (fDWFP)

231 And what is this mountain of evidence against bin Laden?

His own jihadi propaganda video where he admitted ordering 9/11 might be fairly compelling.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 19, 2009 12:39 PM (XUgp7)

232 There are a lot of knocks on Eric Holder but no one really thinks he's a stupid man. Misguided? Sure. Diagnosably retarded? No.--DrewM.

Stupid is as stupid does, and stupid sticks to Holder's decision from the inside out.

I ask how, from his entire professional career, has Eric Holder proven he is a brilliant lawyer?

Fred Thompson just said that Holder has not proven himself worthy of being the Attorney General of the United States.

One sad and simple fact that we must face: POTUS Obama does not have the will or the determination to do what it takes to win. Obama is unwilling and/or unable to make the case required in order to win in Afghanistan. Obama has already chosen; America has already lost in Afghanistan. --Thompson

Pull out because corruption is discovered in Afghanistan? In Iraq?
HOW ABOUT IN CONGRESS AND
IN THE OVAL OFFICE AND
IN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE?

Posted by: maverick muse at November 19, 2009 12:39 PM (+CLh/)

233 Andrew McCarthy thinks these guys
are going to live to regret this decision when they get shellacked by
public opinion. He was wondering who is advising them to do this.
Laura said "Bill Ayers."

Posted by: runningrn at November 19, 2009 12:11 PM (qP2BK)Hey, I'm, sorry Obama is not righting anymore books right now, so I've got the time.

Posted by: Bill Ayers at November 19, 2009 12:39 PM (7BU4a)

234 No Rob, it has to happen at the smallest unit level - prior to all communications and reports. At best the press and legal beagles would have the tainted accomplice testimony of one weasel.

Posted by: Jean at November 19, 2009 12:39 PM (pIKTP)

235 As I posted on earlier thread:
The number one question for Holder and especially Teh �:
If the civil court system is so great at 'getting terrorists' WHY isfuggin BILL AYERSouttheresaying 'GUILTY AS HELL, FREE AS A BIRD????????'

Posted by: Schwalbe at November 19, 2009 12:40 PM (UU0OF)

236 I remember Bugliosi wrote a book (can't recall the title off-hand) where he said that basically the Supreme Court botched Bush vs. Gore and selected Bush as the President.
The one you're thinking of is The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President.
The one I'm thinking of is The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.

Posted by: FireHorse at November 19, 2009 12:41 PM (Vl5GH)

237 Detention Policy: Shoot suspect 4 times in spine. Interrogate after waking from coma.

Posted by: wHodat at November 19, 2009 12:42 PM (+sBB4)

238 I hope we incorporate a complex three day class on this mess into the
service NCO academies and allow our future small unit leaders draw
their own conclusions.

Sure, and the underlying message will be this:

You're screwed. No matter what you do, you're screwed. If the guy surrenders, the left back at home is going to drag him into court to testify against YOU, because you didn't bandage every scrape and bruise on the cocksucker. They're going to want to know why the guy showed up at POW processing dehydrated -- never mind that your own troops were running low on water for themselves, they're gonna demand to know why he wasn't in peak physical condition within minutes of capture.

If they guy ends up dead, they're going to declare you a cold-blooded murderer. They're going to point to close-cropped photos of his body and declare the lack of a visible firearm -- which had already been policed for everyone's safety -- as proof he was a civilian. They're going to demand to know how you applied the rules of engagement, second by second, and if there's the least bit of inconsistency or missing information, well, they may not get a court martial to convict you, but you can kiss the possibility of a military career goodbye. And just wait until you return to civilian life; the Code Pinkers and ANSWER and their ilk are going to be camped out on your front yard, demanding you be dragged into Federal Court -- or the International Criminal Court -- and "held to account".

Posted by: Rob Crawford at November 19, 2009 12:42 PM (ZJ/un)

239 Now if the military has to read Miranda right to captured enemy combatants does that push the limits of the Posse Comitatus Act?

The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the
National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity
within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress.

Posted by: wrg at November 19, 2009 12:43 PM (7t+Ws)

240 138
Bugliosi is craphouse rat crazy. He wrote a book called "The prosecution of GWB for murder". The premise was that Bush should be convicted of murder for starting the Iraq war.
Thesheer insanity of the book's premise kept all the networks (even MSNBC so far as I know) from granting Bugliosi an interview to promote the book.

Posted by: Reggie1971 at November 19, 2009 12:43 PM (b68Df)

241 The military began the hearings last Friday to determine whether the 14 should be declared "enemy combatants" who can be held indefinitely and prosecuted by military tribunals.
If the 14 are declared enemy combatants, as expected, the military would then draft and file charges against them. The detainees would be tried under the new military commissions law signed by Bush in October.
This is from the link R.C. gave me. This was 2yrs ago. So WHY IN HELL weren't these guys nailed then?
Is the military so slow?
Jesus,how long did the Nuremburg Trials take?
Anyhow, thanks Rob.

Posted by: HH at November 19, 2009 12:43 PM (+jvXp)

242 Rob, small hole + body + det pack. Report nothing. Commit nothing to paper. Inconclusive contact, no KIA accounted for, etc to maintain ammo accountability. The only guys I trust to resolve this problem work for a living.

Posted by: Jean at November 19, 2009 12:45 PM (ouk5a)

243 No Rob, it has to happen at the smallest unit level - prior to all
communications and reports. At best the press and legal beagles would
have the tainted accomplice testimony of one weasel.

Which is enough to convince a sizable minority of the public that are soldiers are -- to a man -- war criminals, borderline insane, and a danger to themselves and others.

A milblogger recently had a story about a school board thug ragging on a serviceman for his PTS. The serviceman disagreed with the school board over the uniform policy at his kids' school; the school board thug decided the proper response was to declare the serviceman a lunatic, make accusations about what soldiers to do captives, etc.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at November 19, 2009 12:46 PM (ZJ/un)

244 Given the arc of cases since 9/11 is anyone 100% sure (hell, 50% sure)
that a court won't throw out a conviction or even a bar a trial on any
number of 6th Amendment grounds?

Are you kidding? These civilian trials are designed to fail. Then Obama can say, "see what Bush did?"

Posted by: the real joe at November 19, 2009 12:46 PM (rFTt2)

245
Want some good news?

A Republican 47-year old mother of two beat the long-time incumbent Democrat mayor of the city of Lynn, Massachusetts. Judith Flanagan Kennedy won by 27 votes.

Incumbents are taking a lot of losses up here in Massachusetts, which is kinda rare. But it shows how people want real change, the kind of change Sarah Palin was talking about in her recent interviews.

Hopefully we can get rid of Deval Patrick next year.

Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 12:47 PM (jVldi)

246 Leahy is an idiot. We don't interrogate terrorists to get confessions - we do it to get intelligence.

Posted by: Bald Ninja at November 19, 2009 12:48 PM (4pdbX)

247
There are a lot of knocks on Eric Holder but no one really thinks he's a stupid man.

He's wrong about everything. Still think a man who's wrong about everything is smart? Drew, who do you think is smarter, Sarah Palin or Eric Holder?

Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 12:50 PM (jVldi)

248 This is from the link R.C. gave me. This was 2yrs ago. So WHY IN HELL weren't these guys nailed then?Is the military so slow?
If you had been paying attention, you'd realize it took so long because every time they had a system ready to go, defense cocksuckers like Holder would run to a federal court with another reason to delay the trials.
The goal was to run out the clock so that the next president could find a politic way to pardon the war criminals they were representing.To quote the immortal Sideshow Bob: "You can't keep the Democrats out of the White House forever; and when they get in, I'm back on the street! With all of my criminal buddies!"

Posted by: Rob Crawford at November 19, 2009 12:51 PM (ZJ/un)

249 goforitbillbelichik
That is great news. I live close to Lynn, but hadn't paid attention to race there.
Together we can get rid of Cadlillac Deval!
Go Baker, Go. We need Cahill to disappear or agree to be Baker's Lt. Governor for a guaranteed slam dunk.

Posted by: loppyd at November 19, 2009 12:51 PM (Ud6F+)

250 Rob, having that minority cross the street to street to stay away from "crazy" veterans and service members might be a good thing. Remember hippy's smell. The real problem is that insane hippy sitting on an elected school board.

Posted by: Jean at November 19, 2009 12:51 PM (mtAmx)

251 Right now his approach is, "we'll review and make a decision later". Well, the US civilian court system doesn't work that way. All the protections that come with it start the second you are in custody, not when the executive feels like it.

Excellent DrewM. This needs to be shouted from the rooftops.

And lawyers like Holder will use this exact thing to try to claim the government has violated their 'rights'.

Posted by: Bald Ninja at November 19, 2009 12:51 PM (4pdbX)

252 127: IIRC, the German saboteurs captured on Long Island met their ends in "Old Sparky" in Sing Sing.

Posted by: PKO Strany at November 19, 2009 12:51 PM (9XH7k)

253

hahaha, the caller on Rush's show right now is a hoot!

Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 12:52 PM (jVldi)

254
Together we can get rid of Cadlillac Deval!

His new campaign slogan is: I'm With Deval!

Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 12:54 PM (jVldi)

255 hahaha, the caller on Rush's show right now is a hoot!

Katy...LOL

Posted by: Barbarian at November 19, 2009 12:54 PM (EL+OC)

256 249 Want some good news?A Republican 47-year old mother of two beat the long-time incumbent Democrat mayor of the city of Lynn, Massachusetts. Judith Flanagan Kennedy won by 27 votes. Incumbents are taking a lot of losses up here in Massachusetts, which is kinda rare. But it shows how people want real change, the kind of change Sarah Palin was talking about in her recent interviews. Hopefully we can get rid of Deval Patrick next year.
Posted by: goforitbillbelichik

Wow, that's awesome. Lynn is not a moderate kind of a place! Awesome!
Now, I wonder if the GOP will upt up a candidate, ANY candidate, in MA-3. McGovern has not faced an opponent in six years.

Posted by: Truman North at November 19, 2009 12:55 PM (e8YaH)

257
I swear, as God as my witness, I will kill every single italic.

Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 12:55 PM (jVldi)

258 Leftie tards will just say it is all Bush's fault. If he hadn't started a Neocon war for oil we wouldn't have these complexities to deal with.
And I bet a critic I deal with on my blog will add that Obama isn't a real liberal anyway, people should have voted for Nader.
So it is never liberals faults. QED

Posted by: Mark at November 19, 2009 12:56 PM (Vvbjc)

259 On Topic.
Our firm won a SJC appeal for a client whose statements made after a crime scene had been secured were ruled inadmissible.
Under this new policy of granting rights to combatants, how will military personnel be able to determine when the battle field is secured? Is it ever?

Posted by: loppyd at November 19, 2009 12:57 PM (Ud6F+)

260 The truly amazing part of the Graham/Holder exchange was the stark contrast between the concrete "yes or no" question by Graham versus the nebulous and weakness of the "it depends" answers by Holder.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at November 19, 2009 12:57 PM (ZGhSv)

261 Graham is my senator and every time I decide to vote against him he pulls a stunt like this! Vote for him...vote against him....

He is my Senator as well, unfortunately. I voted against him as I told him in the last letter I sent him after he supported the terrorists in 2005.

As I said in the earlier posts you can not go by grandstanding rhetoric in these damn hearings. Hearings are worthless and designed only to get the Senator in front of a TV camera. Wahtch what he does, not what he says.

And asshole Graham, well he gets a two-fer here. Fox is putting him on for some more coverage now.

Why is it that Fox puts two or three squishy RINOs and 4 or 5 communist Dems on for every conservative. Yeah, fair and balanced that.

Posted by: Vic at November 19, 2009 12:57 PM (CDUiN)

262 His new campaign slogan is: I'm With Deval!
Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 12:54 PM (jVldi)
all 19% of citizenry

Posted by: loppyd at November 19, 2009 12:59 PM (Ud6F+)

263
McGovern, Delahunt, Tierney, Fag, Markey...

none of these douche bags get challengers, and when they do, the challengers are pathetic

Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 01:00 PM (jVldi)

264 I swear, as God as my witness, I will kill every single italic.
(Laughs)

Posted by: HH at November 19, 2009 01:01 PM (+jvXp)

265 Have any of you applied for the FEMA Detention Guard positions yet?

Posted by: Todd the guy who hate muslims, all muslims at November 19, 2009 01:02 PM (LLOGQ)

266 goforitbillbelichik
Tierney has a challenger this year - Bill Hudack. He's generated a lot of energy and his campaign is very well organized. I met him at the Portsmouthm, NH BarryCare rally. Nice guy, well spoken, fired up.

Posted by: loppyd at November 19, 2009 01:03 PM (Ud6F+)

267
If the turban don't fit, you must acquit.

Posted by: Eric Holder at November 19, 2009 01:03 PM (Oxen1)

268
Are you shittin'me?

The Army Corps of Engineers has been found responsible for the flooding in New Orleans after Katrina?

What about all the politicians who squandered the money, for years and years, to fix the levees?

Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 01:03 PM (jVldi)

269 I swear, as God as my witness, I will kill every single italic. Posted by: goforitbillbelichik

Cool. For your next hit job, can you get to the RANDOM caps used IN other peoples' POSTS of late?

Posted by: Iskandar at November 19, 2009 01:05 PM (u1pln)

270 @272, If the leevee done break, you know who made the mistake

Posted by: Zombie Johnnie Cock-ran at November 19, 2009 01:06 PM (LdYLm)

271 John Kerry's daughter Alexandra got busted for DUI this morning.
http://tinyurl.com/y8b9474

Posted by: loppyd at November 19, 2009 01:06 PM (Ud6F+)

272 What about all the politicians who squandered the money, for years and years, to fix the levees?

Innocent victims, of course.

Posted by: gau at November 19, 2009 01:07 PM (n1uMU)

273 I swear, as God as my witness, I will kill every single italic.
Here I am bitch, you want some?

Posted by: the real joe at November 19, 2009 01:08 PM (rFTt2)

274 John Kerry's daughter Alexandra got busted for DUI this morning.
I'm sure Andrew Sullivan will get right on that.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at November 19, 2009 01:09 PM (B+qrE)

275 Breaking:
Rudy not running for governor of NY
http://tinyurl.com/yjzrw47

Posted by: loppyd at November 19, 2009 01:09 PM (Ud6F+)

276

#272

What about the French who built the city below sea level

Posted by: bulwark at November 19, 2009 01:10 PM (jvrmc)

277 #272
Clearly, the real culprit is global warming.

Posted by: Al Gore at November 19, 2009 01:11 PM (ia/06)

278 Rudy not running for governor of NY

Shocking, and by that I mean not shocking in any way.

Posted by: gau at November 19, 2009 01:13 PM (n1uMU)

279 Patrick Leahy is not only a traitor (Leaky Leahy) he's a compete dumbass. It doesn;t matter whether you interrogate OBL or not...if you take him out of the military system he _has_ to be given the Miranda.

Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at November 19, 2009 01:13 PM (5PPi5)

280 Awww, man, that's just water over the bridge.

Posted by: HH at November 19, 2009 01:13 PM (+jvXp)

281 John Kerry's daughter Alexandra got busted for DUI this morning.

Call us when she does something actually shameful, like giving birth in lieu of having an abortion.

Posted by: Current-Event Driven Comedy Shows at November 19, 2009 01:14 PM (NtiET)

282 #272
As I have always said, clearly, the real cause was the failure to have comprehensive health insurance for every member of the United States.

Posted by: Barry Obama at November 19, 2009 01:14 PM (ia/06)

283 Either they give OBL and KSM the same rights as Bernie Madoff or they don't.If they don't, they set precedent for other defendants to have their constitutional rights ignored. And good luck picking a jury.Anyone know what the Arab word is for the practice of pretending to be something they aren't so they can fool an enemy?
You know, the 9/11 killers also hit Washington D.C. Why don't they have the trial there?

Posted by: vivi at November 19, 2009 01:14 PM (knNJg)

284 The concept of "due process" takes on a whole new meaning when leftists take possession of it. Kind of a "catch and release" approach. F'n douchebags, all of 'em.

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at November 19, 2009 01:14 PM (554T5)

285 161
Here is my take on it. The outcome of the trial has been preordained by
The One, so Constitutional Rights will be bestowed upon KSM, then
promptly compromised.

That precedent having been set, so shall it be for all of us.

Exactly.

Posted by: baldilocks at November 19, 2009 01:15 PM (wDz7C)

286
Here's the only vid I could find of Obama in 2007 supporting a military tribunal for KSM.

2006? I dunno.

Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 01:16 PM (jVldi)

287 well, on the negative side, this is turning into a disaster. on the plus side, it's also turning into a political nightmare for those involved.

I give Holder 2 months, max, before he's thrown under da' bus.

Posted by: LikeATimeBomb at November 19, 2009 01:17 PM (dwwPD)

288 I heard a black Dr. on Gibson's TR this AM. He claims that the area he practices in (New Orleans,) has a higher incident of breast cancer in the minority community therefore, they should be allowed to do more mammograms than lets say, any city in Texas...

Posted by: Barbarian at November 19, 2009 01:17 PM (EL+OC)

289 I heard a black Dr. on Gibson's TR this AM. He claims that the area he practices in (New Orleans,) has a higher incident of breast cancer in the minority community therefore, they should be allowed to do more mammograms than lets say, any city in Texas...
Posted by: Barbarian at November 19, 2009 01:17 PM (EL+OC)
and so it begins...

Posted by: loppyd at November 19, 2009 01:18 PM (Ud6F+)

290 Why is anyone surprised at this? I have heard nothing hard about it. If you have, post the info. We are dealing with an anti-military far-left socialist in the White House! They HATE the military. What suprises me is that he did not give that nut-job he has been friends with for so long, the job of Secretary of Defence!!! Then he can walk the halls of the Pentagon HE tried to blow up BEFORE 9/11.

Posted by: hous bin pharteen at November 19, 2009 01:19 PM (pU4D7)

291
Here I am bitch, you want some?

Look at you. Hiding in the comments. You think you can appear whenever you want to. You'll get yours, greaseball.

Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 01:19 PM (jVldi)

292 Rudy not running for governor of NY

Shocking, and by that I mean not shocking in any way.

No but it is disgusting. That means he still intends to run for prfesident in 2012, along with the other RINOs Huck and Romney. We will wind up with the same shit as last time and they will not have Palin to bail their stupid squishy asses out.

This is a guaranteed 4 more years of Obama.

Posted by: Vic at November 19, 2009 01:21 PM (CDUiN)

293
She has produced documentaries and has had several small acting roles.

hahaha, I think the extent of her acting roles are a few lines on Futurama.

Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 01:21 PM (jVldi)

294 Hey, someone's trying to kill me. They sent a note, but I can't read it.

Posted by: Wingdings at November 19, 2009 01:21 PM (+sBB4)

295 Now officers in the field will not know how to best question captives. Do they use standards based on military law, or civil law?
Question them as spies and sabatours. Then shoot them.

Posted by: harleycowboy at November 19, 2009 01:21 PM (JKGfQ)

296 Question Osama/Obama, why? Find him in a rat hole like Hussein, fill the hole with lead and leave him there. A small blood sample for DNA is all that needs to be returned to base.

Posted by: Scrapiron at November 19, 2009 01:21 PM (GkYyh)

297 nana, nana, nana!!!

Posted by: wrg at November 19, 2009 01:22 PM (7t+Ws)

298 I hope that increases the chances of Rudy running for the Senate seat.

Posted by: Jean at November 19, 2009 01:24 PM (7K04W)

299
nana, nana, nana!!!

This sucks. It did it to me again on #297.

Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 01:24 PM (jVldi)

300 OT: New unemployment claims unchanged from last week.

STIMULUS!

Posted by: nickless at November 19, 2009 01:24 PM (MMC8r)

301 This is a guaranteed 4 more years of Obama.

The GOP leadership will decide that the 2012 presidential race just isn't a hill they want to fight for. They will nominate some Dole type sacrifice, fund raise against the eeeeevil Obama for 4 years, and take the sure thing(they think) in 2016.

Posted by: gau at November 19, 2009 01:24 PM (n1uMU)

302 Anyone know what the Arab word is for the practice of pretending to be something they aren't so they can fool an enemy?
conservative liberal democrat

Posted by: harleycowboy at November 19, 2009 01:24 PM (JKGfQ)

303 Does someone need to put out an APB on Michael Steele?
Oh wait....nevermind.

Posted by: Barbarian at November 19, 2009 01:24 PM (EL+OC)

304
Yeah, I'd much rather see Rudy in Washington D.C. than in Albany.

He'd be a fine senator.

Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 01:25 PM (jVldi)

305 Patrick Leahy plays in the same intellectual sandbox as Joe Biden.

Posted by: Reiver at November 19, 2009 01:26 PM (Yi1Sk)

306 The leftists in power right now are actually pragmatic visionaries. They know that even if they implode here in the short-term, they will have left a lasting legacy through their judicial revisionism.

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at November 19, 2009 01:26 PM (554T5)

307 Does someone need to put out an APB on Michael Steele?Oh wait....nevermind.

I believe he is continuing his Republican racism apology tour at some undisclosed location.

Posted by: gau at November 19, 2009 01:27 PM (n1uMU)

308 During the 80's I was in the US Army training to prevent the commie's from the USSR, Cuba, and China from expanding in the world. I did not expect to get one elected to run this country!
Now he wants to spend so much money we have to borrow from Red China! My father (who fought China in Korea) must be spinning in his grave! Boy, he must be pissed off!

But no matter. The President is such a hunk. But at least I am not creaming in my jeans.

Posted by: hous bin pharteen at November 19, 2009 01:27 PM (pU4D7)

309
Italics go here ----> Does someone need to put out an APB on Michael Steele?

Why, 'cuz he's black?

That's racist!

Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 01:27 PM (jVldi)

310 Look at you. Hiding in the comments. You think you can appear whenever you want to. You'll get yours, greaseball.
Mavafancullo!!!

Posted by: the real joe at November 19, 2009 01:27 PM (rFTt2)

311 Patrick Leahy plays in the same intellectual sandbox as Joe Biden.

Er, that's not sand, guys, it's kitty litter.

Posted by: the real joe at November 19, 2009 01:29 PM (rFTt2)

312 What is with the italics hatred?

Posted by: gau at November 19, 2009 01:29 PM (n1uMU)

313
What is with the italics hatred?

I don't like those lazy bastids.

Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 01:30 PM (jVldi)

314
@290
goforitbillbelichik

the video caption you linked to says that his support for tribunals and insistence that terrorists would not get the same rights as in civilian trials was 2006.....

I blame the italics.....

Posted by: jadedinga at November 19, 2009 01:31 PM (Uc/xV)

315 Why, 'cuz he's black?That's racist!
No, that's racist.

Posted by: Barry Obama at November 19, 2009 01:31 PM (ia/06)

316 GALLUP POLLING BS UPDATE:

Exactly how much is the Obama Administration paying Gallup to keep his Approval Rating at 50% or higher?

For about the tenth time, Obama's Rating on Gallup has plummeted to 50% only to hit an brick wall. Then, after 3 days or so, he rallies back up between 4 and 6 points and the process begins again.

3 days ago, Obama's rating on Gallup fell 3 points in one day to 50%. Anyone who follows polling knows that when you fall that far in one day on a 3 day moving average poll, you typically get some over-blow and drop another point or two the next day.

Nope, Gallup has had Obama right at 50% for 3 days now after falling 3 points in one day. Statistically a challenge to say the least. The fact that this exact same scenario has occurred numerous times gives on a serious, 'hmmmm' moment.

I expect Gallup is taking money from the WH to pull this off simply because no one else will pay them for their services after coming in 17th in 2008 as to accuracy (a dismal showing for an 'independent' pollster). Of course, this is only my opinion so take it for what it's worth.

Posted by: Bill Mitchell at November 19, 2009 01:32 PM (Gm9rd)

317 I don't like those lazy bastids.
Onthe bright side of things, they are leaning to the right.
Well, ya know, just sayiing.

Posted by: HH at November 19, 2009 01:33 PM (+jvXp)

318 Anyone notice why the Leftist hate Sarah?

Because she is a hard working, smart, babe. Who was not programed by the left.
They sure hate her because they want the first female president to be a far left lesbo. Like Hilary.

Posted by: hous bin pharteen at November 19, 2009 01:33 PM (pU4D7)

319 This is an example of what happens when you remove a member from the groupthink 'yes-men chorus' and expose him to a dose of reality. Now, if we can get a long line of "hard, pipe-hittin' ni**as" to go medieval on the rest of the bunch, we might stand a decent chance of putting the levers of government back in the hands of rational adults, or a reasonable facsimile thereof.

Posted by: stitches at November 19, 2009 01:33 PM (KyqYb)

320 Anyone know what the Arab word is for the practice of pretending to be something they aren't so they can fool an enemy?

taqqiya

Posted by: joncelli at November 19, 2009 01:33 PM (RD7QR)

321 Sure is comforting to have a bunch of new-age, metrosexual wimps and pansies running the show here in America, ain't it?

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at November 19, 2009 01:33 PM (554T5)

322 ...they will have left a lasting legacy through their judicial revisionism.
That's one of the scary parts. Hope none of the SCJ's leaves the bench until 2012.

Posted by: harleycowboy at November 19, 2009 01:34 PM (JKGfQ)

323
[italics]...the video caption you linked to says that his support for tribunals and
insistence that terrorists would not get the same rights as in civilian
trials was 2006.....[/italics]

ahh, thanks, the kook talking over the vid was confusing me in the dates

Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 01:34 PM (jVldi)

324 POW - - > italics < - - POW

There, is that better?

Posted by: Wingdings at November 19, 2009 01:34 PM (+sBB4)

325
Mill Bitchell, the Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll today has President Apology at 46%.

If he gets below 42%, which is unlikely, he'll have challengers in the primary, I predict.

Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 01:38 PM (jVldi)

326
There, is that better?

not really

Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 01:39 PM (jVldi)

327 Those that are arguing whether this decision to try KSM in New York falls on Obama's shoulders rather than Holder's are overlookingone detail. The real blame falls on the shoulders of the 52% that voted for the most radical, left wing President in the history of the country. The MFM tried mightily to camoflauge that information, but it was there and 52% couldn't be bothered to pay attention. Although I'll bet you that those same motherfuckers could tell you inpainstaking detail all about the contestants on American Idol and Dancing with the Stars.
Preserving your freedom is Hard Work. Being fucking stupid makes it harder.

Posted by: LGoPs at November 19, 2009 01:40 PM (v/rEn)

328

Biden Fleet Suffers Third Accident in Six Days

Will KSM be taken to NY by one of the Biden limo drivers?

Posted by: harleycowboy at November 19, 2009 01:40 PM (JKGfQ)

329 I hate people who change font color!

Posted by: Mike H at November 19, 2009 01:40 PM (LdYLm)

330 I hate people who change font color!

That's actually quite ghey looking.

Posted by: Barbarian at November 19, 2009 01:42 PM (EL+OC)

331 I'll ask again, and hope thatsome Republicans in the Senate ask too. How will this tactic of Obama's improve our image in the world with respect to the rule of law? (No, I do not accept that it needs improvement, but just hypothetically...)
1. Will it be because the President of the United States declares adefendant guilty before trial, and promises the citizens of the United States that he will be putto death?
2. Or is it because the President of the United States declares that the trial's outcome is of no consquence, and that the defendant will remain incarcerated, presumably forever, even if acquitted?
The political and media chorus that accused George W. Bush of destroying the Constitution for exercising powers specifically granted him, and confirmed by theCongress, is suddenly struck silent and averts its eyes!
This is what happens when you elect thugs. They (duh) behave like thugs and everyone who supports them becomes a participant in thuggery! This is how nations degenerate from the rule of law, to the rule of powerful men. It is starting to happen before our eyes.
The Democrat Party must bequarantined until it can be reformed and purged of the criminal class that nowinfests it. That should be the mission of every honest American the next time and every time they cast their vote until the deed is done.At this point our nation is in such grave peril that I wouldnot vote for a Democrat for dogcatcher if she was my Mother!

Posted by: sherlock at November 19, 2009 01:42 PM (ktKOD)

332 Yeah, I'd much rather see Rudy in Washington D.C. than in Albany.

He'd be a fine senator.

BS, his RINO gun grabbin ass needs to stay in NY.

Posted by: Vic at November 19, 2009 01:42 PM (CDUiN)

333 Biden Fleet Suffers Third Accident in Six Days

Wow, he must have Bush appointees driving his cars for him.

No pedestrians mess with Joe!

Posted by: gau at November 19, 2009 01:42 PM (n1uMU)

334 Anyone notice why the Leftist hate Sarah?
My theory is that they're afraid of her. Not because she's a strong woman or any of that nonsense, but because she was ruthless toward corrupt politicians in Alaska. Some people are genuinely scared, and they ought to be.

Posted by: FireHorse at November 19, 2009 01:42 PM (Vl5GH)

335 @334, It is a rainbow of LOVE!

Posted by: Mike H at November 19, 2009 01:43 PM (LdYLm)

336
speaking of guns...

where's Ace?

Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 01:44 PM (jVldi)

337 Posted by: sherlock at November 19, 2009 01:42 PM (ktKOD)
Here, here sherlock. Well said.

Posted by: LGoPs at November 19, 2009 01:44 PM (v/rEn)

338 how about colors AND italics?

Posted by: wrg at November 19, 2009 01:45 PM (7t+Ws)

339 For about the tenth time, Obama's Rating on Gallup has plummeted to 50% only to hit an brick wall. Then, after 3 days or so, he rallies back up between 4 and 6 points and the process begins again.
Well we must keep in mind that a significant chunk of folks in this country that fancy themselves as "independents" voted for Toonces. These are generally people who couldn't make a meaningful decision to save their lives. They wake up each day astride the political fence, lick their index finger and thrust it defiantly into the air to see which way the wind is blowing that day.

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at November 19, 2009 01:45 PM (554T5)

340 Here's the other problem I have with O and the penis-Holder's statements of verdict first, trial second. What's to stop Iran from doing the same to those idiot hikers they captured and calling it moral/judicial equivalency. "We're just doing what your doing". And they would be correct.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at November 19, 2009 01:45 PM (DIYmd)

341 Posted by: gus at November 19, 2009 11:38 AM (Vqruj)

Well, the only exception I take to what you said is that they are entitled to be Mirandized whether or not they are interrogated. That is not supported by case law. They are only entitled to the profelactic of Miranda if they are subject to custodial interrogation. Detaining them alone does not trigger it.

Posted by: rightzilla at November 19, 2009 01:46 PM (rVJH4)

342 >>Anyone know what the Arab word is for the practice of pretending to be something they aren't so they can fool an enemy?
> taqqiya
No, it's italics.

Posted by: BOLD at November 19, 2009 01:46 PM (Be4xl)

343 Anyone notice why the Leftist hate Sarah?
Monica Crowley on Fox the other night said it best, IMO. She said that Sarah represents an existential threat to all things liberal and as such, must be destroyed.
I think she nailed it. Sarah is anti-matter to the leftard's matter.

Posted by: LGoPs at November 19, 2009 01:46 PM (v/rEn)

344
seriously, speakingof guns...

Is Detroit becoming like a third-world hellhole like Somalia?

A man shoots his own (naked) 15yo son in the back of the head.

Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 01:46 PM (jVldi)

345 Posted by: sherlock at November 19, 2009 01:42 PM (ktKOD)
Here, here sherlock. Well said.

Posted by: LGoPs at November 19, 2009 01:44 PM (v/rEn)
Ditto. (Except hear hear!)

Posted by: WalrusRex at November 19, 2009 01:48 PM (xxgag)

346 Anybody who has connections to Graham or Kyl get them to sponsor legislation immediately to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear and determine these terror trials.
Unless my memory fails me, Congress already passed such a law. Getting the courts to pay attention to it is the problem.

Posted by: flenser at November 19, 2009 01:49 PM (fqDKB)

347 9986;

Posted by: Wingdings at November 19, 2009 01:51 PM (+sBB4)

348 Where is Ace? It is a little early to be out drinking. I can comment from my blackberry -- cannot the editors/poster here do they same for new topics -- then Ace could work from a bar, his hide site, where ever.

Posted by: Jean at November 19, 2009 01:51 PM (pIKTP)

349 A man shoots his own (naked) 15yo son in the back of the head.

But did you see why?

Posted by: NAMBLA at November 19, 2009 01:52 PM (NtiET)

350 I am within mycapacity as President to tell you now what the outcome of the trial will be. I am the third of teh Triune...I.Am.The.MESSIAH!

Posted by: barack JESUS obama at November 19, 2009 01:53 PM (rVJH4)

351 Anyone notice why the Leftist hate Sarah?
They need somebody to hate. And with Bush retiring they needed a new witch to burn.

Posted by: flenser at November 19, 2009 01:54 PM (fqDKB)

352
Yeah, I saw the reason. But still...why make the kid strip?

Posted by: goforitbillbelichik at November 19, 2009 01:54 PM (jVldi)

353 I love italic sausage

Posted by: Wingdings at November 19, 2009 01:54 PM (+sBB4)

354 Can't you all see? This is win, win, win for me. If KSM gets the death penalty then I take credit for killing a disaster-causing man (my least favorite option). If he walks, then I take credit from my brethren Muslims who will undoubtedly thank me for making America into pussytown. If another terrorist attack occurs while the trial is underway then I blame Bush.

Posted by: Mad fucKing Obama at November 19, 2009 01:55 PM (wAQA5)

355 I am within mycapacity as President to tell you now what the outcome of the trial will be. I am the third of teh Triune...I.Am.The.MESSIAH!
No way dude, I totally am. My pet Chewy told me.

Posted by: Barry Obama at November 19, 2009 01:55 PM (ia/06)

356 If President Bush had made a comment that a defendant would be convicted and put to death regardless of the trial, countless American lives would have been lost..............trampled to deathby the stampede of ACLU lawyers rushing to the microphones and TV cameras to denounce him. I guess we should be grateful that it was a Democrat that said that.
Hey, that would make a good new statistic for these fuckers. The number of American lives saved or not killed...............

Posted by: LGoPs at November 19, 2009 01:55 PM (v/rEn)

357 #194-
"Actually, even if they WERE signatories, by targeting civilians,
failing to wear distinctive insignia (hiding as civilians), committing
false surrender and many, many other acts, they're not protected by the
Geneva Conventions.
We're actually doing damage to the Geneva
Conventions by giving these animals room and board -- we're rewarding
war crimes with a status equivalent to a burglar, while a fundamental
premise of the GCs is that sides that commit war crimes as a matter of
policy are no longer protected and may (arguably SHOULD) be executed
upon capture."

I have been saying that forever. What these liberal douche nozzles don't understand, is by demanding terrorists have Geneva convention rights they are directly responsible for civilian deaths caused by terrorists. The moment they hide among civilians, the moment the fight in civilian clothes they should be marked for extermination as the Geneva convention allows.Anything else is completely rewarding war crimes and just endangers civilians in the future. The left wants the Geneva convention applied to these scumbags? Cool, 2 bullets in the fucking forehead as the geneva convention allows, and no frigging US constitutional protections.

Posted by: Berserker at November 19, 2009 01:57 PM (gWHrG)

358 After KSM is acquitted, will it be time to burn DC to the ground?

Posted by: Bugler at November 19, 2009 01:58 PM (YCVBL)

359 I was looking up for a pictures of Nagasaki for a post listing it in the comments as future democratic polling places to show what the dumb-ass leftist are going to end up with since the prime objects AlQ wants to hit our democratic controlled cities. Just to make them wake up and prevent it.
What do I find? Far left blogs blaming the military for killing civilians when they did not have to. After all, Japan just bombed Navy targets at Pearl, not civilians. No mention of how many US soldiers and marines would have died if we had to invade Japan. No mention of the mass murder of civilians in places they invaded. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Posted by: hous bin pharteen at November 19, 2009 01:58 PM (pU4D7)

360 Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) says Obama is "bowing down" to Republicans. He
said he is "getting tired of saving Obama's can in the White House."

Posted by: Barbarian at November 19, 2009 01:58 PM (EL+OC)

361 359, 358, 354
Ok, which one of the three Obama's is the real one? They all have such nice pant creases, I can't tell.

Posted by: That guy who likes creased pants at November 19, 2009 01:58 PM (ia/06)

362 Graham's good at cross-examination. A lot of lawyers are. And lawyers make lousy witnesses, as Holder showed.

Drew's definitely onto something re equal protection. Once, as in the KSM (and presumably UBL) trial, the USA puts an enemy combatant captured overseas on trial in US District Court, w/ fully panoply of constitutional rights attending, its ability to put any other enemy combatant captured overseas on trial in any less burdensome a forum (ie, military commissions) is compromised. The courts may eventually square this circle somehow, but right noww I d can't see how.

If it was all enemey combatants caught overseas in commissions and anybody caught in US in federal district court, the Constitutional issues would be much less challenging. Hell, the government's been arguing for 5 years that the full panoply of constitutional rights don't apply to these guys, but has with this decision all at once undermined that argument. There's still an argument, I suppose, that the rights KSM et al benefit from in federal district court are negative (ie, checks on what the court can do to anyone who apperas before it) rather than positive (inherent to KSM et al as, i don't know, maybe human beings), but that's a very, very shaky distinction.

All this likely won't effect the KSM trial too much, but it will significantly effect other enemy combatants captured overseas who are facing military commissions. Why don't they get what KSM gets? Seriously, it's tough to come up w/ a good faith answer to that. I don't envy the miliatry prosecutors at GTMO who are going to have to answer that question, or the military judges who are going to have to rule on it.

I'd call this an unintended consequence if I didn't think Holder knew exactly what he was doing to the military tribunal system when he decided to send KSM to NYC. He effectively destroyed it. And he knows he did.

Posted by: aurelius at November 19, 2009 01:59 PM (7rOET)

363 "Obama is "bowing down" to Republicans"

I thought he was bowing down to the Japanese.

Posted by: Wingdings at November 19, 2009 01:59 PM (+sBB4)

364 FDR had the captured German saboteurs questioned, then executed. The courts tried to butt in, and were told to stuff it. That seems like ample precedent to me, and Obama would gain about 20 points in popularity if he'd man up and do the same.
As Reagan said, there's no end to the good that can be accomplished as long as you don't care about who gets the credit.Alas, our current president would rather be liked than respected. He's learning the hard way that weakness is always despised.

Posted by: MarkD at November 19, 2009 01:59 PM (MMy4A)

365 This the best venue for him to be tried in. It is symbolic of what he has done and the price he willl pay for his crime. It is the best of our justice system. This is just further shrieking from you right wing wingnuts.

Posted by: LGF Fan at November 19, 2009 02:00 PM (SqAkN)

366 Ok, which one of the three Obama's is the real one? They all have such nice pant creases, I can't tell.

me

Posted by: da prez at November 19, 2009 02:01 PM (7t+Ws)

367 I'm really down today.

Posted by: The Dow at November 19, 2009 02:03 PM (+sBB4)

368 What these liberal douche nozzles don't understand care about, is by demanding
terrorists have Geneva convention rights they are directly responsible
for civilian deaths caused by terrorists.

FIFY.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at November 19, 2009 02:03 PM (NtiET)

369 Dow is down over 127....128...129

Posted by: jadedinga at November 19, 2009 02:05 PM (Uc/xV)

370 A new thread Ace was doing some math, but he left a red tag open somewhere - so those of you bitching about color and italics might want to wait on the porch for a while.

Posted by: Jean at November 19, 2009 02:07 PM (qU2w5)

371 It is nice to talk to intelligent people some days. At least some of us are not complete dumb asses who think they are smart, but have no common sense.
Case in point: Why do so called intelligent people leave their car keys in the lock after they open the drunk? How many times do they close the trunk and get the keys stuck in the trunk? It is very common. I can't make this stupid stuff up. It is mind boggling.

Posted by: hous bin pharteen at November 19, 2009 02:07 PM (pU4D7)

372 Re#88 Dave

"Obama and Holder know exactly what they are doing.
Putting these animals in civilian court is basically a huge middle
finger to Bush/Cheney and the War on Terror. A bone tossed to the
leftist anti-America base of the democrat party.While I don't doubt that Obama and Holder are affirmative action
punks, these fuckers are smart enough in this instance to know exactly
what they are doing"

I'm pretty sure that The One thinks he knows what he is doing, after all he won.
But I'm not so sure whether he really understands the implications of what he has done. Whatever victory he thinks he has in moving KSM's trial to NY, the fact is that the very notion of putting POW's into Federal court is now being tested.
They now have to deliver.
Failing to get a convection is a guilty verdict against Obama and the idea that military prisoners can be dealt with inside a civilian legal system. Does Holder really understand the damage that this trial can do to America's intelligence activities?
I'm beginning to think that he doesn't.

As much as I hate to say it: This trial has to happen.
America and the rest of the world needs to know whether this can work or not.

Posted by: RayJ at November 19, 2009 02:09 PM (YcjCJ)

373 Perhaps the most relevant part of the exchange between Holder and Graham is the exposure of the Administration's hidden agenda. In the process of being backed into a corner when trying to defend the 9/11 trial court and venue, Holder shows his cards; this circus created by the Administration is an attempt to send a message to the world-(we are a fair, just, and foolish nation).

Mr. Obama, Mr. Holder, there is evil in this world---protect the American people from it.

Nathan R. Jessup
(www.the-raw-deal.com)

Posted by: Nathan R. Jessup at November 19, 2009 02:13 PM (f9dhA)

374 Exactly how much is the Obama Administration paying Gallup to keep his Approval Rating at 50% or higher?

Its really amazing what one line of code can do isn't it?

if (Approval < 0.5) Approval = 0.5;

I should be a pollster knocking down the phat cash.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 19, 2009 02:14 PM (eESb/)

375 Timeslike this are when I have to remind myself that my own knee-jerk desire to "run the RINOs out" might be throwing some babies out with the bathwater.
As much as Graham and McCain drive me nuts on issues like immigration and Sotomayor, both he and Maverick are fairly dependable on national security issues (with the obvious exceptions of amnesty and "torture"). In my more lucid and thoughtful moments (OK -when I'm sober) I have to recognize that even a RINO is most often better than an actual Democrat.
Props to Graham - he gets 1 "free knife in my back" cardfor this one.

Posted by: societyis2blame at November 19, 2009 02:20 PM (rPDD/)

376 After KSM is acquitted, will it be time to burn DC to the ground?

Actually, in an odd sort of way, a KSM acquittal would be a good thing in the macro "arc of national history" POV. It would starkly demonstrate to the public in no uncertain terms the absolute bankruptcy and ineffectiveness of the Obamunist approach to handling terrorists.

Sometime it pays to "lose" a particular battle to win a wider war.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 19, 2009 02:26 PM (eESb/)

377 As much as Graham and McCain drive me nuts on issues like immigration and Sotomayor, both he and Maverick are fairly dependable on national security issues (with the obvious exceptions of amnesty and "torture").

Nope. They have the opposite problem to the Dems. The Dems want to treat the WoT as purely a law enforcement issue. McCain and Graham want to treat it as purely a foreign war with a nation state and to treat the captured terrorists as POW's.The problems we are seeing now with KSM are due in large part to McCain and Graham. Andy McCarthy has frequently pointed out that the extraordianry legal protectons the terrorists enjoy is due to those two men.

Posted by: flenser at November 19, 2009 02:33 PM (fqDKB)

378 36 Too bad they didn't think about this situation logically - even "politically" logically. This KSM trial will backfire on them - badly. In fact, I think the Wookie should start real estate shopping in Chicago while her hubby figures out where to build the presidential library, such as it will be.
Posted by: Blogluddite at November 19, 2009 10:58 AM (fDWFP)
The Obama Presidential Library. Hadn't thought about that until now. Will the contents be secret?

Posted by: Wm T Sherman at November 19, 2009 02:35 PM (w41GQ)

379 @382 Wm T Sherman
The Obama Presidential Library. Hadn't thought about that until now. Will the contents be secret?

There will be no presidential library for the kenyan princess. His sorry ass will be lucky to escape into overseas exile a half-step ahead of the pitchfork-wielding mobs.

Posted by: MikeO at November 19, 2009 02:37 PM (dYNrR)

380 Nope. They have the opposite problem to the Dems. The Dems want to treat the WoT as purely a law enforcement issue. McCain and Graham want to treat it as purely a foreign war with a nation state and to treat the captured terrorists as POW's. The problems we are seeing now with KSM are due in large part to McCain and Graham.

Posted by: flenser at November 19, 2009 02:33 PM (fqDKB)
Hear, hear!
But, McShame and Grahamnesty converge with the left on "torture". They like to call minor emotional trauma, "torture", for whatever reason. Horror movie directors need to watch out.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at November 19, 2009 02:38 PM (A46hP)

381 .................then were the NYC trials off German U-boat commanders who sank civilian merchant ships, and the LA trials of Samari pilots who flew planes into navy ships and Japaneses troops who executed civilians in the Philippines and all over.

What?.............Never mind. Wrong war. Cause to the leftists, this aint a war.

Posted by: hous bin pharteen at November 19, 2009 02:40 PM (pU4D7)

382 As much as I hate to say it: This trial has to happen.
America and the rest of the world needs to know whether this can work or not.
---------------------------------------------------------------

So the World needs to see the USA make a total joke of their justice system?

Sorry Ray, if the World needs to see this then to Hell with them.

Terrorists/enemy combatants should exist for one reason and one reason only.
To be the catalyst for new interrogation techniques and for keeping executioners in business.

Posted by: Drider at November 19, 2009 02:41 PM (HaJD9)

383 I wonder if Holder/Obama are actually going to go through with this now.

If its apparent to every third party observer that KSM might be acquitted, you'd think that some of the career Justice Department lawyers on the ground in charge of getting a prosecution here will quickly come to that conclusion too.

Posted by: looking closely at November 19, 2009 02:52 PM (6Q9g2)

384 383 There will be no presidential library for the kenyan princess. His sorry ass will be lucky to escape into overseas exile a half-step ahead of the pitchfork-wielding mobs.
Posted by: MikeO at November 19, 2009 02:37 PM (dYNrR)
I was kind of looking forward to visiting and getting a look at all the leather, ivory and chrome; and the deep, deep shag carpeting.

Posted by: Wm T Sherman at November 19, 2009 02:56 PM (w41GQ)

385 Yes, it's amazing how Graham always manages to do something kick-ass like this riiiight after he's been running around doing his Mini-McCain-Mavrick-Rino bullshit.

Also, per Dennis Miller: Eric Holder="Stedman"

Posted by: ktgreat at November 19, 2009 03:16 PM (+YHBx)

386 If Obama or Holder was arrested held and not given their Miranda Rights nor the services of a lawyer.
What would happen to the charges?

A They would be dropped for violations of the defendants civil rights
B)They would be dropped for violations of the defendants civil rights.
C)They would be dropped for violations of the defendants civil rights.

CHOOSE ONE.

Posted by: gus at November 19, 2009 03:16 PM (Vqruj)

387 "There is simply no basis in law for Obama and Holder's theory here. It's simply a political decision divorced from law. "

Exactly. And this suprises you how?

Posted by: Penultimatum at November 19, 2009 03:23 PM (LxXXO)

388 Jean, LOL!

Mr. Pink, reporters make good money, if they work really, really hard. It's hard also to get a full time gig with benefits. Pretty good job tho!

Posted by: PJ at November 19, 2009 03:46 PM (Qpxxz)

389 Bugliosi was an incredible prosecutor and defense lawyer back in the day. Somewhere along the line he bought into the left wing loon side of things. Books advocating: prosecute Bush for the Iraq war, Bush stole the election, another book about how Clinton's impeachment was a debacle, etc.
Not sure what happened. He gave an interview about the Manson murders a few months ago and seemed on track, but somewhere some of the wheels fell off.

Posted by: RM at November 19, 2009 04:11 PM (GkYyh)

390 As much as I hate to say it: This trial has to happen. America and the rest of the world needs to know whether this can work or not.
Fuck the world. We don't need to do this at all. Jezus Xhrist on a crutch! Quit with the mamsy pamsy, people! Let's grow some and dance with the one what brought us! It makes me sick when supposed conservatives start acting like they are being level headed but in truth are selling the farm!

Posted by: barack JESUS obama at November 19, 2009 04:12 PM (rVJH4)

391 ooops puppet off

Posted by: rightzilla at November 19, 2009 04:12 PM (rVJH4)

392 There are a lot of knocks on Eric Holder but no one really thinks he's a stupid man. Misguided? Sure. Diagnosably retarded? No
The word you're looking for is anti-American.

Posted by: drjohn at November 19, 2009 04:18 PM (IVWgQ)

393 If its apparent to every third party observer that KSM might be acquitted, you'd think that some of the career Justice Department lawyers on the ground in charge of getting a prosecution here will quickly come to that conclusion too.
I don't think that KSM'sacquittal or non-acquittal really figures into Obama/Holders plans. Their eyes on fixed on other targets.

Posted by: flenser at November 19, 2009 04:27 PM (fqDKB)

394 How is it he can be such an extreme moderate faggot, mewling platitudes and generalities in that faggy little Carolina drawl of his and then turn around and completely eviscerate Holder?
He does this from time to time. Just when you think he's a total pussy Democrat shill he'll actually act like the loyal opposition to shore up his Republican bonafides. Then promptly piss it all away again by acting like McCain Jr.
I still don't trust the little twerp. He won't get on any Sunday Morning shows making an utter fool out of high ranking Democrats.
We can all expect to see this little wussy get mavericky in the near future.

Posted by: CozMark at November 19, 2009 04:37 PM (2cQDR)

395 And to point 3 by Ace- Holder tries to get off the hot seat and gather himself by talking about anOBL capture scenario and avoid the kernel of the question. So, they'll yip yap all day about OBL to avoid having to actually explain anything.
Sort of like:
Me (to my cat): Why is the cabinet door open?
Cat: See, the door has hinges and when you pull on the door the hinges allow the door to swing out so that you can get what you need from the cabinet.
Me: I know about hinges you stupid cat. Why is thefrikken door open?
Cat: I think you'll agree with me when I say thatthe hinges are in excellent working condition or else the door would not have been able to swing out for ease of access. But more to the point I think you are driving at is that hinges sometimes do not work properly and need to be replaced. Luckily for us, these are some safe, stout, reliable hinges and they should continue to work flawlessly for years to come.

Posted by: CozMark at November 19, 2009 04:50 PM (2cQDR)

396 400th!!!!1!!!

Posted by: CozMark at November 19, 2009 04:59 PM (2cQDR)

397 Memo to all commanders in the field--

No. More. Prisoners. Evah!!!11!

Posted by: TimothyJ at November 19, 2009 05:22 PM (IKKIf)

398 I don't get all of the praise for Graham here. If any first year law student couldn't make Holder look stupid on this issue then they should drop out and find a calling more commensurate with their mental capacity.

The standard of intellect we expect from our leader has fallen so low that if they can just figure out how to staunch the spittle and drool that flows from their lips long enough to get a fully formed question out that actually makes some sense we all act like they are Thomas Jefferson. They are not. They are idiots and dangerous ones at that. Graham is like the guy at the retard halfway house who can tie his own shoes. He is a genius compared only to his peers. He looks perfectly normal only why doing his one trick and then reverts to form when he sticks his wiener in the light socket to see if it will glow.

And Leahy? That he can say what he did without fear of being called on it can only be attributable to the fact that our press corp has been wholly compromised by the enemy and needs to be put down to the last man.

Posted by: Voluble at November 19, 2009 05:51 PM (nZNTl)

399
> There are a lot of knocks on Eric Holder but no one really thinks he's a stupid man. Misguided? Sure. Diagnosably retarded? No.

That's what happens when you're defending a position like "2+2 = 5". When somebody asks you if 2+2 = 4 as well, you look like a moron.

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at November 19, 2009 07:28 PM (N+IUy)

400 The Won is perfect....therefor he cannot make a mistake.

QED

Posted by: 52% at November 19, 2009 08:22 PM (1kr99)

401 If I were Grahamnesty, (or Kyl, who also took Holder to task), I would have asked Holder, "So, AG Holder, what other 'rights' guaranteed by our justice system are negotiable?" That's the real question here. As others have intimated, once the precedent is set, what is to stop it from being used again, against civilians/American citizens?

Holder's 'criteria' to determine venue are arbitrary, as well. I understand that his main argument is that KSM Binalshibh killed civilians, hence the 'civilian' trial. That, likewise, has never been used as a criterium to determine a trial venue. A person who killed a soldier in a DWI accident, for instance, isn't then subjected to a military tribunal. I am not aware of Holder naming other criteria that are factors.

Posted by: Linlithgow at November 19, 2009 08:45 PM (xpBkP)

402 Here's a simple rule; if the enemy combatant is taken into custody on foreign soil by the military, without formal investigative or forensic evidence gathering, and/or without native professional law enforcement officials making an arrest, the case goes to a military tribunal.

Posted by: RTH615 at November 19, 2009 10:18 PM (J94wL)

403 burberry scarf | CD Keys

Posted by: jason at November 20, 2009 11:40 PM (0dxbq)

404 Sock off

Posted by: Vic at November 21, 2009 01:33 PM (CDUiN)

405 Buy discount ugg shoes
cheap ugg shoes
cheap ugg
ugg rainier
buy ugg
ugg usa
discount ugg boots
ugg 5825
ugg shoes sale
ugg sundance
ugg shoes
cheap ugg boots
ugg 5815
ugg sale
ugg uk
ugg knightsbridge
womens ugg boots
ugg boots
ugg australia
ugg 5819free shipping

Posted by: reviewups at December 02, 2009 02:33 AM (fZN4w)

406 Everything dynamic and very positively!Ugg Classic Cardy,discount, free shipping!

Posted by: ugg classic cardy at December 03, 2009 06:29 AM (ftu8y)

407
يوتيوب
يوتيوب فيديو
News Politics
يوتيوب أدب وشعر
يوتيوب أناشيد
يوتيوب الرحايا حجر القلوب
يوتيوب باب الحارة 4
يوتيوب برامج تلفزيون
يوتيوب برنامج لماذا
يوتيوب بيت جدي 2
يوتيوب تعليم
يوتيوب حرب الجواسيس
يوتيوب حفلات المسرح
يوتيوب دقات قلب 2
يوتيوب راجل وست ستات 5
يوتيوب رجال الحسم
يوتيوب رياضة
يوتيوب زمن العار
يوتيوب سفر الحجارة
يوتيوب سياحة وسفر
يوتيوب علوم وتكنولوجيا
يوتيوب فنجان الدم
يوتيوب فنون
يوتيوب قبائل الشرق
يوتيوب كوميديا
يوتيوب مسلسل الحب المستحيل
يوتيوب مسلسل جواهر التركي
يوتيوب مسلسل صبايا
يوتيوب مسلسل عاصي التركي
يوتيوب مسلسل ما اتخافوش
يوتيوب مسلسلات رمضان 2009
يوتيوب موسيقى وأغاني
يوتيوب هدوء نسبي
يوتيوب وادي الذئاب 3

Posted by: youtube at December 23, 2009 08:07 PM (asNms)

Processing 0.07, elapsed 0.0673 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0253 seconds, 416 records returned.
Page size 233 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.