?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

***
HOLDER'S ANSWERS MAKE IT OBVIOUS THIS MAN HAS NO IDEA WHAT HE'S DOING IN AUTHORIZING CIVIL TRIALS FOR TERRORIST MASTERMIND

Sen. Graham has frustrated me again and again in recent years by "crossing the aisle" at the most trying times, but he was spot on in his questioning of a stuttering and incoherent Eric Holder.


( Sen. Lindsey Graham grills Attorney General Eric Holder )



We warned you about this guy Holder. He pushed for pardons for the most despicable characters as Deputy Attorney General during the Clinton administration and worked for a law firm that represents 17 terrorists at Gitmo.

When asked for a list of people in the Justice Department with connections to Gitmo terrorists, Holder said he'd consider providing the information.

Can you imagine the media's reaction had this been asked during the Bush administration, and a Democrat Senator received that reply?

My favorite part is when Graham asks Holder what the procedure would be if Osama bin Laden were 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.



Holder hasn't a clue, nor can he give any rationale for prosecuting these 5 terrorists in civil court in New York.

But then why am I not surprised. These people are ideologues and their decisions are made for political reasons.

Btw, did you notice when Holder says he knows that we are at war against these terrorists? I guess he didn't get Barack's memo. It's an overseas contingency operation, Eric.

Oh, and just a reminder. You and the President shouldn't come right out and say this guy is guilty and will be executed before he has even gone to trial. Didn't you guys go to law school?

Good job, Lindsey. Now, let me tell you about some of this phony global warming/cap-and-trade hysteria.

Comments

( 6 comments — Leave a comment )
tniassaint
Nov. 19th, 2009 03:21 pm (UTC)
Try listening with both ears, not just the right one

Sorry I have skipped over so many . I have been very busy. For example, this took a couple hours between other things to listen, make notes, check facts and reply. I have just not had time to be free enough to do so. So many issues, and I have bills to pay.

I really thought about not responding to this; but then I thought - sure, why not. Ed sounds like he needs the exercise.

Once again I do not know how we can both watch this and get such radically different takes on it -  but I guess that's why restaurants have so many different things on their menus.

Shall I start disassembling the flat out lies Graham stated? Maybe he just forgot a couple things; or maybe he was trying to score political points?

Holder was "incoherent"? I guess you skipped over classes in psychology where they talked about speech mannerism and the interaction of thought and speech patterns. It's a pretty basic issue. I saw some minor stammering (not so much shuddering) and they were quite clearly not a coherence. They were clearly related to this person's being rudely badgered (as in let the man answer the question before you start spouting off again - that is just rudeness - and yes I know about time constraints) and that he was having to very quickly put together how much of what he has on the table. This was all just political theater on both sides. Both parties are not telling all they have. Graham has the easy part here. Ask potentially difficult questions and spout off about the workings of a system that we all already know so that he sounds  as some great wise seer teaching a freshman and score political points. He's well practiced but comes off to me like a condescending prig and hypocrite who is ignoring many facts and details and misrepresenting others.

. . .  oh but conservatives don't do that.

So many issues  - you tell me where I should begin dismantling this one. There's just so much to go at here.

Holder? Sure he is concealing things. He also made some good and proper points. Of course he is trying to make political points -  I just happen to agree with nearly everything he had to say -  and I can back it up, whereas he was not given the real chance to do so (save that little bit at the end that was entirely correct). The Republicans, once again, fail to point out their own part in creating this mess, fail to point out the full and proper legal facts, refused to let the man answer the questions and both parties are guilty of political theater -  Graham is just a better actor. When people picked on Junior's speech issues you all said we were picking on him -  and that was in jest.

metaphorsbwithu
Nov. 19th, 2009 05:53 pm (UTC)
Re: Try listening ... (Were it not for me you'd STILL be an NPR drone)
*lol*

Hey, Mike. This is what you wanted. Of course you have to rationalize it.

So much I could point out.

But I know it's useless. It will fall on deaf ears.

I warned about this guy Holder and this is exactly the kind of stuff I warned about.

Not only is he an incompetent, but he is a liar too.

This is Obama's call. He can't give any precedent showing when this was ever done over 200 years. He can't explain why these other terrorists are being tried in civilian courts while others are STILL being tried in military courts.

No rationale. No rules. No answer to how OTHER terrorist arrests will be handled today.

And on and on and on.

This is what happens when you hold on the the tail of radical leftists like this.

Remember when I POUNDED The True Believer into you and said that these ideologues eventually implode under their own weight because they are all about getting power and upsetting the system, not running it?

More and more people are waking up to what's happening every day - IN SPITE of virtually the entire media and entertainment industry AND a large segment of "true believers" who STILL think they're goint to get something for nothing.

tniassaint
Nov. 19th, 2009 06:24 pm (UTC)
Re: Try listening ... (Were it not for me you'd STILL be an NPR drone)
Easily the same is true in reverse. I had no idea what Holder would say. I think he was treated poorly by Graham, but what do you expect. I had no preconceived notions on the hearing. Ed, I love ya, but EVERYTHING you (in the specific sense) hear is tainted by a bitter hostility towards these people. you are no more untainted with regards to what you WANT to year (or expect to hear) than anyone else. This is easy proof.

You blame Holder for lying and playing it loose and fast with rules - yet Graham did the same and I can easily demonstrate it. I even checked before I posted. They are ALL playing political theater here - and you know it.

Without even trying I caught Graham in several "misstatements". I DARE you to find even the easiest ones.
metaphorsbwithu
Nov. 19th, 2009 06:55 pm (UTC)
Re: Try listening ... (Were it not for me you'd STILL be an NPR drone)
Sorry, Mike. I don't play the little leftist games of "change the subject" and set up standards for your opponent and force him/her to defend them.

Try, instead, to defend Holder's (Obama's really) decision and the 180 turn Obama took from the campaign and pronouncements he made only a few months ago.

I have over 18 months of observations and predictions about this administration and they were virtually all on the mark.

I don't have to start 'nit-picking' about some "he said-she said' political double-talk to defend my alalysis. It's all there in black and white. I don't hem and haw and qualify. I call it like it is.

I told you GITMO wouldn't be closed, Mike. That's black and white. You can't dispute that. All you can do is blame everybody else for hindering the process. The Iraq war continues, rendition, military trials, most of the Bush policies continue ... why? Because they were the best policies deliberated by people intent on protection of the American people - NOT based on political motives.

You 52.7 percenters have brought upon us a total disaster and nothing the liberal media do can keep that hidden from a growing public.

Now you go and write a post defending your guys and the last 10 months under Obama. I'll look forward to reading that.
tniassaint
Nov. 19th, 2009 07:40 pm (UTC)
Re: Try listening ... (Were it not for me you'd STILL be an NPR drone)
Gitmo is being closed. This is part of the process. You attempted to make a political statement about Holder's acting on the hearing stage that was of questionable merit and accuracy - not I. I have pointed out that your claims of lying and political point scoring is completely biased and can easily be shown in reverse. I can defend the statements I have made.

Graham lied, or at the least has amnesia and spin induced political dizziness. Dodge it all you like. I was commenting on YOUR statements, not Holder's. You were the one that stated, and I quote:

"Not only is he (Holder) an incompetent, but he is a liar too."

Graham also demonstrated questionable integrity here and you are not willing to see or hear it when it is so obvious.

"No rationale. No rules. No answer to how OTHER terrorist arrests will be handled today. "

Graham did not really give him much chance to answer it. I could have answered it easier, but I do not have political figures to answer to. Anyone with basic understanding could have. Graham cut him off. Junior and his crowd were applauded for Junior's complete and total disregard for the rules and displayed some of the most troubling rational I have seen since Nixon.

As for future captives, Holder DID answer at the end, but was not given time enough for a full answer as that is the nature of these sorts of hearings. He explained a brief context that was accurate if incomplete. I guess you don't see it that way.

If you go around telling people that others are lying, you should be willing to defend the integrity and honesty of the opposing side - and you can't. Graham is deliberately holding back, and that is lying. He is also misstating and implying incorrect material.

BTW - Mr Graham is wrong. He said (paraphrased as he was appearing to ask a question when he wasn't and he never allowed proper answer)there was no documented cases of an individual captured by the US in war ever being tried in non-military courts. He is wrong. Look it up yourself.

He is also wrong about several other statements. This is not nitpicking. He made several blanket PRIMARY statements that were in error. I challenge you to show me where Holder lied here. We are not talking opinion - we are talking facts. I can show you Grahams. You say I'm nitpicking. Where an I nitpicking?
metaphorsbwithu
Nov. 19th, 2009 08:29 pm (UTC)
Re: Try listening ... (Were it not for me you'd STILL be an NPR drone)
How about the fact that he claims he just came to the decision and that Obama didn't know anything about it when Gov. Paterson of New York revealed the White House told him about it 6 months ago?

How about claiming a civil trial gave the government the best chance of convicting him when KSM already confessed to a military tribunal and asked to be executed in 2008?

How about blaming Bush for delaying justice when Holder's own law firm (some of whose lawyers may now work for Holder) was involved in delaying "justice" and defending terrorist clients? Or that Obama himself put off military tribunals himself?

How about Holder's lying during his confirmation hearings about his ignorance and justifications for facilitating the pardons of criminals like Marc Rich and the murderous FALN terrorists?

But why go on, Mike? You have gotten into bed with these sleezeballs and the only way to extricate yourself is to simply admit, "Hey, I was wrong Ed! I was just blinded by my ideology." :-D

Btw, for a fuller record of the exchange between Graham and Holder on bin Laden, check out this story by GASP! NPR

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/11/would_us_need_to_read_bin_lade.html

You see, Mike - even the libs are getting nervous and starting to do their jobs as they realize that we were right and their little leftist house of cards is collapsing. *lol*
( 6 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

August 2014
S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com