Eric Holder
Â
I try to come up with witty post titles to show how clever I am. However, in Eric Holder’s case this week, he’s got me. There are so many choices to pick from I get a brain freeze simply trying to pick one, or two, or three.
Now, I’m not stupid, and most people aren’t. People are scratching their heads trying to figure out what’s going on with this guy. I’m not. It’s quite clear to me. And, it’s fairly clear to some others:
That’s the key right there. So, keeping that in mind, some of what’s going on makes sense. Now, in addition, you have to toss in a little history as well. There are some similarities already occurring that I think need watching.
In the late 90′s, as the Clinton presidency was winding down, there was an attack on a US military ship. A seemingly invincable navy ship was almost sunk by a handful of guys on a little boat. In 2009, a US military base is attacked by one guy with a gun. In both cases, there were multiple casualties. In both cases, the attack was announced in advance. In both cases, one segment at least of the US intelligence community knew what was going on and did nothing about it. When everything was researched, the problem seemed to be that one element of the intelligence community was not allowed to share information with the others. The common thread according to me? Jamie Gorelick. Gorelick and Janet Reno gutted the CIA. In 1997, Eric Holder replaced Jamie Gorelick under Janet Reno.
In 1980, as a special prosecutor, Eric Holder was partly responsible for the decision to indict several legislators in the ABSCAM investigation. The one person they decided not to, Jack Murtha. They skewered the legal system by labeling Murtha an “unindicted co-conspirator”. Look that one up in the legal books.
In 1997, it was Holder’s recommendation to allow Kenneth Star to expand an investigation that previously had been limited to possible illegal business dealings by Hillary Clinton, to include possible perjury charges against President Clinton regarding lying about a civilian sexual harassment charge. The special counsel would serve seven years with investigations into Whitewater, Vince Foster, and Monica Lewinsky. There of course, was no legal predecent.
In 2001, in Clinton’s last days, Holder recommended Clinton pardon Marc Rich. Rich was the star of a completely unprecedented number of presidential pardons that included drug dealers, terrorists, rapists, you name it. There of course was no legal precedent for such a mass pardon.
The reason I go into his sordid past is because it paints a picture of a person who literally just makes it up on the fly. There was no legal reason to tag Murtha as an “unindicted co-conspirator”. There was no legal reason to allow Starr to change an investigation into one issue and then suddenly jump to another unlrelated issue. There was no legal reason to pardon the hundreds of people Clinton pardoned. However, in all cases, there were political reasons to do it.
Now, we’ve got the bizarre charade that has been Holder defending his decision to bring terrorists into New York City to stand trial in civilian court for what most perceive a purely military issue.
Where to start? Sheez.
OK, so Holder doesn’t know the precedent of when the first military prisoner was tried in civilian court. Big deal huh? ( Answer, never. ) OK, so Holder doesn’t know if a military prisoner is to be given Miranda rights or not. ( Answer, obviously, if tried as a civilian. ) And, Holder doesn’t think pre-judging the outcome of a trial won’t affect the outcome of the trial ( Answer, he just invalidated the entire trial. ) Some would argue Lindsay Graham’s a jerk. That makes it all OK. However, Graham’s a former JAG. He knows military law. Holder doesn’t.
But, it got even more absurd.
I was thrilled to see someone finally publicly ask how you could be more likely to get a conviction in civilian court when the defendant has already pled guilty and asked to be executed? How would he be more likely to be convicted in a court that requires Miranda rights than a court that does not when he was never given those rights? How could he possibly be more likely to be convicted in a court that allows plea bargains as opposed to a court that does not? And, what’s the point of even having a trial if Holder KNOWS he’ll be convicted? Bigger question, what does Holder do if KSM is not found guilty? You can not hold a person indefinitely in civilian court. Unless they find him guilty, he has to be freed. And, even if they do find him guilty, what if it’s not life? Stranger things have happened in civilian court. Bottom line, Holder could not come up with a single reason to justify his decision to force these people into civilian court.
On and on it goes. The charade just keeps getting more bizarre.
The problem is Obama and Holder made their decision simply to attack Bush when it was politically expedient. They had nothing to lose fighting Bush then. Problem is, they have no way to back down. Obama’s backing Holder, but he has no logic either.
Biggest issue I see here? Holder’s whimsical decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City is, according to Holder, not posing a threat to the people of New York City. Not only is he ignorant of the law, he’s totally clueless about history as well. There is precedent for trying terrorists in US courts. The key difference here is these people were captured in combat, on foreign soil. Terrorists are a different matter. In July 2001 a terrorist was found guilty in abetting the attack on Khobar Towers. The sentencing date was set for September 19, 2001. The terrorist was Usama Bin Laden. The location was the Federal Courthouse in New York City. Within blocks of the World Trade Center.
- So, you’ve got Holder guaranteeing a conviction in civil court for a non-citizen who has not been served his civil rights. How many problems do you see with that?
- You’ve got a situation where militants are cherry picked to which court they go. How many problems do you see with that?
- You’ve got Holder assuring us that the chance of conviction is greater in civilian court than it was in military court regardless of the fact a conviction has already been acheived in military courts?
- You’ve got Holder assuring us it poses no threat to anyone, regardless of the fact a similar situation resulted in 2,000 people being killed.
- And what scares me most, you’ve got an Attorney General who feels the law is what he wants it to be at any given moment and no one seems to care.
