Lindsey Graham Defends the Constitution, citizens, and Courts in front of Erik Holder

[Xenophon]

This gang of political radicals honestly feel that they can do what they wish, in spite of American opinion.

They can...until the next election.

 

[ElmerMudd]

The USA has the best justice system in the world.

We have tried Islamist Extremist terrorists, domestic terrorists like Timothy McVeigh successfully.

If our justice system cannot provide justice for these terrorists then it will expose a fault in our justice system that needs to be fixed.

We cannot let fear of these animals drive us from our own justice system.

We do not want to become what we are fighting, a closed, unjust society.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The USA has the best justice system in the world.

We have tried Islamist Extremist terrorists, domestic terrorists like Timothy McVeigh successfully.

If our justice system cannot provide justice for these terrorists then it will expose a fault in our justice system that needs to be fixed.

We cannot let fear of these animals drive us from our own justice system.

We do not want to become what we are fighting, a closed, unjust society.

Appropriate justice will be provided by military tribunals just as it have for the last 230 years.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed wasn't captured on the battlefield. He was arrested in Pakistan.

Pakistan isn't a battlefield? Really? In what sense?

The Paki army is fully engaged. Everybody agrees that AQ is in Pakistan not Afghanistan. We've been killing AQ and Taliban leadership in Pakistan for years with drones. How is Pakistan not a battlefield? Because we captured KSM with a special ops team not in a shoot out on a remote mountain somewhere? Happens all the time in a real war. You should see what happened in WW II.

Pakistan wasn't a battlefield last year when the conservative blogotards went ballistic when candidate Obama talked about going into Pakistan after al qaeda with or without Pakistan's permission.

Whether it is a battlefield or not has nothing to do with an assertion by a presidential candidate that he would violate the sovereignty of a country and attack it.

If he didn't mean that, then he didn't express himself very well. In any case, your response was a non-answer.

 

[saveliberty]

Seems like Bush said something to the effect of, no country shall be a safe haven for terrorists.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Seems like Bush said something to the effect of, no country shall be a safe haven for terrorists.

My hope is that all nations will heed our call, and eliminate the terrorist parasites who threaten their countries and our own. Many nations are acting forcefully. Pakistan is now cracking down on terror, and I admire the strong leadership of President Musharraf. (Applause.)
But some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will.

State of the Union 2002

 

[Meister]

The USA has the best justice system in the world.

We have tried Islamist Extremist terrorists, domestic terrorists like Timothy McVeigh successfully.
If our justice system cannot provide justice for these terrorists then it will expose a fault in our justice system that needs to be fixed.

We cannot let fear of these animals drive us from our own justice system.

We do not want to become what we are fighting, a closed, unjust society.

Whats there to prove, if we have the best justice system in the world? We don't have to prove anything, because the world has seen our system in action. Oh yeah, we have the OJ Simpson's, and the Robt. Blake's that seemed to have slipped through the cracks, and also a few thousand other ones that got off on technicalities...but for the most part your are right about it being the best in the world.
Having said this....do we get rid of military tribunals for all enemy combantants, and give the thousands civilian trials? If not, who do we give tribunals to, and who do we give civilian trials to? Who makes the decision on such action? You do realize that these are questions that will need immediate answers within minutes, right?
This isn't the miltary's first rodeo, we have protocol in place to alliviate any such problems that would arise with the military combantants that we capture.

 

[ElmerMudd]

The USA has the best justice system in the world.

We have tried Islamist Extremist terrorists, domestic terrorists like Timothy McVeigh successfully.
If our justice system cannot provide justice for these terrorists then it will expose a fault in our justice system that needs to be fixed.

We cannot let fear of these animals drive us from our own justice system.

We do not want to become what we are fighting, a closed, unjust society.

Whats there to prove, if we have the best justice system in the world? We don't have to prove anything, because the world has seen our system in action. Oh yeah, we have the OJ Simpson's, and the Robt. Blake's that seemed to have slipped through the cracks, and also a few thousand other ones that got off on technicalities...but for the most part your are right about it being the best in the world.
Having said this....do we get rid of military tribunals for all enemy combantants, and give the thousands civilian trials? If not, who do we give tribunals to, and who do we give civilian trials to? Who makes the decision on such action? You do realize that these are questions that will need immediate answers within minutes, right?
This isn't the miltary's first rodeo, we have protocol in place to alliviate any such problems that would arise with the military combantants that we capture.

The war against terrorism is unchartered territory.
They are not the definitive militay combatants as so specifically defined in previous wars.
Should we have tried Timothy McVeigh in a military tribunal. Granted he was a US citizen but he committed terrorist crimes against our government. The perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing were successfully tried in criminal court.

I will admit it may be preferrable for the trials in Military tribunals but the fact they will be in the US criminal court I don't see as a disaster.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Pakistan isn't a battlefield? Really? In what sense?

The Paki army is fully engaged. Everybody agrees that AQ is in Pakistan not Afghanistan. We've been killing AQ and Taliban leadership in Pakistan for years with drones. How is Pakistan not a battlefield? Because we captured KSM with a special ops team not in a shoot out on a remote mountain somewhere? Happens all the time in a real war. You should see what happened in WW II.

Pakistan wasn't a battlefield last year when the conservative blogotards went ballistic when candidate Obama talked about going into Pakistan after al qaeda with or without Pakistan's permission.

Whether it is a battlefield or not has nothing to do with an assertion by a presidential candidate that he would violate the sovereignty of a country and attack it.

If he didn't mean that, then he didn't express himself very well. In any case, your response was a non-answer.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was apprehended in Pakistan at a time when we were not fighting in Pakistan. He was not 'on the battlefield'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There's going to be one awful chorus of yeah but's from the wingnuts when these guys eventually get convicted.

Get off of it. What We will have to look forward to is OJ times 10. Makes me want to puke just thinking about. I would rather host the Olympics, and I live in Queens. Gridlocked Circus with an enhanced terrorist threat.

Your prediction is that he will walk, literally, as did OJ. A free man.

How much are you willing to bet?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Lindsey didn't "nail" it. He doesn't seem to understand that terrorist / enemy combatants have no rights under our Constitution. As such, Miranda rights and constitutional rights that we as American citizens have, do not apply to the people in question.

However, brining them to trial in the US criminal court system automatically extends constitutinal rights to them.

If they had a military tribunal you would be correct but in a US criminal court trial you are wrong.

Just because they are on U.S. soil, that does not mean they get constitutional rights. The administration wants to give them rights. They are dangerously wrong.

If you believe in a strict reading of the Constitution, the perps in question do not have rights under our Constitution even if they are tried on American soil. The Constitution was written for American citizens not terrorists or enemy combatants. The President wants to cross a line that should never ever be crossed, by giving them V Amendment rights, a lawyer etc.

If you believe that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and if you believe that the function of the Constitution, and the government, is to protect those inalienable rights,

then it would be an odd contradiction to then qualify that to claim that citizens are the only men who possess those inalienable rights.

 

[GWV5903]

What are you afraid of? Fear not. Liberal democrats will save the day again. We'll clean up the mess the scardy cat cons got us into...........again.

hey! haven't you heard? your DUmbasses have tainted the jury pool.

SO again you admit to being scared and not trusting the American people to do the right thing in a serious situation like this one. We need a big daddy to protect us from ourselves?

This will be the Judges decision, not the American peoples, dumb ass.....

If it were up to the American people as you say, their would be Military Tribunals.....

 

[Meister]

The USA has the best justice system in the world.

We have tried Islamist Extremist terrorists, domestic terrorists like Timothy McVeigh successfully.
If our justice system cannot provide justice for these terrorists then it will expose a fault in our justice system that needs to be fixed.

We cannot let fear of these animals drive us from our own justice system.

We do not want to become what we are fighting, a closed, unjust society.

Whats there to prove, if we have the best justice system in the world? We don't have to prove anything, because the world has seen our system in action. Oh yeah, we have the OJ Simpson's, and the Robt. Blake's that seemed to have slipped through the cracks, and also a few thousand other ones that got off on technicalities...but for the most part your are right about it being the best in the world.
Having said this....do we get rid of military tribunals for all enemy combantants, and give the thousands civilian trials? If not, who do we give tribunals to, and who do we give civilian trials to? Who makes the decision on such action? You do realize that these are questions that will need immediate answers within minutes, right?
This isn't the miltary's first rodeo, we have protocol in place to alliviate any such problems that would arise with the military combantants that we capture.

The war against terrorism is unchartered territory.
They are not the definitive militay combatants as so specifically defined in previous wars.
Should we have tried Timothy McVeigh in a military tribunal. Granted he was a US citizen but he committed terrorist crimes against our government. The perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing were successfully tried in criminal court.

I will admit it may be preferrable for the trials in Military tribunals but the fact they will be in the US criminal court I don't see as a disaster.

They were caught on foreign soil, and were military combantants. This isn't uncharted territory, Elmer.
Timothy McVeigh, was not only a citizen, but he was caught in Oklahoma.
The 1993 perps were busted in the United States, and not on foreign soil. This is where the difference lies.

 

[Darkwind]

What are you afraid of? Fear not. Liberal democrats will save the day again. We'll clean up the mess the scardy cat cons got us into...........again.

You can't ignore legal precedent. This compounding a complex situation. The "fear" is restriction of interogating prisoners. You should have picked that up from the video. There must be some sense you can just change what the law means from moment to moment.

OMG! run. ruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuun! a typical neocon reply. When are you people going to stop being so scared of the great system we have in America? Why don't conservatives t-r-u-s-t America?

wow. You're pretty fucking stupid.

Probably to stupid to even understand what is going on here.

Tell Me O genius of the left.

Now that 'The Obama' (May his camel be forever outside your tent) and Holder have declared that there will be no failure, what do you think the world is going to think of our justice system when we don't free them if they get acquitted?

Or do you think that the American people are going to let the perps of 9-11-01 walk because the administration doesn't have the fucking brains to try these people in the proper venue?

 

[Intense]

There's going to be one awful chorus of yeah but's from the wingnuts when these guys eventually get convicted.

Get off of it. What We will have to look forward to is OJ times 10. Makes me want to puke just thinking about. I would rather host the Olympics, and I live in Queens. Gridlocked Circus with an enhanced terrorist threat.

Your prediction is that he will walk, literally, as did OJ. A free man.

How much are you willing to bet?

That is not my prediction. My prediction, if you want to call it that, is that it will dominate every form of media worse than OJ X 10, that the Streets of NYC will be more of a mess because of it, that the Terrorism Threat here will rise, and that the Population will Polarize. It's not going to be fun or pretty.

That aside, The whole Prosecution Aspect was geared up for a Military Tribunal, that will now weaken.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Whats there to prove, if we have the best justice system in the world? We don't have to prove anything, because the world has seen our system in action. Oh yeah, we have the OJ Simpson's, and the Robt. Blake's that seemed to have slipped through the cracks, and also a few thousand other ones that got off on technicalities...but for the most part your are right about it being the best in the world.
Having said this....do we get rid of military tribunals for all enemy combantants, and give the thousands civilian trials? If not, who do we give tribunals to, and who do we give civilian trials to? Who makes the decision on such action? You do realize that these are questions that will need immediate answers within minutes, right?
This isn't the miltary's first rodeo, we have protocol in place to alliviate any such problems that would arise with the military combantants that we capture.

The war against terrorism is unchartered territory.
They are not the definitive militay combatants as so specifically defined in previous wars.
Should we have tried Timothy McVeigh in a military tribunal. Granted he was a US citizen but he committed terrorist crimes against our government. The perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing were successfully tried in criminal court.

I will admit it may be preferrable for the trials in Military tribunals but the fact they will be in the US criminal court I don't see as a disaster.

They were caught on foreign soil, and were military combantants. This isn't uncharted territory, Elmer.
Timothy McVeigh, was not only a citizen, but he was caught in Oklahoma.
The 1993 perps were busted in the United States, and not on foreign soil. This is where the difference lies.

See, this is the problem.

Ramzi Yousef, one of the planners of the 1993 bombing was apprehended in PAKISTAN and extradited to the United States. And convicted in a civilian criminal trial. And put away forever.

 

[CurveLight]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTmLKUT817Y&feature=related


Good for you Graham, i dont always like what you do but this time you nailed it dead on


I'm surprised Holder and Obama have decided to bring the enemy combatants to the united states without knowing the answers to such questions as Lindsey Graham presented to him.

Its a pretty sad state when we have incompetent fools like this running our justice department.

Watch and Listen.

short version

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG7lm8Sfbo4

That just told the world we will ignore our own laws whenever it suits our desires.

 

[Claudette]

Lindsay Graham asked all the right questions and Holder just didn't have the answers.

This whole thing is just ridiculous.

On the one side you have a slam dunk with a Military Tribunal. A god damned sure thing.

On the other you will have a trial in Civil Court. You will have a 3 ring circus of a trial. You will give the terrorists a platform to spew their bs. You will have Cheney, Bush, the CIA, FBI, interrogators, interrogation methods and anyone and anything else the defense team can drag in on trial.

Seems like a no-brainer to me. Apoarently Common Sense is MIA in Obamalama land.

 

[CurveLight]

Lindsay Graham asked all the right questions and Holder just didn't have the answers.

This whole thing is just ridiculous.

On the one side you have a slam dunk with a Military Tribunal. A god damned sure thing.

On the other you will have a trial in Civil Court. You will have a 3 ring circus of a trial. You will give the terrorists a platform to spew their bs. You will have Cheney, Bush, the CIA, FBI, interrogators, interrogation methods and anyone and anything else the defense team can drag in on trial.

Seems like a no-brainer to me. Apoarently Common Sense is MIA in Obamalama land.

Play the tape through to the next few chapters. This approach is extremely dangerous because it is advocating military rule. If Muslims from the ME can be detained without a conviction for an arbitrary period on the suspicion of terrorism then anyone deemed to be "associates" can also face the same wrath.

I'm not convinced we got the right guys or at least those largely responsible. When people confess after years of detainment with God knows how much torture their confessions are not credible. It seems to me most Americans want someone to fry rather than sticking to our principles.

 

[CurveLight]

Lindsay Graham asked all the right questions and Holder just didn't have the answers.

This whole thing is just ridiculous.

On the one side you have a slam dunk with a Military Tribunal. A god damned sure thing.

On the other you will have a trial in Civil Court. You will have a 3 ring circus of a trial. You will give the terrorists a platform to spew their bs. You will have Cheney, Bush, the CIA, FBI, interrogators, interrogation methods and anyone and anything else the defense team can drag in on trial.

Seems like a no-brainer to me. Apoarently Common Sense is MIA in Obamalama land.

Play the tape through to the next few chapters. This approach is extremely dangerous because it is advocating military rule. If Muslims from the ME can be detained without a conviction for an arbitrary period on the suspicion of terrorism then anyone deemed to be "associates" can also face the same wrath.

I'm not convinced we got the right guys or at least those largely responsible. When people confess after years of detainment with God knows how much torture their confessions are not credible. It seems to me most Americans want someone to fry rather than sticking to our principles.