Holder's True Motive

[Zoom-boing]

I keep trying to understand the why of a civilian trial. I just don't get it.

Attorney General Eric Holder adopted a tough guy pose when he announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others will be tried in federal court for the most heinous terror attack on Americans in history. "After eight years of delay," he intoned, "those allegedly responsible for the attacks of September 11 will finally face justice. It is past time to finally act."

Where to begin? The claim that the Bush administration was somehow dilatory sets a new standard for gall, particularly coming from Eric Holder. As former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy points out, "The principal reason there were so few military trials is the tireless campaign conducted by leftist lawyers (including Holder) to derail military tribunals by challenging them in the courts."

Those lawyers threw up hundreds of roadblocks. Military detentions and tribunals violated, they claimed, the U.S. Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Litigating all this has taken years.

At last clearing those obstacles, the government initiated Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's military trial in Guantanamo in September 2008. In December, KSM pleaded guilty and asked to be executed.

But now, the attorney general puffs out his chest and declares that by trying KSM in an Article III federal court, he has chosen the forum "most likely to lead to a positive result."

The mind reels.

This is an excruciatingly awful decision that no hanging judge talk of "the ultimate penalty" can perfume. What about the increased risk of terror attacks on New York during the trial? The city is "hardened" against attacks Holder assures us. Really? Like Fort Hood?

By granting a civil trial to KSM, while Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who bombed the USS Cole in Yemen, will receive a military tribunal, the U.S. telegraphs this message to terrorists: Wherever possible, attack our civilians. You'll get more lawyering and a better deal than if you attack our military. (And by the way, you'll get more rights than a member of our military who commits a crime.)

RealClearPolitics - Holder's True Motive

 

[theHawk]

It's rather easy to understand. Our Muslo-Marxist bastard child President wants to see these terrorists set free and the CIA destroyed. These terrorists will get to rant openly and for however long they want about how horrible America is and why we deserved the attacks. Something the Hussein wishes he could say himself but will gladly let these terrorists speak for him.

 

[WillowTree]

As former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy points out, "The principal reason there were so few military trials is the tireless campaign conducted by leftist lawyers (including Holder) to derail military tribunals by challenging them in the courts."

and the DUmmies on the left breeze right over this truth when they pull out their bestest sanctimosity and declare" You held them there for eight years without a trial you bastard" DUmbasses. and that includes Germans with big opines!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Holder is a Black Panther in a suit and tie and like his Muslim Marxist Boss, has dedicated his life to the destruction of American institutions and civil society

 

[Ravi]

Let's look at this logically.

1. Obama hates America
2. Obama hates New York even more
3. Obama wants the United States to be attacked
4. Obama wants KSM to go free and live happily ever after as a guest at the White House
5. Obama hates the Military


Conclusion: Obama is inviting an attack on NYC and in fact the entire country to further his agenda to let Islam take over the USA, behead all white people and live in communist glory for all time.

 

[saveliberty]

Graham made Holder look like a third grader who just told his teacher, the dog ate my homework. Clearly Holder is motivated by politics and not justice. He should step down immediately.

 

[California Girl]

Let's look at this logically.

1. Obama hates America
2. Obama hates New York even more
3. Obama wants the United States to be attacked
4. Obama wants KSM to go free and live happily ever after as a guest at the White House
5. Obama hates the Military


Conclusion: Obama is inviting an attack on NYC and in fact the entire country to further his agenda to let Islam take over the USA, behead all white people and live in communist glory for all time.

That's your idea of logic? How strange!

 

[alan1]

I keep trying to understand the why of a civilian trial. I just don't get it.

Attorney General Eric Holder adopted a tough guy pose when he announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others will be tried in federal court for the most heinous terror attack on Americans in history. "After eight years of delay," he intoned, "those allegedly responsible for the attacks of September 11 will finally face justice. It is past time to finally act."

Where to begin? The claim that the Bush administration was somehow dilatory sets a new standard for gall, particularly coming from Eric Holder. As former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy points out, "The principal reason there were so few military trials is the tireless campaign conducted by leftist lawyers (including Holder) to derail military tribunals by challenging them in the courts."

Those lawyers threw up hundreds of roadblocks. Military detentions and tribunals violated, they claimed, the U.S. Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Litigating all this has taken years.

At last clearing those obstacles, the government initiated Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's military trial in Guantanamo in September 2008. In December, KSM pleaded guilty and asked to be executed.

But now, the attorney general puffs out his chest and declares that by trying KSM in an Article III federal court, he has chosen the forum "most likely to lead to a positive result."

The mind reels.

This is an excruciatingly awful decision that no hanging judge talk of "the ultimate penalty" can perfume. What about the increased risk of terror attacks on New York during the trial? The city is "hardened" against attacks Holder assures us. Really? Like Fort Hood?

By granting a civil trial to KSM, while Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who bombed the USS Cole in Yemen, will receive a military tribunal, the U.S. telegraphs this message to terrorists: Wherever possible, attack our civilians. You'll get more lawyering and a better deal than if you attack our military. (And by the way, you'll get more rights than a member of our military who commits a crime.)

RealClearPolitics - Holder's True Motive

Mr Holder didn't make this decision on his own, he had the full backing of the President, despite what Mr Obama claims.

 

[Zoom-boing]

As former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy points out, "The principal reason there were so few military trials is the tireless campaign conducted by leftist lawyers (including Holder) to derail military tribunals by challenging them in the courts."

and the DUmmies on the left breeze right over this truth when they pull out their bestest sanctimosity and declare" You held them there for eight years without a trial you bastard" DUmbasses. and that includes Germans with big opines!

Yeah I saw that little gem and have yet to read any of the left acknowledge it. Priceless, eh?

 

[jillian]

I keep trying to understand the why of a civilian trial. I just don't get it.

Why do you assume that the same people who were wrong about everything for eight years are suddenly correct?

If they hadn't made such a mess, they wouldn't be out of power. *shrug*

Good thing Mona's *opinion* is now yelling in the darkness....

 

[Zoom-boing]

I keep trying to understand the why of a civilian trial. I just don't get it.

Attorney General Eric Holder adopted a tough guy pose when he announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others will be tried in federal court for the most heinous terror attack on Americans in history. "After eight years of delay," he intoned, "those allegedly responsible for the attacks of September 11 will finally face justice. It is past time to finally act."

Where to begin? The claim that the Bush administration was somehow dilatory sets a new standard for gall, particularly coming from Eric Holder. As former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy points out, "The principal reason there were so few military trials is the tireless campaign conducted by leftist lawyers (including Holder) to derail military tribunals by challenging them in the courts."

Those lawyers threw up hundreds of roadblocks. Military detentions and tribunals violated, they claimed, the U.S. Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Litigating all this has taken years.

At last clearing those obstacles, the government initiated Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's military trial in Guantanamo in September 2008. In December, KSM pleaded guilty and asked to be executed.

But now, the attorney general puffs out his chest and declares that by trying KSM in an Article III federal court, he has chosen the forum "most likely to lead to a positive result."

The mind reels.

This is an excruciatingly awful decision that no hanging judge talk of "the ultimate penalty" can perfume. What about the increased risk of terror attacks on New York during the trial? The city is "hardened" against attacks Holder assures us. Really? Like Fort Hood?

By granting a civil trial to KSM, while Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who bombed the USS Cole in Yemen, will receive a military tribunal, the U.S. telegraphs this message to terrorists: Wherever possible, attack our civilians. You'll get more lawyering and a better deal than if you attack our military. (And by the way, you'll get more rights than a member of our military who commits a crime.)

RealClearPolitics - Holder's True Motive

Mr Holder didn't make this decision on his own, he had the full backing of the President, despite what Mr Obama claims.

If anyone believes that Barry was 'out of the loop' on this, they're insane.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I keep trying to understand the why of a civilian trial. I just don't get it.

Why do you assume that the same people who were wrong about everything for eight years are suddenly correct?

If they hadn't made such a mess, they wouldn't be out of power. *shrug*

Good thing Mona's *opinion* is now yelling in the darkness....

The claim that the Bush administration was somehow dilatory sets a new standard for gall, particularly coming from Eric Holder. As former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy points out, "The principal reason there were so few military trials is the tireless campaign conducted by leftist lawyers (including Holder) to derail military tribunals by challenging them in the courts."

.

 

[alan1]

I keep trying to understand the why of a civilian trial. I just don't get it.



RealClearPolitics - Holder's True Motive

Mr Holder didn't make this decision on his own, he had the full backing of the President, despite what Mr Obama claims.

If anyone believes that Barry was 'out of the loop' on this, they're insane.

I don't see CNN, ABC, MSNBC, FOX, NY Times, etc challenging Mr Obama on it.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I worry about the thing that is entirely possible in a civilian trial. There is no doubt that he is guilty. He has even admitted his guilt and requested to be put to death. Now, what if we haul these slugs up to NYC for a trial and they end up getting the same treatment in court as OJ Simpson did - that is, obviously guilty but still found to be "not guilty". Then this creep would be set free and look at all of the egg that would be on the face of the US. You would never hear the end to the laughter of the radical muslims determined to destroy America. That is just one of my reasons to conduct a military tribunal. The second reason is that we have already constructed an appropriate court room there at GITMO that cost the US millions of dollars. In this day and age when there really isn't very much excess money to toss about foolishly, why not use the facilities that we already have constructed? Another question I have about all of this reverts back to the Bush Administration. Are we trying in some way to discredit Bush's Administration or bring these terrorists to justice? What's the real motive?

 

[jillian]

And we care because?

y'all are playing guessing games so you can do more "I hate Obama trash".

 

[Big Black Dog]

And we care because?

y'all are playing guessing games so you can do more "I hate Obama trash".

I don't have to play a guessing game to admit that I hate Obama. Being a resident of Illinois I already know just how big of a worthless creep he is by the things he did, or I should say, the things he didn't do while a State Senator in Illinois. Seems like the rest of you Obama sheep are a little slow in seeing him for what he really is and that is just another typical Chicagoland political hack that would sell his mother out for a few votes.

 

[jillian]

And we care because?

y'all are playing guessing games so you can do more "I hate Obama trash".

I don't have to play a guessing game to admit that I hate Obama. Being a resident of Illinois I already know just how big of a worthless creep he is by the things he did, or I should say, the things he didn't do while a State Senator in Illinois. Seems like the rest of you Obama sheep are a little slow in seeing him for what he really is and that is just another typical Chicagoland political hack that would sell his mother out for a few votes.

so because you suffer from obama derangement syndrome, we have to look at the 50th thread where you people repeat the same BS about why there shouldn't be trials...

no matter how many times it's pointed out that we had no problem trying other terrorists?

 

[Big Black Dog]

Are you trying to say the Attorney General has a clue as to what he's doing? He's as worthless as his appointer, Obama. I love you guys who defend this asshole. Brings me a bit of humor.

 

[rightwinger]

Are you trying to say the Attorney General has a clue as to what he's doing? He's as worthless as his appointer, Obama. I love you guys who defend this asshole. Brings me a bit of humor.

Yes he knows what he is doing

He is bringing them to trial, something that previous AGs were unable to do. They prefered to ignore the problem and hand it off to the next guy

Well, Holder is the next guy and you have to live by his decision

 

[saveliberty]

Are you trying to say the Attorney General has a clue as to what he's doing? He's as worthless as his appointer, Obama. I love you guys who defend this asshole. Brings me a bit of humor.

Yes he knows what he is doing

He is bringing them to trial, something that previous AGs were unable to do. They prefered to ignore the problem and hand it off to the next guy

Well, Holder is the next guy and you have to live by his decision

They were unable because Holder and others like him were sueing the government over military tribunals. Pretty convenient excuse now huh?