This is the first of three parts. In this first part I'll just lay out some information . . . some quotes I've come across - of which most of you have probably already heard.
In the following parts I'll give some of my thoughts in regard to this information. So skim here and then read in earnest in Part 2 and 3 if you are interested.
Transcript: The O'Reilly Factor (11-13-09)
Read a partial transcript for Bill O'Reilly's Factor (11-13-09). Excerpt below:
[O'reilly and Anthony Weiner]
O'REILLY: You know the suffering of the 9/11 families.
WEINER: Yeah.
O'REILLY: You can't possibly think the 9/11 families want this?
WEINER: Well, some of them do.
O'REILLY: No.
WEINER: Some of them may want.
O'REILLY: It's 9 to 1, 10 to 1.
WEINER: Some of them may want a chance to have their moment in court as well. Some -- I'm not exactly sure I understand what the concern is here. If the concern is that this guy's not going to get put to death, I don't think you have to worry about that. We have the best prosecutors in the world that are going to be on this case. I trust that we'll be able to keep this city safe. We have the best police officers in the world. What is the concern ? Is the concern now after eight years finally we're doing what the Bush administration.
O'REILLY: The concern is it's a circus and that it helps al Qaeda recruiting.
WEINER: You're going to have a trial.
O'REILLY: Look.
WEINER: Trials are sometimes not, are sometimes not tidy, but the outcome is what I care about it. And I want this guy put to death. Or even better yet.
O'REILLY:
WEINER: maybe the best thing should be that this guy gets acquitted and comes to Brooklyn and then get his comeuppance there.O'REILLY: Okay, but then.
WEINER: But I want this.O'REILLY: we'd have to prosecute you.
WEINER: I want this.
Anthony Weiner on the Morning Joe:
Lee says: The gentle reader is welcome to watch the entire video, but the comments that concern me, and are apparently starting to concern others I'm hearing from the tv in the other room, the comments that concern me begin at about minute 2:09 - 2:10.
Weiner: Well, I don't know what the legal construct is but there is a very basic element we have in American justice and that is we want to see closure. People who do something should be held responsible and in this case this guy should be put to death.
How we gonna get to that? And one idea is let's keep holding him ad infinitum and let's keep talking about it, kick the can. We've watched for years. . . it's much more complicated apparently for the courts to figure out how to handle them in Guantanomo than it is to figure out how to handle 'em in a court room. Let's let the victims have their day in court too, let them come and testify, let them watch what happens.
The Morning Joe guy: But who (do you care? why do you give?) the mastermind of 9-11 these unprecedented rights?
Weiner: The unprecedented right is only unprecedented in that we in the United States do criminal justice the way no one else in the world ...
Morning Joe Guy: No, no, no I'm saying unprecedented for any other . . . we didn't do this with the Nazi's, we didn't do this with the Japanese . . .
Weiner: Look . . . (inaudible? a name?) if you want have an international trial in the Hague I'm gonna find that a lot less satisfying than having this guy face his accusers, have the accused get a chance to come in and say what this means, have a jury of New Yorkers say, "You're gonna be put to death, Pal."
"That, to me is the way you mete out justice in this type of a thing ... And I frankly think it's also a sign of our confidence in our system that, while warts and all, we have the ability to do that even with the worst animal. . . This guy, at the outcome . . . "[the video trails off...]
Eric Holder testifying in front of the oversight committee:
Lee says: The relevant part of this video, for me is rather small and begins to address what the consequences could be if we try these terrorists in Federal Court.
Senator Graham says: When does custodial interrogation begin in his [Bin Laden's] case? If you captured Bin Laden tomorrow would he be entitled to Miranda warnings at the moment of capture ...?
Attorney General Holder: Uhb, dub, dub ...it all depends ... [he doesn't really say uhb dub dub but might as well have]
Senator Graham: Well, it does not depend! If yer gonna prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that at the moment custodial interrogation occurs the defendent, the criminal defendent is entitled to a lawyer, and to be informed of their right to remain silent. . . .
[And further in the video..]
Senator Graham says: Mr. Attorney General, the only point I'm making is that if we're gonna use Federal Court as a disposition for terrorists you take everything that comes with being in Federal Court. . .
Obama: death for 9/11 mastermind
Paul Koring
Washington — From Thursday's Globe and Mail Published on Wednesday, Nov. 18, 2009 10:24PM EST Last updated on Thursday, Nov. 19, 2009 2:52AM EST
“I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him,” the U.S. President said Wednesday before leaving China.
In a day of startling comments over pending terrorism trials, the top justice official – Attorney-General Eric Holder – made it equally clear that Mr. Mohammed won't walk free, even if a New York City jury fails to convict him or a federal court judge tosses out the case.
Facing a wave of critics warning of the risks of putting Mr. Mohammed on trial, Mr. Holder bluntly asserted that “failure isn't a option” when asked during a Congressional hearing whether Mr. Mohammed and other key terrorist suspects will be convicted. Acquittals, claims of asylum and even judicial orders freeing them won't result in releases, he asserted.
“If there is not a successful conclusion to this trial, that would not mean that this person would be released,” Mr. Holder bluntly told the Congressional hearing, referring to Mr. Mohammed – the self-proclaimed planner of the Sept 11, 2001, suicide hijackings.
“What if a federal judge orders the Department of Justice to release Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?” Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn asked. “Will you defy that order?”
Mr. Holder made it clear that by moving Mr. Mohammed to a prison offshore – such as Bagram in Afghanistan, where hundreds of detainees are held – a release order could be circumvented.
“We have taken the view that the judiciary does not have the ability necessarily to certainly require us to, with people who are held overseas, to release them,” he said. “It's hard for me to imagine a set of circumstances, given the other things that we could do with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed” that would result in him being freed,” the Attorney-General said.
“Under the regime we are contemplating… the ability to detain under laws of war, we would retain that ability,” Mr. Holder added, meaning anyone freed by the courts could simply be returned as an enemy combatant to indefinite military detention.
See:
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
email
print
Comments: 7
That's how it seems to me. tsk tsk tsk And I don't understand how anyone can consider this, this travesty of justice, as a shining example of our legal system in action.
Norman. . . You said: Looks like it to me,as well. I think the defense will wield those statements like a club,and try to destroy the government's case before they even get out of the starting blocks.
Of course they will. The defense, I mean. Any defense lawyer worth his salt would use these blatantly prejudicial statements made by the President and Attorney General themselves, as well as by a United States Congressman, to his client's advantage. As he should.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want these guys going free .... but if we are going to have the kind of trial so many leftists seem to think this will showcase . . . these kinds of things are the exact kinds of things that should set them free on the very first day.
I didn't not think ye could have a legal or fair trial in which the outcome has already been decided by the Attorney General himself, despite what "the court" might decide.
And ... even if it was validly legally dismissed or if they were freed ... it seems to me Holder has already said he wouldn't honor that decision in any case. -->"If there is not a successful conclusion to this trial, that would not mean that this person would be released,” Mr. Holder bluntly told the Congressional hearing..."
If that is so .... this will be no trial and it won't matter what "evidence" the defense weilds. THAT's the problem. If we are gonna put these guys into our justice system and give them the rights of citizens there has to be a real chance of acquittal or else it's a waste of time; as a showcase for our legal system anyway. 8o\ Or it's something else, only Obama/Holder knows for sure what that something else would be . . .
Given the number of innocent people who have been convicted in the U.S. by illegal behavior on the part of the D.A. and police, what kind of rights do we have left if the prosecution can say, "Even if you are found innocent we are still going to keep you in jail."