Posted on 11/18/2009 7:26:47 PM PST by SeekAndFind
During Wednesday's Justice Department oversight hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) stumped Attorney General Eric Holder on what should have been a fairly routine question for America's top law enforcement official.
Maybe more surprisingly, NPR reported it at its website.
As NPR's Frank James noted, "The exchange started with Graham stumping Holder with a question one would have thought the attorney general would have been prepared for."
I quite agree (video embedded below the fold with partial transcript, h/t Steve Malzberg):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R-S.C): Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?
ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I don't know. I'd have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I've made --
GRAHAM: We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I'll answer it for you. The answer is no.
HOLDER: Well, I think --
GRAHAM: The Ghailani case -- he was indicted for the Cole bombing before 9/11. And I didn't object to it going into federal court. But I'm telling you right now. We're making history and we're making bad history. And let me tell you why.
Now, the real focus of this NPR piece was Graham's subsequent question concerning whether or not U.S. officials would have to Mirandize Osama bin Laden if he was captured:
GRAHAM: If bin Laden were caught tomorrow, would it be the position of this administration that he would be brought to justice?
HOLDER: He would certainly be brought to justice, absolutely.
GRAHAM: Where would you try him?
HOLDER: Well, we'd go through our protocol. And we'd make the determination about where he should appropriately be tried. [...]
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.
Much as what NPR did with its piece, this bin Laden segment will likely get a lot of attention from the media in the next 24 hours, as it certainly should.
How they report Holder being stumped by the earlier question will be very interesting to see.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
I just finished watching this on C-SPAN. Graham nailed Holder to the wall. (And no, I don’t see why Graham’s views on illegal immigration are in play here).
The real answer was “We’ll see. We make this up as we go along, weighing the polls and the politics. We don’t know what the situation will be on the day we capture Osama. But, we think we know today that we can cause tremendous bad publicity for Bush by bringing KSM to NYC, and that it will distract the media and the public from the sh*t we’re ramming through Congress.”
Easier than taking candy from a baby
Meh. Holder is an idiot and Graham is a wuss. The country deserves better in an AG and South Carolina deserves better representation in the Senate.
In fact, in my estimation, it makes his intentions for our sytem of justice very clear.
The list, ping
It's not a show for terrorists only. It's a show for the Obama administration and its minion lawyers.
Holder just pushed Zero further down the sewer and his cohorts with him.
Holder is like his boss, incompetent. George Soros can’t be pleased.
When Graham makes you look like an idiot, well...
I don’t like or trust Lindsey Graham, but I have to admire his going to work on Holder. Nice job.
Say what you will about Graham, this time he done good, as we say in the south.
Is anyone in this administration fit to hold the office they occupy?
what a idiot. Affirmative Action in action.
In other words, he is not planning on dealing with this problem any time soon, that's why he has no plans ready to be executed once the word is in. It's kind of understandable if they aren't looking for OBL any more... it's not like OBL is on the most wanted list, after all - why bother? /s
Grahamnesty voted to confirm Holder, he’s partly responsible for this fiasco.
Considering the history of Holder and FARC, no doubt he would be stumped by Graham asking him what he did concerning Bin Laden.
Moronic Idiot ping!
Ping
To be stumped by Lindsey Graham takes a superlative caliber of sublime fool.
Affirmative Action - the joke with no laughter; the gift that keeps on taking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.