Posted by
Roxanna M. on Saturday, November 28, 2009 10:29:30 AM
Sen. Diane Feinstein (D) is not sure that osama bin laden should
be Mirandized if he's ever caught. She thinks it's "a kind of murky
area. We're looking into it with some specificity, and I'm going to
take the word of the attorney general right now." The reason she
trusts Holder is because he, unlike his predecessors, is "not blemished
in any way."
Is that so? Holder was in the attorney general's office
during the Clinton administration and was knee-deep in the pardongate
mess. He was the one who recommended the pardon of the FALN terrorists
- who never asked to be pardoned - in order to help Hillary Clinton
secure the Puerto Rican vote in her run for the senate.
Sen. Robert Menendez (D) doesn't see anything wrong with osama in laden being prosecuted in civilian court "and hopefully - and I fully expect - convicted." So much for innocent until convicted.
Sen. Kent Conrad (D) says "We have tried terrorists in our courts and done so very successfully in the past and that is our system. So if people don't believe in our system, maybe they ought to go somewhere else."
Mr. Conrad is absolutely right. We tried the "blind sheikh" in civilian court and had to turn over to him the names of his unindicted co-conspirators, one of whom was osama bin laden, who then went underground to plan 9/11. Lynne Stewart, the attorney for this "criminal" used attorney-client privilege to smuggle out information to give to his fellow terrorists. She was disbarred and sent to prison.
Yes, Mr. Conrad, trying terrorists in civilian court has been extremely successful.
Sen. Chris Dodd (D) (20 points down in the polls) says "We'll have far better prosecutions in our civilian courts than our military courts. We're doing better there. I'm interested in seeing these people brought to justice and concluding their trials and getting convictions, and we've had a far greater success in our federal court system than we have with our military courts".
Mr. Dodd, are you interested in justice or getting convictions? These guys are beginning to sound like the Romulans of Star Trek, whose justice system was based on conviction first, trial second.
Mr. Dodd went on to say, "I'm not opposed to the military courts but having a bunch of congressmen and senators sitting around here deciding that they're going to be the attorney general and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the secretary of defense is a little presumptuous. And giving them the decision-making process as to where this best be done frankly ought not to be decided by somebody who's got a political agenda up here."
"Ought not to be decided by somebody who's got a political agenda up here."? Is he kidding? Name a single person on Capitol Hill who doesn't have a political agenda.
The worst part of the decision to try terrorists in civilian court is the twisted logic expressed by Holder. Those who attack military targets will get military trials, while those who attack civilians will get civilian trials. Mr. Holder, in an act of breathtaking and arrogant stupidity, has reduced the deliberate targeting of civilians from war crime to street crime.
He has, in effect, declared open season on civilians. Why risk capture by targeting military installations when the penalty is capture, trial, and swift execution. So much better to attack civilians, get a civilian trial, followed by years of appeals, all the while living off of the people you want to destroy.
We should really cancel Christmas this year. There are no wise men in the east.