AG Holder fails to do so.
NPR – shockingly – calls him on it.
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.
We’re in the very best of hands.
I am not sure what facinates me more here, that the RINO understands the issue or that Holder is so lost!! I guess in the end we will issue Lawyers to Binladen from Holders old Law Firm, to be fair since they have been the ones working to get all the guys in GITMO moved to US soil in the first place. What a large bowl of crap soup the Obama Adminstratin and the ACLU have made for us.
BT: Jimmy T sends.
Kind of surprised to see Sen. Graham pursue the AG like this, RINO that he is, but good on him for doing it.
Criminalizing this war
wasis a goat***k of the first order, and I find it to be an especially interesting conflict to the requirements of the Geneva Accords. In an instant one goes from being an enemy combatant to a ‘simple’ criminal, and that alone should be a red flag in the face of any Judge.That the AG should ‘hem, aw, well’ is no surprise; a perfect mimic of his boss.
“GRAHAM: If we captured bin Laden tomorrow, would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture?”
Why isn’t he captured yet? He was wanted “Dead or Alive” for a while and then Former President Bust suddenly stopped caring. 9/11 happens on his watch and he never caught the perpetrator, yet you’re up in arms about some cheap political talking-points argument. This is only slightly less ridiculous than the bowing “controversy”.
Ah, Alos. Obtuse scarcely begins to define you…
I’d say more, but showing kindness to dumb animals is one of the virtues I profess to hold.
Like you, I had high hopes that our new president might be able to do what our previous one apparently could not by reaching out his hand to those who would unclench their fists. Dashed, of course.
Dashed utterly.
And Alos, I don’t think you’ve seen me “up in arms,” but I do very much care about the notion of labeling overseas terrorists as common criminals and affording them the protections of the same Constitution they seek to destroy. In your professional legal opinion, do you find some fault with Graham’s logic? Or must you reflexively follow the party line, no matter where it leads?
An example of the rising panic from the looney left as their obsequious community organizer and his bumbling butt boys continue to cluelessly self destruct before our very eyes…and to think… it will only get better. Best
Makes it*so* easy, really. Like clubbing baby seals. You almost hate yourself for doing it.
Almost.
He should take some lessons off fliterman.
It would be more amusing if the stakes weren’t so large. Watching the AG (full disclosure I only saw excepts on TV so I’m sure I missed the parts where he displayed legal brilliance) made me embarrassed for my country and fearful for those who’s lives are being risked to protect her.
When clubbing baby seals one can find some gratification in such a simple job. The look on their faces when they realize you’re not going to feed them their expected ration is priceless, and should that fail to make one want to go to work in the morning you can always pretend they’re cats.
(I jest, of course.)
Of greater importance to me, were not American airmen paraded in front of Chinese courts at one point? Harold Fischer Jr. is one such recently in the news. It was my understanding that men in uniform were to be judged by their peers, other men in uniform, under the guidance laid out by the Geneva conventions and the recognized rules of warfare. In short, they are judged by those who know what duty, chain of command, and such are and how they limit freedom of choice, unlike civilians who’s idea of limited freedom of choice is not being allowed to work the reception desk at Tiffany’s while wearing a bone through one’s nose and an orange mohawk.
This is all rather moot since Bin Laden and his band of Merry Mullas wear neither uniform nor seem to answer to a chain of command, hence they are neither protected by the Geneva accords nor by the US Constitution so far as I’m concerned. I think we’re granting them too much respectable clothing letting them be judged by military tribunals.
Granting them the same rights under the constitution as their victims? Too much to take.
– Max
We are in the hands of absolute fools. I hope that the public finally sees through the smoke screen when the trial of these murderous b**stards turns into another OJ farce.
And I suggest that Alos volunteer to head off to the mountains of Af to bring OBL to justice. He is such a brave and brilliant individual it should be duck soup for him.
Not quite sure what all the uproar is about.
The day (or perhaps the next) that Holder announced his decision, he appeared on Jim Lehrer’s “New Hour.” Under friendly questioning by Jim about with whom he consulted on his decision, Holder said that he consulted with his wife and his brother (a retired New York cop of some sort). Holder’s decision made perfect sense to them. Jim seemed taken aback (I was floored) and asked if he’d consulted with [he who will not be named]; Holder said that he’d informed him not consulted with him. By that time, my head was spinning so fast that I nearly fell out of my chair.
Now we have Sen. Graham picking on Holder in front of the cameras. Thank goodness, he did not mention Lehrer’s interview in an obvious attempt to embarrass a flawed appointee. Had he done so, the Left would have felt obligated to flood PBS’s offices with letters demanding that Lehrer step down.
Me? I was surprised PBS didn’t edit the interview for the feed out here to Coastal California.
U/M, I know its hard to believe…but even goofey ole PBS has its standards…at least this time…
…Re Holders brother…I recall hearing…on Rush I think, that his brother is a retired New York City Port Authority Policeman… it apparently gives the brother some gravitas on all matters 9/11 & WTC. Best
Snake,
I agree with you about PBS — at least the News Hour portion of PBS which is pretty much all I watch from the network. They are generally even-handed as long as they stay away from the “diversity” coverage that they seem to like to dip into. Guess I’ve watched the News Hour since the ’70s when it was the MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour and still miss Robert MacNeil.
Thanks for the update/correction on Holder’s brother. My memory told me that he’d been with the Port Authority, but I over-ruled it as being too much of a coincidence and a figment of my imagination (and there are lots of those floating around).
However, you nailed it — who better to seek advice from on an issue of such substance than a retired cop — gravitas matters. Of course, had he sought advice form his old law firm, odds are that it would have been the same but would have cost a lot more (all those billable hours and all).
OK. Now my head hurts again so I’m going to head into town for a cup of Starbucks to get my blood pressure up into the danger zone and do some grocery shopping.
Would that be the former junior senator from IL?
Joe,
That would be the one, or perhaps “The One.”
You may be from Northern California, but you’re sharp as a tack.
Kidding aside, I was born and raised in the Bay Area, and as far as I’m concerned, California just gets better the farther (or is that further? or both?) north one goes.
Personally, I like the description provided by the Chicago Boyz at HillBuzz.org (a link I believe you provided a few days ago) to describe him as “Dr. Utopia.” Seems perfect.
If you provided that link, Joe, many thanks; it is literate in every respect and has a touch of humor for a nice tone. If someone else provided the link, thanks to them. I’d suggest that regular Lex readers will enjoy it almost as much as they enjoy our host’s pleasant corner of the world.
Regards
Unca Mike, I think it was our distinguished host that provided the link.
I was raised in So. Cal, within the sounds of the guns at Pendelton (litereally, we could hear the artillery fire from there). Then spent a few years at Chico, then Sonoma Co. and now Lake Co. Started off pretty darned liberal, but now pretty strongly Liberal (as in Jeffersonian).
I just try to keep things simple, I’ve found that helps avoid confusion.
And, yes, CA is a beautiful state, if you can get past some of the lunatic politics.
This one keeps getting to me. I can’t believe it fact that this would be the well thought out policy of this administration – it just doesn’t make rational sense. So one is left with the possibility that this wasn’t thought out, they are that stupid, or there really is some sort of whacked out conspiracy of left-wing loonies who hate America running the show wanting to take us down every way they can. None of the answers provide satisfaction and when you can’t figure out their logic you realize they are even more dangerous than you thought.
Look on the bright side, T6 — it cannot be a conspiracy because by definition that requires a plan. Once you realize that Spinal Tap nailed it by noting, “there’s a fine line between clever and stupid, really” the whole sordid thing makes perfect sense.
Time spent trying to ascertain the subtle, cunning plan of an adversary that has none is time that could be better spent in more productive pursuits. Drinking heavily until the mid-term elections comes to mind.
– Max
Good advice, in fact I’ll drink to it.
Attorney General Holder Shocked that Lindsay Graham is a Moron
http://thelonggoodby.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/mountain-path-autumn-wallpaper-attorney-general-holder-shocked-lindsay-graham-is-a-moron/
Reading a couple of the sunshiny statements about some people expected or hoped-of the incoming administration and it’s leader (not myself among them), I have to comment: So, how many times do you get kicked in the teeth by someone or some political group before you figure out that they are (1) not your friend, (2) that they take seriously their dislike of you (not to say ‘hate’ as that word is officially ‘bad’ per the teeth-kickers – go figure!), (3) that they mean even more than what they say about their dislike of our country’s systems and history and exceptionalism? and (4) that they won’t stop, give up, give in, or change their desires – all that is what they demand and expect of us. And the current administration was clearly, despite the news blackout being attempted by the major “news outlets”, very very leftist and had a bunch of stuff hidden away for very good reasons – little stuff like the support given to Obama from America haters of the Islamic stripe, homegrown radicals, and the Universities he attended or not (SOMEONE has to explain how it is that nobody at Columbia University in his class remembers him – a guy like Obama is not a below-the-radar type like that. Weird).
Anyway: about Holder. Is it possible for anyone to expect much in the way of good sense from a guy who sat by, with all his degrees on the wall and supposed intelligence, yet he claimed to have not known anything about Marc Rich when he allowed Clinton to pardon him? How about the pardons for the Puerto Rican terrorists? The man is a political animal to the core…it’s what has gotten him where he is and to where he came from. He’s used the system that supported him and pushed him up the ladder, just like Obama but not as spectacularly, and he’s now doing what should have been an obvious and expected thing….he’s making political decisions along with his boss and all to hurt the ‘other side’ of the argument. The nation be damned in the bargain.
It was nice yesterday to be able to agree for one of the few times with Sen. Graham’s actions…a guy who mostly is NOT a favorite person of mine.
You nailed it brother…
Yes, trying to ascribe positive motives to these obvious devious political animals is futile indeed. What is puzzling is that the actions seem to be leading to a path of a one term presidency and yet they persist. I guess their contempt for the intellect of the American people and their confidence in the stupidity of the GOP knows no bounds.
Sen. Leahy isn’t so good at thinking things through, either: http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/19/leahy-we-wouldnt-bother-to-interrogate-bin-laden/
I think Leahy’s point – and T Paine’s, such as it is – is that there is already sufficient existing evidence on bin Laden to convict him without ladling on any new evidence that might be revealed in a military interrogation that had not been Mirandized.
I’m no lawyer, but it seems to me that Graham’s point remains; if bin Laden is to be treated as a common criminal, he must be Mirandized when seized by federal authorities and might opt not to waive his right not to speak nor to have representation by an attorney. Once Mirandized, any evidence he subsequently revealed about on-going terror plots (and the actors involved in them) might be “fruits of the poisoned tree” and a barrier to future prosecutions of currently unknown or unindicted co-conspirators.
Or else we’ll have separate trials, military and civilian, against differing sorts of terrorists. So long as we’re passing out constitutional protections to enemy combatants on foreign battle fields, why note invoke the 14th amendment’s equal protection and due process clauses?
I think that the major point here is that the focus is on criminal conviction . . . which ignores the reality that we are in an ongoing war with the need for intelligence for future operations. Very pre-9/11 thinking.
Yes, we might be able to convict an O.B.L. using his own statements on the tapes that have been released, but what other information are we then unable to obtain to save lives of US service personnel as well as civilians? This is a dumb thing to do. And Sen. Leahy is a partisan hack from way back – very little can be expected of him in the way of good sense or putting the country first – just look at his votes and statements on judicial appointments over time. Partisan hack.
As Lex alludes, there is a “positive right” aspect to Miranda, that the authorities have a duty to inform you of your right to counsel.
Further, Lex mentions that there is a reasonable chance that a federal judge might apply the 14th to the question of why some get civilian trials and some get military commissions. Isn’t that venue shopping in its worst form?
And finally, can someone explain to me the benefit of trying terrorists in a civilian courtroom, vice a military commission? What’s the upside?
I’m no lawyer either, btw. I think Ed is misinterpreting Sen. Leahy’s comment of, “we’ve had enough on him, we don’t need to interrogate him.” My take is that Leahy is referring to the evidence against OBL, saying we have enough to convict him in a civilian federal court. That we don’t need interrogation to elicit a confession out of him for events pertaining to 9/11.
Also, those responsible for the first WTC attack in ‘93 were tried and convicted in a civilian federal court, in NY no less. There is a precedence for trying terrorists and bringing classified evidence to trial and not exposing state secrets.
Brad: I read somewhere (can’t find the link just now) that generally a military tribunal is used for acts committed off U.S. soil (e.g the USS Cole), and allows the government to limit access to evidence to defense lawyers.
And Lex: My guess is that the FOTPT kicks in if any evidence taken from OBL post-Miranda was taken illegally. Any evidence he gives up while in custody through standard interrogation methods would be fair game for ongoing investigations and admissible in future prosecutions.
Again I’m not a lawyer…thoughts?
jpr, I think the Miranda thing ends up putting us in a chess fork, legally. Treat him like a common criminal and he must be Mirandized upon seizure. Do so and then interrogate him for actionable, perishable intel without the presence of an attorney (should he request it) and civil prosecutions of previously unindicted or unknown actors, and that evidence can be thrown out, along with whatever other evidence was gained while rolling them up as inadmissible in court for their prosecutions. So then you’re right back to the military tribunals again. In which case – since we’re still using the two tiered civil/military system set up by congress – what’s the point of the whole drill?
Plus, since when did front line soldiers or federal agents of whatever agency become required to offer constitutional rights to unlawful combatants seized outside the US?
Lex, outside the little minor detail of giving constitutional rights to non-citizens who are trying to not only kill us but destroy the Constitution itself (and damned inconsiderate of you to keep inconveniently bringing such mere trifles up!) we don’t even have to worry about Miranda in the case of KSM. The “speedy trial” laws are a slam dunk for KSM. Even IF damning, convicting evidence has been gathered post interrogation and after being “Mirandized” the “speedy trial” clause has clearly been violated any way you want to dance it. If KSM and/or his attny raises this objection I don’t see any way around it. Snake? Any other lawyers care to opine?
Came away from the article thinking of Holder and Leahy as Dumber and Dumberer. But then there’s the folks who keep reelecting the good Senator.
I’m no lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I think that Holder’s statements to the press along the lines that “he will be convicted” are a set-up for a mis-trial. As far as I’m aware, Attorneys-general and prosecutors who state in advance of the trial, that so-and-so is guilty and will be found so, have almost guaranteed that the defense lawyers will seek a mis-trial verdict. Please — someone who is a lawyer here, set me right on this. Or you could agree with me, which would make me feel really good about my mind and memory still being in functioning order.
Marianne
MM, Rest easy your instincts are sound…Expect Holder’s statements and Obamas comments to Chuck Todd in China to form the first, of many motions for mistrial in this travesty called a trial… should be great theater. Best
MM, Just one more observation re the many predicted/expected motions…
…it is taken as gospel in defense circles that if the facts in the case are against you …you argue the law… conversely if the law in the case is against you … you argue the facts…Best
Can you imagine the circus just trying to seat a jury? How are you going to find 12 people in New York who “impartial” as to 9-11, or haven’t heard of it? Wait, don’t answer that….
Some names I would like to see on the jury – Colt, Browning, Stoner, Garand, Mauser, Beretta.
I would hope the jury is composed of graduates of Navy SERE school or its AF and Army equivalent – those of us who have met the waterboard would not be inclined to flinch when the defense shows endless video of left-wing activists who volunteered to be waterboarded for propaganda purposes.
George V.
I am skeptical of the Obama administration’s approach here. What is the plan if he is acquitted? Release him? Put him in some hole someplace and disregard the acquittal? Say what you may about them, the Obama administration isn’t actually dumb — these questions have been considered and they have a plan, but they just aren’t sharing it yet. However, there is one benefit to criminalizing the terrorists: it de-legitimizes them. Treating these thugs in an extra-legal fashion gives them standing in wavering communities and undermines our moral credibility. Applying the law to them treats them as murderers, which is what they are, and solidifies our claim to the moral high ground. Force and strength are required, but so is moral suasion. The threat is not only an organized opponent — it is also an idea that floats, looking for fertile ground. We need the friends and neighbors of those who are budding threats to point them out to us, but who’s going to denounce their brother or neighbor if they think that person will be mistreated based on a suspicion? Proving that we treat suspects fairly and justly will allow more tragedies to be prevented.
JimH, I wish I could share your optimism that trying KSM (or OBL, for that matter) in civil court would influence those against whom we fight, or even those who tacitly or explicitly support or abet them in that fight. They are either already convinced of the inherent injustice and evil in the American system or too jaded by the kind of kangaroo court justice in their homelands – like having a two-tiered trial system, one for “slam dunks” and one for “others” – to much care or believe in the innate goodness of our system to much care.
9/11, Khobar Towers, USS Cole, the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya all occurred prior to the GWOT. When KSM was seized in Pakistan, he asked for a lawyer and to be transported to New York. Now he’s getting what he wanted.
Civil prosecution for KSM seems like a very 9/10 mindset to me.
Lex,
KSM and OBL are not the people I’d be starting this with, for sure! However, we’ve seen in other long-running conflicts that a mixture of force and persuasion is what tends to resolve them. For example, during the Cold War we spent a lot of effort on making sure people clearly understood how we were different than the Russians — due process, human rights, freedom of expression, freedom of travel, freedom of religion, etc. The goal wasn’t to get the Russians to be nice to us. It was to get the people in the middle to tilt towards us a little bit more and to explain to the populations of our countries why it is worth the vigilance. These long running conflicts require balancing competing interests. My frustration with both Obama and Bush is that neither administration has seemed to sponsor a discussion about these interests and how to balance them. Instead, they take a position and then this becomes polarized in a red vs blue battle. We need to be rowing in the same direction on this one instead of pointing fingers and calling names.
The other aspect of this whole mess is it criminalizes the next war. There will be one…. It’s 2049, and the US carrier in the Pacific has just been holed by a torpedo spread from (name your favorite potential enemy here). The other carrier task group (we’re down to 2) is in the Atlantic. Satellites detect ship movement toward Guam and a group of people (ethnically identical to potential enemy) have been captured attempting sabotage on the base. Our next move is to interrogate oops… I mean, read them their rights???????
George V.
Inevitably decisions like this will result in fewer “captured” and more “suspected terrorist killed” while trying to escape.
Ole Lindsey earned a little of his pay that day. now for the other 364 we’re still working on him down here.
If the shot is on target we won’t have to worry about the administration, the media, or the courtroom. Let’s hope the guns get him (them) before the left does. The circus is exactly what KSM/OBL want and it seems that our current leadership is inclined to play right into their plan. Domestic terrorism using our own system to bring us down. Forest for the trees and all…
Hmmmm…. By “shot on target” I meant on the battlefield not a hit on KSM while in custody. Now if he were to make an attempt to break free – shoot to kill.
People who are proud of Lindsey “in spite of him being a RINO” do forget that on the national defense issue, he’s always been rock solid. But I have to hold my nose each and every time I vote for him, because he seems to think that our borders should have a revolving door on them. How he rationalizes those two views, I’ll never know.
I’ve discussed this long and hard with my closest buddy (who’s a conservative Democrat), and even though he’s an Obama supporter, he agrees with me that the whol KSM civil trial thing makes zero sense. Look, I don’t like Obama or his politics, but I don’t think he’s stupid, evil or insane. Just wrong. But for the life of me, I can’t (nor could my friend) come up with ANY reason for doing this.
If the intent is to have a fair trial, then you’ve got to accept that he’s going to be acquitted. He was not Mirandized, I’m pretty sure the snake eaters who woke him at 2am didn’t have an arrest warrant from any judge, he wasn’t given an attorney… It doens’t MATTER if there’s enough evidence to convict him without information taken while he was in custody… by every definition of American justice, the US government BROKE ALL STANDARDS in our treatment of him… IF he were an American citizen. Now, military tribunal? Awesome, book him and cook him. But we can’t even pretend to have a fair civil trial. Maybe we can get Hu Jintao or Tsar Putin to come give us advice on how to properly run a kangaroo court.
Basic terms: I would not let this “individual” babysit my grandchildren. Period. Remember, us enlisted types are little more direct than most. If he were to show up at my front door to date either of my daughters when they were single, I would have taken him to “Parade Rest” Old PO/NCO types know of what I speak.