attorney general eric holder grilled by lindsey graham
***
HOLDER'S ANSWERS MAKE IT OBVIOUS THIS MAN HAS NO IDEA WHAT HE'S DOING IN AUTHORIZING CIVIL TRIALS FOR TERRORIST MASTERMIND
Sen. Graham has frustrated me again and again in recent years by "crossing the aisle" at the most trying times, but he was spot on in his questioning of a stuttering and incoherent Eric Holder.
( Sen. Lindsey Graham grills Attorney General Eric Holder )
We warned you about this guy Holder. He pushed for pardons for the most despicable characters as Deputy Attorney General during the Clinton administration and worked for a law firm that represents 17 terrorists at Gitmo.
When asked for a list of people in the Justice Department with connections to Gitmo terrorists, Holder said he'd consider providing the information.
Can you imagine the media's reaction had this been asked during the Bush administration, and a Democrat Senator received that reply?
My favorite part is when Graham asks Holder what the procedure would be if Osama bin Laden were captured.
GRAHAM: If bin Laden were caught tomorrow, would it be the position of this administration that he would be brought to justice?
HOLDER: He would certainly be brought to justice, absolutely.
GRAHAM: Where would you try him?
HOLDER: Well, we'd go through our protocol. And we'd make the determination about where he should appropriately be tried. [...]
GRAHAM: If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?
HOLDER: Again I'm not -- that all depends. I mean, the notion that we --
GRAHAM: Well, it does not depend. If you're going to prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent.
The big problem I have is that you're criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we'd have mixed theories and we couldn't turn him over -- to the CIA, the FBI or military intelligence -- for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now we're saying that he is subject to criminal court in the United States. And you're confusing the people fighting this war.
Holder hasn't a clue, nor can he give any rationale for prosecuting these 5 terrorists in civil court in New York.
But then why am I not surprised. These people are ideologues and their decisions are made for political reasons.
Btw, did you notice when Holder says he knows that we are at war against these terrorists? I guess he didn't get Barack's memo. It's an overseas contingency operation, Eric.
Oh, and just a reminder. You and the President shouldn't come right out and say this guy is guilty and will be executed before he has even gone to trial. Didn't you guys go to law school?
Good job, Lindsey. Now, let me tell you about some of this phony global warming/cap-and-trade hysteria.
HOLDER'S ANSWERS MAKE IT OBVIOUS THIS MAN HAS NO IDEA WHAT HE'S DOING IN AUTHORIZING CIVIL TRIALS FOR TERRORIST MASTERMIND
Sen. Graham has frustrated me again and again in recent years by "crossing the aisle" at the most trying times, but he was spot on in his questioning of a stuttering and incoherent Eric Holder.
( Sen. Lindsey Graham grills Attorney General Eric Holder )
Click to viewWe warned you about this guy Holder. He pushed for pardons for the most despicable characters as Deputy Attorney General during the Clinton administration and worked for a law firm that represents 17 terrorists at Gitmo.
When asked for a list of people in the Justice Department with connections to Gitmo terrorists, Holder said he'd consider providing the information.
Can you imagine the media's reaction had this been asked during the Bush administration, and a Democrat Senator received that reply?
My favorite part is when Graham asks Holder what the procedure would be if Osama bin Laden were captured.
GRAHAM: If bin Laden were caught tomorrow, would it be the position of this administration that he would be brought to justice?
HOLDER: He would certainly be brought to justice, absolutely.
GRAHAM: Where would you try him?
HOLDER: Well, we'd go through our protocol. And we'd make the determination about where he should appropriately be tried. [...]
GRAHAM: If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?
HOLDER: Again I'm not -- that all depends. I mean, the notion that we --
GRAHAM: Well, it does not depend. If you're going to prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs the defendant, the criminal defendant, is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent.
The big problem I have is that you're criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we'd have mixed theories and we couldn't turn him over -- to the CIA, the FBI or military intelligence -- for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now we're saying that he is subject to criminal court in the United States. And you're confusing the people fighting this war.
Holder hasn't a clue, nor can he give any rationale for prosecuting these 5 terrorists in civil court in New York.
But then why am I not surprised. These people are ideologues and their decisions are made for political reasons.
Btw, did you notice when Holder says he knows that we are at war against these terrorists? I guess he didn't get Barack's memo. It's an overseas contingency operation, Eric.
Oh, and just a reminder. You and the President shouldn't come right out and say this guy is guilty and will be executed before he has even gone to trial. Didn't you guys go to law school?
Good job, Lindsey. Now, let me tell you about some of this phony global warming/cap-and-trade hysteria.