Eric Holder Fail

As poor of an idea as I think holding a civilian trial for KSM and his four buddies is, I’m actually more disturbed, disappointed, & frankly shocked by Eric Holder’s response when asked what kind of trial we’d have if Bin Laden were captured tomorrow.

He had no clue…he just sat there going um-um-um…the guy is the Berkley’n Attorney General of the Berkley’n United States and all he can do is go um-um-um.

I don’t believe that Mr Holder has a plan and just doesn’t want to divulge it…he appeared sincerely lost and besides, he could have just said, I’m not going to discuss our plans as the information would help our enemies. No, no, no, the simple truth is that this guy doesn’t have a clue.

Eric Um Holder Um

Agreed - this guy, like many other cabinet members, czars and appointees are total wastes of space.

Worse than that, Holder should have recused himself. His former law office has represented a few of the Gitmo detainees and did so while he was employed there.

Bin Laden is dead, so that's why his trial was off the RADAR. You can't try a dead man.

Phunny about Holder's firm representing the terrorists. Maybe he's just trying to drum up some business for his buddies? Maybe he still has a share of the profit of that law firm? Maybe he is so lawyered up that he really can't see the forest for the trees and thinks every problem can be solved by suing someone or bringing someone to a criminal trial? Maybe tuna55 is right.

One of the reasons for bringing terrorists to trial is to prove to the world that the US system is fair and just.

But wait, the Administration has already stated that regardless of KSM's trial verdict, he will never go free. That's telling the world that the "fix is in" for KSM and directly contradicts the claimed reason for bringing him to trial in the first place.

Or, their real intent is to use the trial process to humiliate and possibly even prosecute those acting under the previous admininstrations orders.

There are some very smart people in DC doing some very, very stupid things.

It seems everyone in this (and others, not just picking on Obama) administration has some incestuous ties to someone else, whether it be money motivated (GE) or power motivated (SEIU) it always seems to be about something they don't want us to know about. Holder is no different.

Politics really isn't that difficult, once you loose track, or get confused about what someone is talking about, it's not because you're stupid, it's because something doesn't make sense - 90% of the time, there is a calculated reason it doesn't make sense.

oldsaw wrote: One of the reasons for bringing terrorists to trial is to prove to the world that the US system is fair and just. But wait, the Administration has already stated that regardless of KSM's trial verdict, he will never go free. That's telling the world that the "fix is in" for KSM and directly contradicts the claimed reason for bringing him to trial in the first place. Or, their real intent is to use the trial process to humiliate and possibly even prosecute those acting under the previous admininstrations orders. There are some very smart people in DC doing some very, very stupid things.

I had the same idea. KSM is going to be found guilty, but we're going to have a trial anyway? Ummm, why? The trial will take years and cost metric tons of cash. And heaven help me, I agreed with Glenn Beck over how dangerous this can be because of "discovery" in legal cases. No wonder KSM wants his day in court, he's going to be handed a nice fat stack of paperwork detailing how he was caught!

And even worse, think of the precedents this might set if he gets sentenced in criminal court without being read his Miranda rights. Either our troops will be required to read someone their rights before capturing them, or it will give the green light to make Miranda rights optional.

This is a military case, it belongs in military court where he can be kangaroo'd and then sent to the firing squad.

Not to mention that this is a capital offense where the burned of proof is elevated from “beyond a reasonable doubt” to “beyond a shadow of a doubt”. So, we’ve got the chaos of war coupled with the constraint of having to protect sensitive information and yet there must not be so much as a shadow of a doubt remaining to get a conviction.

“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant has already confessed repeatedly to committing the crimes he’s accused of”

(Coy Columbo Voice) I understand…um, gee, look I’m really sorry to take up everyone’s time with this but I do need to ask one quick little question just so my records are in order…you know, my boss is a stickler about that.

Anyway, exactly how long before the confessions did you read the defendant his Miranda rights??? (Coy Columbo Voice/).

KSM already said he wanted to plead guilty to a military tribunal. He's proud of killing Americans. He'd kill more if he could. "Oh, we'll fix him. Instead of a military tribunal followed by an execution, we'll bring him to NYC and have a celebrity roast of the Bush administration." Yeah, that's smart.

Come next November: If you vote for an encumbant, YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

Dr. Hess wrote: Come next November: If you vote for an encumbant, YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

Really Doc…in the last year, we’ve seen the pendulum swing from the far right to the far left and yet the corruption, cronyism, throw America under a bus to make a quick buck indicator has stubbornly remaining pined on CATASTROPHIC.

BTW, I’m fine with thread hijacking so anyone, please be my guest taking this discussion in whatever direction you’d like.

Dr. Hess wrote: Come next November: If you vote for an encumbant, YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

:+ Grahams number * 3

There are probably three decent, honest people serving in all three branches of the federal government in elected positions. If we accidentally vote these three out, it'll be OK. Vote them all out by default. It's OUR house of representatives, OUR senate. It's time to take them back.

A decades long cascading mess showing no signs of letting up. These are not good times in the good old USA. We are in deep systemic doo doo, the screeching from moronic partisan right is just as boring and useless as the screeching from the moronic partisan left. Neither collection is capable of (democrats) or want to (republicans) govern effectively.

Dr. Hess wrote: ...Come next November: If you vote for an incumbent, YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

It is unfortunate that that will likely make little difference. Generally you only have two choices, both chosen by very large organizations well aware of what it takes to get elected and re-elected (spending money that is). Third party candidates are there, but they are missing the very important money mentioned above and are effectively discounted in almost all cases.

I suspect there would be a huge improvement in the government if there was some way to effectively eliminate or neuter the power of the political parties.

Shaun wrote: A decades long cascading mess showing no signs of letting up. These are not good times in the good old USA. We are in deep systemic doo doo, the screeching from moronic partisan right is just as boring and useless as the screeching from the moronic partisan left. Neither party is capable of adhering to the Constitution nor representing the majority of voters to govern effectively.

Fixed that for you.

There is a way to eliminate the power of either party. STOP VOTING FOR EITHER ONE!

oldsaw wrote: Neither party is capable of adhering to the Constitution nor representing the majority of voters to govern effectively.

Fixed that for you.

tuna55 wrote: There is a way to eliminate the power of either party. STOP VOTING FOR EITHER ONE!

Amen to that! We only have a two party system because people have been brainwashed to believe there are no other choices.

RX Reven' wrote: Really Doc…in the last year, we’ve seen the pendulum swing from the far right to the far left and yet the corruption, cronyism, throw America under a bus to make a quick buck indicator has stubbornly remaining pined on CATASTROPHIC.

tru

ignorant wrote:

RX Reven' wrote: Really Doc…in the last year, we’ve seen the pendulum swing from the far right to the far left and yet the corruption, cronyism, throw America under a bus to make a quick buck indicator has stubbornly remaining pined on CATASTROPHIC.

tru

We have certainly not had far right in a long time. George W Bush was barely a republican, and certainly a statist. Obama is a socialist and a statist. It's the statist part that scares me most, because 75% of both parties are pretty darn statist.

RX Reven' wrote: Really Doc…in the last year, we’ve seen the pendulum swing from the far right to the far left and yet the corruption, cronyism, throw America under a bus to make a quick buck indicator has stubbornly remaining pined on CATASTROPHIC.

That was the most important bit when I read it.....

So Here's the million dollar question you should ask yourself, "How do I get a piece of that pie?"

tuna55 wrote: There is a way to eliminate the power of either party. STOP VOTING FOR EITHER ONE!

Vote third party? HA, throw your vote away

ignorant wrote: So Here's the million dollar question you should ask yourself, "How do I get a piece of that pie?"

Screw the pie, "Let us eat cake"!

tuna55 wrote: There is a way to eliminate the power of either party. STOP VOTING FOR EITHER ONE!

What if "None of the above" were on the ballot?

Dr. Hess wrote: Come next November: If you vote for an encumbant, YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

Except my guy, he got us free money

GlennS wrote: Vote third party? HA, throw your vote away

The Republicans were a fringe third party at one point. They went from non-existence to the White House in what, 6 years? They advocated a position that no other party of the time was willing to advocate. It's foolish to think that it can't happen again.