Home > Videos, War on Terror > Eric Holder’s Shameful Defense of NYC Show Trial

Eric Holder’s Shameful Defense of NYC Show Trial

WASHINGTON: Attorney General Eric Holder faced the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning. Lindsey Graham asked Holder some pointed questions. Holder’s answers to those questions amplify the NIP’s viewpoint that putting KSM on trial in NYC has been done for political reasons only, weakening our national security to meet political objectives. Concerned Americans need to witness the Attorney General prevaricating in front of the Senate:

This video refutes the very reasons given for having the trial in NYC. There has never been a trial of an enemy combatant taking place in a US civil court. To do so risks compromising our national security. If a defendant is found not guilty but is not released as Holder suggests, it will further inflame radical Islam.

Holder can’t answer where Osama Bin Laden would be tried were he caught. Listening to Holder’s dissembling reveals just how shaky this administration is on this point. Graham points out that the problem with treating terrorists as criminals subject to civil law is that we have to read enemy combatants their Miranda rights on the battlefield, provide them with a lawyer and other rights afforded US citizens. The practice would prohibit interrogation to obtain military intelligence, for the first “right” read to the enemy combatant is, “You have the right to remain silent.”

Our servicemen are already being hampered by this practice in Afghanistan according to Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich:

“I witnessed it myself, talked to the people on the ground,” he said. “What you have is two very separate missions colliding in the field in a combat zone. Again, anytime that you offer confusion in that environment that’s already chaotic and confusing enough, you jeopardize a soldier’s life.” Mike Rogers, quoted by FoxNews.com

We commend Graham for bucking the White House on this topic. Obama shamefully tried to silence Graham until Obama had time to browbeat him in the oval office, Graham reported last Friday. (See TheHill.com’s report here.) Graham first agreed to be silent but then reversed his decision, putting country above politics. We agree with Graham’s statement, “We’re making bad history… The big problem I have is that you’re criminalizing the war.”

We stand by our earlier assessment:

This administration intends to weaken our national defense by exposing intelligence practices to the world, to fan the flames of Islamic fanaticism, and to discredit the Bush administration, all the while gaining further support from their radical left political base. Any resulting destabilization will provide further opportunities to extend the left’s power over the American people and bring about radical change. NIP, November 16, 2009

Be Sociable, Share!
Categories: Videos, War on Terror Tags:
  1. November 20th, 2009 at 08:15 | #1

    I heard a sound byte of Holder supposedly stating why they are looking to try KSM in NY, where he said something to the effect that “it is time, it is what we need to do, it is safe, it is right, and the people are ready for it”. That statement only explains why we need to try KSM. It has absolutely nothing to do with Obama’s decision decided to try KSM in civil court in NYC. Lindsey Graham, to his credit, grilled Holder on the appropriateness of trying KSM in civil court as opposed to a military one, and Eric Holder was dancing all around Graham’s questions regarding that. But I have not heard the precise reason for his deciding to do to it in civil court, or why in NYC. What needs to be done is to grill Mr. Obama to find out what his underlying reason is for it, and why he is doing more to protect KSM’s rights over protecting the American people. I suspect it has to do more with Obama’s feeling about war itself, and maybe deals he has going on with other countries in trying to accomplish his agenda and goals that he is working. The problem with that is that he seems to be doing so without regard to established U.S. laws and policies. A question: should not the Supreme Court be consulted in this matter, and others, where Obama is crossing the lines?

  1. No trackbacks yet.