What is so difficult about giving honest answers about the administration's plans to try terrorists?
You would think that as Attorney General, the top lawyer in the land—with years of experience behind him—Eric Holder would be able to answer simple questions put to him by Senators regarding the disposition of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other terrorists who the administration might want to try in the criminal court system. Yet Holder, who has to have known in advance that he would be asked these questions, seemed completely stupefied when the amiable but increasingly annoyed Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked him the simplest and most obvious possible questions when he appeared before the Judiciary Committee today.…
Article comments
26 - Baronius
I think Holder's position is that we'll only go to civilian court if we're guaranteed a conviction. If we can win in military court but not in civilian, we'll try them in military court. Based on President Obama's comments about Guantanamo, if we can't win in court, we'll hold people indefinitely. And according to Holder, if we happen to try someone and lose, we won't let them go.
In what sense does any of that meet the standard of law?
27 - Dan(Miller)
From Through the Looking Glass,
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." 'The question is, "said Alice, whether you can make words mean different things." The question is, "said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."
Dan(Miller)
28 - Dan(Miller)
Baronius,
In what sense does any of that meet the standard of law?
See my comment #27.
A military commission, under the 2006 MCA, would be far better than a civilian court, since various rights available in civilian courts -- as well as in courts martial -- are not available under the MCA.
The problem with a military commission is that the Supreme Court in 2008 seems to have suggested in dicta that it might decide that military commissions under the 2006 law are not really acceptable.
Among the paradoxes I don't pretend to understand is how, should KSM not be convicted in a civilian court, or should his conviction be overturned, Attorney General Holder plans to keep him in detainee status. Another paradox I don't pretend to understand is why -- since in the event of acquittal or reversal by the appellate courts -- KSM is going to wind up in detainee status anyway, it would not be better simply to retain him in detainee status.
Dan(Miller)
29 - handyguy
Even worse than Lindsey Graham's useless hostile hypotheticals was Jon Kyl's McCarthyesque reference to "leftist lawyers" sympathetic to Al Qaeda having infiltrated Holder's Justice Department.
Congressional hearings are often full of hypocritical, hyperbolic bullshit. But even in that context, this particular hearing was unconscionable.
30 - Dave Nalle
how so? actually, it's pretty apparent that he's been very patient with those who don't agree with him, to the point that even those that do agree with him are getting a little perturbed with the kid gloves he handles you people with.
Yeah, he should just shut down FoxNews and make it illegal to blog negatively about the administration, and put us all on watch lists and no fly lists rather than just thratening it.
Dave
31 - handyguy
Dave, you apparently think anything goes in the comments section. That is over the top, even for you. You just embellish and make things up. And now, watch, you'll deny it.
32 - Dave Nalle
Even worse than Lindsey Graham's useless hostile hypotheticals was Jon Kyl's McCarthyesque reference to "leftist lawyers" sympathetic to Al Qaeda having infiltrated Holder's Justice Department.
Yeah, that was bad. They didn't infiltrate, they were invited in. And Holder is defending them and covering for them. Check this article for an example.
Dave
33 - Dave Nalle
Handy, we call that "sarcasm" -- you should look it up sometime.
Dave
34 - handyguy
Well, Mr. Nalle, I have been loudly sympathetic to the rights of Guantanamo prisoners, and so occasionally have you. That doesn't make us 'al Qaeda sympathizers' or 'soft on terrorism' in any broader sense, and it shouldn't disqualify anyone from working at Justice.
People who stood up to the imprisonment without charges in Guantanamo are true patriots and defenders of liberty, to use a couple of your fave pet phrases.
35 - Arch Conservative
Dave, you apparently think anything goes in the comments section. That is over the top, even for you. You just embellish and make things up. And now, watch, you'll deny it."
Obama said on national TV when referring to people opposing his policies "they listen to the wrong talk shows and watch the wrong TV networks."
Obama never passes a chance to take a shot at Fox news because they're not kissing his ass 24-7 like MSNBC.
Handy, name one other president who has been as hostile as Obama to particular media outlets that didn't give him favorable coverage. Just one. I fucking dare ya!
36 - Ruvy
Ruvy - so you're a 'birther'.
NO. But Obama obviously has something to hide - beyond whatever thievery he has pulled off with Rahm and Hot Rod Rodney. He has spent a fortune of money blocking access to his own records that would indicate who or what he is. His is the behavior of a man hiding something.
I don't worry about all the "birther" orthodoxy and have little interest in something other than what is real in this case. And Obama smells like a phony.
37 - Mark
Perhaps Obama feels that he needs to hide the fact that so many Americans are idiots from the rest of the world.
38 - Cobra
Glenn,
Spot on about Alberto Gonzales.
"Explaining his role in the botched firing of federal prosecutors, Gonzales uttered the phrase "I don't recall" and its variants ("I have no recollection," "I have no memory") 64 times. Along the way, his answer became so routine that a Marine in the crowd put down his poster protesting the Iraq war and replaced it with a running "I don't recall" tally.
Take Gonzales's tally along with that of his former chief of staff, who uttered the phrase "I don't remember" 122 times before the same committee three weeks ago, and the Justice Department might want to consider handing out Ginkgo biloba in the employee cafeteria."
The reason we have this dilemna with KSM is because it was created by the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration had YEARS to put together a legal, Constitutional way to try KSM. They chose not to, mostly in lieu of the fact that they TORTURED KSM, and that would've come out during whatever type of proceding they held.
The Obama Administration is choosing to follow the rule of law, or as close as one can get to it given the steaming pile of crap they inherited in this case.
Hell, even Bush Administration Officials agree with Holder:
"In deciding to use federal court, the attorney general probably considered the record of the military commission system that was established in November 2001. This system secured three convictions in eight years. The only person who had a full commission trial, Osama bin Laden's driver, received five additional months in prison, resulting in a sentence that was shorter than he probably would have received from a federal judge..."
Jim Comey, former Deputy Attorney General, and Jack Goldsmith, former Assitant Attorney General under Bush, continue in their recent op-ed to the Washington Post:
"By contrast, there is no question about the legitimacy of U.S. federal courts to incapacitate terrorists. Many of Holder's critics appear to have forgotten that the Bush administration used civilian courts to put away dozens of terrorists, including "shoe bomber" Richard Reid; al-Qaeda agent Jose Padilla; "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh; the Lackawanna Six; and Zacarias Moussaoui, who was prosecuted for the same conspiracy for which Mohammed is likely to be charged. Many of these terrorists are locked in a supermax prison in Colorado, never to be seen again."
You right wingers should just be honest. Instead of trying to pontificate or raise detailed nonsensical arguments, just post "I Hate Obama" for the sake of brevity. Even better, just type "IHO" to save bandwidth.
It would certainly be more honest.
Silas, if you have the wildest notion that a REPUBLICAN CONSERVATIVE like Dick Cheney could lead the charge on gay marriage, what do you think stopped him for the last eight years? You know the influence he wielded in Washington, and the powerful advocate he could've been being the father of an openly lesbian daughter a heartbeat away from the Oval Office.
He did NOTHING for your cause as Vice President.
Absolutely NOTHING.
Dick Cheney did about as much for the cause of Gay Marriage as he did for Harry Whittington, the "friend" he shot in the face during a hunting trip.
Yet one soundbite from an interview without any election consequences has you waving "Cheney 2012" signs?
--Cobra
39 - handyguy
Obama said on national TV when referring to people opposing his policies "they listen to the wrong talk shows and watch the wrong TV networks."
These remarks were from a speech about sex education delivered to Planned Parenthood in July 2007.
They were spoken with a chuckle, as an aside, and took up about 15-20 seconds of the speech: "The American people are very decent. They get confused sometimes...they listen to the wrong talk radio shows or look at the wrong TV networks."
It was said as a lighthearted aside to a friendly audience. It was not a statement of policy, and it was 18 months before he took office. And he certainly didn't mention any specific talk shows or networks.
I disagree with the tactics of Emanuel and the departing Anita Dunn in loudly taking on Fox News. The president's own role in that was very low-key. And during the last several weeks, it has been kept alive not by the White House but by right-wing heavy breathers like yourself.
40 - handyguy
And as for your dare, Arch:
Richard Nixon vs. both the NY Times and the Washington Post was vastly more hostile. Not even in the same league.
41 - zingzing
archie: "Handy, name one other president who has been as hostile as Obama to particular media outlets that didn't give him favorable coverage. Just one. I fucking dare ya!"
bush. he did the same exact thing to media outlets that weren't friendly to him and the right wing media cheered him and said he should have "taken on the media much earlier." and you all cheered. wow! selective memory rocks, right? what?
dave: "Yeah, he should just shut down FoxNews and make it illegal to blog negatively about the administration, and put us all on watch lists and no fly lists rather than just thratening it."
well... he hasn't and isn't going to do that. obviously. he's going to keep treating you all too damn fair. what utter bullshit drops out of your mouth, be it sarcasm or not. what next? you going to take obama quotes out of context? or cheer yourself on with applause from 2 years ago?
42 - zingzing
oh snap, archie. see? your blind, irrational hatred seems to cloud all memory of what went on before. "he's the worst president ever!" you say, but you seem to forget that anything happened before he got into office. except, of course, quotes he made that you like to take out of context. that you recall.
43 - El Bicho
don't bother Arch with context. He has enough trouble with reading