General Music Chat

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jg37IDZBvL02KR4ekOfiz6SKBjIAD9EFUNP00

Holder: Osama bin Laden will never face US trial
By DEVLIN BARRETT (AP)



WASHINGTON — Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress on Tuesday that Osama bin Laden will never face trial in the United States because he will not be captured alive.

In testy exchanges with House Republicans, the attorney general compared bin Laden to mass murderer Charles Manson and predicted that events would ensure "we will be reading Miranda rights to the corpse of Osama bin Laden" not to the al-Qaida leader as a captive.

Holder sternly rejected criticism from GOP members of a House Appropriations subcommittee, who contend it is too dangerous to put terror suspects on trial in federal civilian courts as Holder has proposed.

The attorney general said it infuriates him to hear conservative critics complain that terrorists would get too many rights in the court system.

Terrorists in court "have the same rights that Charles Manson would have, any other kind of mass murderer," the attorney general said. "It doesn't mean that they're going to be coddled, it doesn't mean that they're going to be treated with kid gloves."

The comparison to convicted killer Manson angered Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas, who said it showed the Obama administration doesn't understand the American public's desire to treat terrorists as wartime enemies, not criminal defendants.

"My constituents and I just have a deep-seated and profound philosophical difference with the Obama administration," Culberson said.

Holder, his voice rising, charged that Culberson's arguments ignored basic facts about the law and the fight against terrorists.

"Let's deal with reality," Holder said. Bin Laden "will never appear in an American courtroom."

Pressed further on that point, Holder said: "The possibility of catching him alive is infinitesimal. He will be killed by us or he will be killed by his own people so he can't be captured by us."

Much of the hearing centered around the Obama administration's stalled plan to put the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the professed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on trial. Last year, Holder announced the trial would take place in federal civilian court in New York City, not far from the site of the destroyed World Trade Center.

In the face of resistance from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other local politicians, that plan was shelved and the White House is now considering putting KSM and four alleged co-conspirators into a military commission trial.

Rep. Chaka Fattah, D-Pa., bemoaned what he called a "cowardly" desire to avoid a civilian terror trial in a major city.

If a terrorist had killed thousands of Philadelphians, Fattah said, "we would expect him to come to Philadelphia" to face trial "if he would live long enough."

"It doesn't befit a great nation to hesitate or equivocate on the question of following our own laws," he said.

So, if you are a foreign enemy combatant, that is involved with terrorist plots, then you are due all the protection and rights, afforded to American CITIZENS, but if you are just suffering under dictatorships, war lords, etc.. and you are NOT a threat to us, then you are ON YOUR OWN, where Democratic protections, laws and rights are concerned. Awesome reasoning!

Just engage in terrorism against us, and you may well be in a better position personally! Gotta love ultra liberal rationales!

I don't see this as an "ultra liberal" issue. It's simply about what's right or wrong.

We don't see eye to eye on this one, either, Craig, but even you have said that I'm not a liberal (inbetween the times you called me one - LOL).

This is an issue of humane treatment of ppl.

Should possibly innocent ppl be held indefinitely?

I don't think so, yet I still must admit that we are in a war-like situation that creates special circumstances that make things, shall we say, inconvenient for some ppl. Still, we seem to have the time to check into those who have been imprisoned by us. We certainly have had ample time to argue about it all. What's the harm in determining whether these ppl deserve thier imprisonment?

I don't necessarilly think that the US courts are the best place for this determination to occur, but I also would question the military's ability to asses thier culpability in a fair & balanced way, so, perhaps the public courts is better, although I agree that it sends our allies & enemies mixed messages.

I have no idea what the best answer to this is, but I can't help but think that if there are innocents in our prisons, they need to be freed.

Phil, you are more liberal than not, particularly in politics. But I realize, that like me, you fall on both sides of the spectrum, depending on the issue. I can respect that, even admire it.

I don't think this is about HUMAN RIGHTS though. Those are SEPARATE issues to me. No... Political prisoners should NOT be held indefinitely, however, our government at the time, claimed they were all taken from the battlefield. This may or may not be true. In any event, unfair treatment can be changed by political pressure being applied. The President can over-ride decisions made by Generals.

This is more about whether FOREIGN combatants, should be afforded all the privileges of the AMERICAN justice system, and the answer should be "NO"!!!

The first "right" they would have, is the "right to remain silent" and be asked no further questions. Meaning NO interrogation AT ALL... EVER! Not a very good strategy for obtaining further information on where bomb making facilities are, which American targets are next, where the operatives can be found, or are working out of, etc...

I also don't like the idea that they would be brought HERE to be tried. Which opens the door to them proselytising in prisons to other inmates, SOME OF WHOM "WILL" be getting out, before these guys ever do. Do you really want to facilitate our prisons becoming recruitment centers to those BORN in America, who have a legal right to be here, family, friends and support here, and blend in that much easier?

I mean seriously Phil.

And I also have a problem with American judges determining their guilt and sentences (for those who revoke jury trials) especially considering some of the wacky judges we have now, that seem more in support of CRIMINALS than law-abiding citizens! Do you want civilian judges, with all the diversity of opinions possible, deciding their guilt or fate, as opposed to military judges who are going to be more knowledgeable with what they are dealing with, and will likely make judgements more in line with SAFETY of Americans, and also have greater discretion in making those judgements? I mean, think about our legal system, where someone can get off, for SO MANY technicalities, like not reading Miranda rights, or lacking probable cause, not having a proper search warrant, or going beyond the language on the search warrant.

Rather than a guy with a carload of DRUGS getting off on a technicality, do you really want a COMBATANT with a car full of EXPLOSIVES getting off, on a technicality? Cause that may actually be possible.

CLEARLY, these things belong in MILITARY COURTS, and preferably OFF of American soil, if at all possible!

War prisoners are not the same as civilian prisoners. They don't have the same rights as civilians. War prisoners need to be tried in military court. If found guilty they need to be given whatever sentence is appropriate for their war crime. Guantanamo is a joke. The prisoners there should have been given military trials YEARS AGO and summary judgement put upon them. To hold them in limbo is an insult to the United States. In effect we are saying that WE are guilty by NOT trying them and sentencing them appropriately, even if that sentence is execution. I have about as much respect for the inept American authorities as I do for the war criminals.

I can certainly agree with that, bob.