Does Holder Have a Hidden Agenda?

[PocketProtector]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...JjMTA1ZDFiODQ=

Friday, November 13, 2009

Holder's Hidden Agenda, cont'd . . . [Andy McCarthy]

This summer, I theorized that Attorney General Eric Holder — and his boss — had a hidden agenda in ordering a re-investigation of the CIA for six-year-old alleged interrogation excesses that had already been scrutinized by non-partisan DOJ prosecutors who had found no basis for prosecution. The continuing investigations of Bush-era counterterrorism policies (i.e., the policies that kept us safe from more domestic terror attacks), coupled with the Holder Justice Department's obsession to disclose classified national-defense information from that period, enable Holder to give the hard Left the "reckoning" that he and Obama promised during the 2008 campaign. It would be too politically explosive for Obama/Holder to do the dirty work of charging Bush administration officials; but as new revelations from investigations and declassifications are churned out, Leftist lawyers use them to urge European and international tribunals to bring "torture" and "war crimes" indictments. Thus, administration cooperation gives Obama's base the reckoning it demands but Obama gets to deny responsibility for any actual prosecutions.

Today's announcement that KSM and other top al-Qaeda terrorists will be transferred to Manhattan federal court for civilian trials neatly fits this hidden agenda. Nothing results in more disclosures of government intelligence than civilian trials. They are a banquet of information, not just at the discovery stage but in the trial process itself, where witnesses — intelligence sources — must expose themselves and their secrets.

Let's take stock of where we are at this point. KSM and his confederates wanted to plead guilty and have their martyrs' execution last December, when they were being handled by military commission. As I said at the time, we could and should have accommodated them. The Obama administration could still accommodate them. After all, the president has not pulled the plug on all military commissions: Holder is going to announce at least one commission trial (for Nashiri, the Cole bomber) today.

Moreover, KSM has no defense. He was under American indictment for terrorism for years before there ever was a 9/11, and he can't help himself but brag about the atrocities he and his fellow barbarians have carried out.

So: We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence. That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al. It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda's case against America. Since that will be their "defense," the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc., and — depending on what judge catches the case — they are likely to be given a lot of it. The administration will be able to claim that the judge, not the administration, is responsible for the exposure of our defense secrets. And the circus will be played out for all to see — in the middle of the war. It will provide endless fodder for the transnational Left to press its case that actions taken in America's defense are violations of international law that must be addressed by foreign courts. And the intelligence bounty will make our enemies more efficient at killing us.

[Dodahdude]

Well, Duh.....

[mcmcallister]

not surprised

[40twist]

Yep!!!! I can foresee this happening , " Your Honor , my client only confessed because he was forced to do so with an illegal torture practice used on him called water boarding"

[SilentRage]

Nothing like putting a big bulls-eye on New York once again !!!!

Damnnnn , I just wish there was someone in our f#%king congress
that would step the hell up and and start going after all these clowns
for what they're doing !

We need a "Voice" right now , someone we can all get behind and
support !

[Dredly]

when did they hide it?

[cgbudde]

All I can say is , people in NY get ready to kiss your ass goodbye.

Having this trial in the U.S. is going to cause major problems.

[ungawa]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...JjMTA1ZDFiODQ=

Friday, November 13, 2009

Holder's Hidden Agenda, cont'd . . . [Andy McCarthy]

This summer, I theorized that Attorney General Eric Holder — and his boss — had a hidden agenda in ordering a re-investigation of the CIA for six-year-old alleged interrogation excesses that had already been scrutinized by non-partisan DOJ prosecutors who had found no basis for prosecution. The continuing investigations of Bush-era counterterrorism policies (i.e., the policies that kept us safe from more domestic terror attacks)

Policies that have almost destroyed what makes America great. Ashcroft said and stats from a few years back confirm that warrantless wiretaps and administrative warrants (national security, no judge, can't disclose, and can't hire a lawyer) were overwhelmingly used for generic law enforcement other than terrorism.

I'm not going to come down on them too hard for the first year or two after the Al Qaeda attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. We had anthrax in the mail and the administration thought they had nukes at one point. But every single change made since those attacks is wrong. I would take another 3000 dead before I would settle for the power we have given the government. In 20 cities, and that's 60,000. If I could make the deal to reverse it, I would certainly stand in the open to be killed among them.

Resurrect all the killed in action from World War II and see if they think The Bill of Rights is negotiable over 3,000 or even 60,000 people dead in a country of 300 million. Those people are turning in their graves over what they sacrificed for what Europe and the US have ultimately become. They would have stayed home for certain.

[adymond]

My concern over the trials being held in criminal court are based on evidentiary requirements. I would imagine much of what we know about this guy can't be disclosed in open court.

[velkly]

My concern over the trials being held in criminal court are based on evidentiary requirements. I would imagine much of what we know about this guy can't be disclosed in open court.

True, and the items already disclosed were obtained through means making them inadmissible in court. This is a serious error in judgement, like everything else this administration has done.