Reply
Sun 15 Nov, 2009 04:52 pm
His role, as Clinton's AAG, in the FALN pardons.
His dropping a slam dunk case of voter intimidation against the New Black Panther Party
His instituting an investigation and possible prosecution of CIA interrogators despite this prior comment:
'It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department." "Attorney General Eric Holder, April 2009
His latest move - Trying five "suspected" 9/11 terrorists in a civilian court.
In his announcement of this move he began with the trite and pathetic wording that has become the gospel of the Obama Administration: "After 8 years of delay..."
This utterly ignores the fact that the Bush Administration was faced with the problem of a current SC that found that the military tribunals legally sanctioned during the FDR administration didn't cut today's legal mustard and so had to work with congress to develop a process that today's SC would find acceptable.
It also utterly ignores the fact that KSM wasn't arrested until 2003. (Holder's math is obviously faulty) and that for some period of years he was kept as a source of valuable information.
It is, however, typical of the current Administration's pathetic desire to couch every decision they make in the context of what they assert was not properly executed during the prior administration.
Now...why is it so important to try KSM and his cohorts in a civilian court in NY?
The existing military tribunal process is entirely legal: developed by the White House and a bi-partisan congress and unchallenged by the SC.
Is Holder passing judgment on this process?
If he is, then how do we explain the fact that the he believes the process is fine and dandy for any number of other Gitmo detainees?
There are only two conceivable reasons for this decision:
1) An all too familiar pattern with the Administration of currying international favor.
2) A desire to, fundamentally, return terrorism to a matter of criminal rather than war prosecution.
Holder says he is convinced the five will be convicted.
This morning, FOX News Sunday had RI Senator Jack Reed as a guest.
When confronted with all of the possible downsides of trying KSM in NY, Reed could only come up with one upside: It will show the world and America that we are nation of law.
Once again, the military tribunals are so lawful that Holder intends to employ them.
When asked what might happen if KSM or his 4 co-horts were acquitted, Reed responded like a deer in the headlights with something to the effect of:
"Well, international law acknowledges the right of countries to detain persons who represent a threat to their security." (If someone can find the precise quote, please post it).
So, Reed is suggesting that should KSM or his cronies be acquitted on procedural grounds (no Miranda Rights reading etc) the Administration will be well within the rights of International Law to send them back to Gitmo.
Oh yes, that will really send a positive message to the rest of the world, and in particular, the Muslim portion of it:
The US government views these trials as the exercise of a Kangaroo Court. The result is in the bag. However, if by some unforeseen reason the bastards are acquitted, the Administration will avoid the domestic political fallout by sending them (internationally legally of course) back to Gitmo.
How utterly political and cynical to boot.
probably not, but look at it this way with any luck you can get rid of him in two years, and then the other guys can get rid of that one in 4 years, and then you guys............................. well you get the picture
with any luck the the last 12 years are going to lead to a never ending cycle of dick measuring between the two main parties in america, and boy is it gonna be entertaining
at least until the civil war
and boy is that gonna be real entertaining, better lay in some popcorn for that one
@djjd62,
The GOP is a party that is headed to only contain 20 percent of the population or so. Others who do not fit the mold is not welcome and are being told to leave the party
So the back and forth movement you are predicting seem unlikely.
@Finn dAbuzz,
Tough question, Finn. In the first place, the office seems to be a sponge of unlimited capacity for the politically motivated. I am applying that statement to states' attorneys general, and even county district attorneys. In other words, he is highly politically motivated or he wouldn't have the office.
What I am seeing is a certain back and forth between the President and the various cabinet office, czars uncounted, and other minions. The President will make a statement. We'll see how well it's received. Now, minion will make another statement to clarify, and that statement does everything but directly contradict the President. The upshot is that noone seems to know the source of any policy. If it is popular, it belongs to the President.
@Finn dAbuzz,
I can't think of a single attorney general that was politically motivated before Eric holder.
@dyslexia,
You're pulling our (collective) leg, right?
@roger,
roger wrote:
You're pulling our (collective) leg, right?
You're pulling our collective leg right Roger?
Obviously Dys was cracking wise. It wasn't particularly original, but it was a wisecrack.
The thread's question of course is whether there has been a
more politically motived AG.
Clearly they have all, to one extent or another, been politically motivated.
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:
probably not, but look at it this way with any luck you can get rid of him in two years, and then the other guys can get rid of that one in 4 years, and then you guys............................. well you get the picture
with any luck the the last 12 years are going to lead to a never ending cycle of dick measuring between the two main parties in america, and boy is it gonna be entertaining
at least until the civil war
and boy is that gonna be real entertaining, better lay in some popcorn for that one
"Probably not..."
OK, thanks. I agree with you.
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
The GOP is a party that is headed to only contain 20 percent of the population or so. Others who do not fit the mold is not welcome and are being told to leave the party
So the back and forth movement you are predicting seem unlikely.
What is the mold?
Who is being told by the Party to leave the Party?
@roger,
roger wrote:
Tough question, Finn. In the first place, the office seems to be a sponge of unlimited capacity for the politically motivated. I am applying that statement to states' attorneys general, and even county district attorneys. In other words, he is highly politically motivated or he wouldn't have the office.
What I am seeing is a certain back and forth between the President and the various cabinet office, czars uncounted, and other minions. The President will make a statement. We'll see how well it's received. Now, minion will make another statement to clarify, and that statement does everything but directly contradict the President. The upshot is that noone seems to know the source of any policy. If it is popular, it belongs to the President.
Ageed - they are all politically motivated. My opinion, however, is that Holder is the most politically motivated of AGs (at least within the last 50 years).
He has held his office for less than one year.
We need only examine the decisions he has made and the actions he has taken during this time period.
I think you are absolutely correct that Holder's political motivation is not at all independent of the political motives of his boss.
When we hear that President Obama has "allowed" Holder to make these decisions on his own, we should conclude that
a) Obama is a sad neophyte
b) Obama is at best, disingenuous.
During a round of network television interviews conducted during Obama's visit to China, the president was asked about those who find it offensive that Mohammed will receive all the rights normally accorded to U.S. citizens when they are charged with a crime.
"I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him," Obama told NBC's Chuck Todd.
The President of the United States has prejudged this case, not only as to verdict, but as to sentence.
With this comment, he should have eliminated any upside associated with sending a message to the world that we are a nation of laws.
He's told the world that the fix is in, KSM is not only guaranteed to be convicted, he is guaranteed to be executed.
Does anyone think, for a moment, that if KSM is acquitted because a NY jury takes their charge seriously and is able to discount any and all evidence obtained "illegally," that Obama is going to let him walk free down Park Avenue?
Senator Reed tipped the Administration's hand: They'll arrest him on some other charge.
Kangaroo Court!
So why do it?
Obama has already destroyed any notion that we are trying this guy in a civilian court because we trust and abide by our legal system.
This is a great thread because neither it, nor its author, are politically motivated.
((It it were politically motivated, it would be hypocritical to a silly extent)).
@Finn dAbuzz,
"I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him," Obama told NBC's Chuck Todd.
He said that? Then I would say he's got an awful lot riding on the trial.
@ebrown p,
Finn is not the Attorney General. Why would it be hypocritical if the thread were politically motivated, which I am sure it is?
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:
I suppose you are right.
Political motivated whining is probably the norm.
If anyone would know it would be you ebrown.
What a difference a year can make.
Defend Obama ebrown, defend!
John Mitchell
Joe(Not a bone in his body that wasn't political)Nation
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace