Leahy: If Somebody Murders Americans in America They Ought to be Prosecuted in America
By Heather Monday Nov 16, 2009 8:00am
Oh lovely. More fear mongering on another Sunday bobble-head show, this time from Bob Schieffer. Pat Leahy sets him straight on why the United States is perfectly capable of prosecuting terrorism cases.
SCHIEFFER: Well, you heard what the congressman said, Senator Leahy. Tell me why you think he’s wrong.
LEAHY: I think that Eric Holder, our attorney general, is right. I think the president is right in holding the trials of these murderers in New York City.
What we’re saying to the world is the United States acts out of strength, not out of fear. I know when I go around Vermont, people say, let’s try criminals. Let’s try criminals like KSM. Let’s get them convicted. We’re very much a law enforcement type of state here.
I was a former prosecutor. I’d like to just see them prosecuted. In the same which way we prosecuted Timothy McVeigh. We’re not afraid to do that. We’re the most powerful nation on earth. We have a judicial system that is the envy of the world. Let’s show the world that we can use that power. We can use our judicial system, just as we did with Timothy McVeigh, and send the people -- and convict the people.
SCHIEFFER: But Timothy McVeigh was an American. He was not what some people would call an enemy combatant.
LEAHY: But...
SCHIEFFER: Won’t this be a circus of sorts, though? That’s what the congressman is saying. He says it’s going to just turn into a propaganda show.
LEAHY: I have a lot of faith in our judges. They know how to run a trial. They know how to keep decorum in their court. If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed wants to stand up and say, as he did in Guantanamo, I committed all these murders, I did all these things, fine. If I was a prosecutor, I would just sit there and let that jury hear it, because he’s going to be convicted.
That’s the important thing. And we show the world that our judicial system works. I think that’s why people like Ray Kelly, who is the commissioner of police, one of the finest commissioners of police anybody has ever had there in New York City, said we’re prepared, we can handle this.
SCHIEFFER: But I guess the point that some people are raising is that someone who is an enemy combatant does not deserve the benefits that one gets in a trial in an American courtroom.
LEAHY: Bob, if somebody murders Americans and they murder Americans in America, they ought to be prosecuted in America, and hopefully convicted in America. I mean, if somebody comes into our country and murders somebody walking down the street, we’re going to prosecute them here. It doesn’t make any difference whether they’re Americans or not Americans. They committed the crime in America, and that’s what he did.
I think that the administration is doing the right thing. They’re using all the things we have available. With Major Hasan, we’re using a court martial at Fort Hood. That’s the appropriate venue for that. With these 9/11 murderers, we’re using the criminal courts in New York for them. With the people who bombed the U.S. Cole, we’ll use the newly reconstituted military tribunals.
I think it’s an example we’re showing the rest of the world. We have systems that work. We’re not afraid of these people. We’re ready to stand up to them. I don’t think we should run and hide and cower. Let’s use our system. And let’s convict them.
SCHIEFFER: What if he should be acquitted?
LEAHY: I don’t think he’s going to be acquitted. I’ve discussed the evidence that’s available. Again, I’ve not prosecuted this kind of a case, but I’ve prosecuted a lot of murder cases. I think most prosecutors know what is going to happen.
You have got Eric Holder, who is one of the most experienced prosecutors this country has ever had as attorney general. He’s got one of the greatest teams of prosecutors around him. I’ve gone over the case with him. I’d rather be the prosecutor than the defense counsel in this case.
SCHIEFFER: You know, anybody who has watched “Law and Order” or any of the other crime shows on television knows that the first thing that happens when a law enforcement arrests someone, they advise them of their rights, that they have a right to an attorney and so on. Now, there was no attorney here. This man was waterboarded 183 times. Do you think that we can find untainted evidence, enough of it, to convict him? Because if you say, well, he didn’t have a lawyer from the beginning, would that say to people, to a judge, well, you can’t use any of that evidence?
LEAHY: No, I think that we have plenty of evidence as obtained outside of the -- whatever he said in waterboarding. Keep in mind, they indicted him long before this waterboarding. They had evidence enough to bring indictments against him long before that. I don’t -- with the review that I’ve had of the evidence available, I have no question that they have enough evidence untainted by the waterboarding that will be admissible in court. And he will be convicted.
Login or Register to post comments.
Prosecute the war criminals and torturers first!
..and their trials couldn't start soon enough for me. However, I don't think the trials of the terrorists ought to be pre-requisite for the trials of the war criminals. If Obama doesn't go after w and cheney and the rest of the war criminals, he loses support, he loses face with the rest of the world and we lose the opportunity for justice. The trials for the terrorists should've begun five seconds after any of them were captured. The trials for the war criminals should've begun on 22 January, 2009.
prosecutions. Even tho the Obama Admin. is trying pretty hard to cover up the crimes, it is (as R. Heinlein said) "Like a cat trying to cover it's poop on a linoleum floor". I don't know what Obama & the Justice Dept. and Mr. Gates think they will achieve by blatantly protecting vicious torturers and their bosses. Eventually the stench will be too awful to ignore.
And another thing! Since when are Repugs opposed to political "circuses"? They're all malevolent clowns, themselves, their hands and faces dripping with blood.
but Gates is like a lifetime member of the 'spook society' - he was in the CIA for a long time and served as GHWB's Director of Nat'l Intelligence. Chances are purr-ty good that he has a bit of clandestine mischief in his own dossier.
Really 'investigating' and trying the 'war criminals' would implicate 80% of our government officials and the corpora-fascists who own them in all kinds of crimes - war and otherwise.
Not gonna' happen......unless there's a new American Revolution.
The people in power have worked hard to turn any revolution into a Civil War. Repug clowns, Fox FartHards, Cowardly Columnists' are stupid, dumb as a bucket of rocks, but whoever is behind them is pretty sly.
Just the same the "1%" are just putting Nemesis off, she'll come knockin' one day soon.
Schieffer shows himself to be kinda stupid if he only learned about Miranda Rights from watching Law and Order. He also insults his viewers by assuming they only learn about the law from tv shows. I guess until Law and Order came on no one knew their rights.
... when I was in grammar school, if someone got called to the principal's office, there was the inevitable chorus of 'Da-da-dum-dum' (the Dragnet theme).
And most of us knew the Miranda phrasing, even if we really didn't understand it fully. (Of course, the father of one of my classmates was a homicide detective in the middle of the Zodiac killings.)
I released an audible groan when he brought up "Law and Order".
"UNPOSSIBLE!"
The bigger issue is what sanctions might be applied for governmental misconduct.
It seems to me that you have a bunch of non-lawyers pontificating on the law...
teh stoopid is making my head hurt!
yeah...old curmudgeons like Shieffer and Broder should pontificate on thing they know from experience...like weak urine stream and the benefits of roughage in your diet.
the Repigs will have a field day! There is nothing they'd like better, except illicit sex and smallish bribes; although when white American Terrorists do their murdering, nothing is said by the R's unless it's "Go Team!"
Here in NYC we tried the blind sheik for the first WTC bombing.
Amazing...NYers didn't wet themselves ONCE during that whole trial.
there wasn't any regressive republicans weren't wetting themselves?
They've always wet themselves...being surrounded by all those EVIL liberals.
though that took place on/off Long Island. ;)
Back in... 93' 7am/EST I was 2-blocks away from the towers. When the sirens went off I was at 2nd & 9th or 11th If I recall correctly. They were very cautious at the tubes, I'd often stay at the Day's/quality in just on the other side in Jersey-city.
A.C. Unit my ass
the american way
..how would the right feel if we tried them using Sharia Courts? After all, in the attack, Muslims were killed. Think they'd get off scott free? NO. We could employ Stalin tactics and just eliminate them? NO, we are a country of laws..wait a minute, if we're a country of laws, why don't try them in our courts AND if we're a country of laws, why don't we go after the torturers and their enablers?
Why does the right hate the American Justice System so much? Because they might be arrested, tried and convicted, that's why!
But the Unjust has the Just's Umbrella.
..rudy, the boy who cried 9/11 one too many times, is wanting ksm to be tried like an animal. After giving up information to the FBI, he was tortured and gave the torturers nothing of substance. In my world, that he was tortured means he was treated like an animal already and I wouldn't ever treat animal like that, would you?
What are these idiots afraid of? Oh yeah, their own crimes and misdemeanors!
and only then if they're rich.
georgie and dickie, you're next up.
I mean would that be cool or what?
who the heck are they anyway? and what is this strange power they have over hack 'journalists'...?
"SCHIEFFER: But I guess the point that some people are raising is that someone who is an enemy combatant does not deserve the benefits that one gets in a trial in an American courtroom."
Idiot.
I never felt it was a benefit to be in a courtroom.
certainly NOT as a defendant!
"Judges With Benefits ..."
Schieffer more and more sounds like a right-wing apologist, instead of someone who ascribes to the American ideal of a nation of laws. It makes me ill to hear people like Palin talking about lynching the accused terrorists. Thank goodness for Sen. Leahy, who states what should be obvious to all citizens of a democracy.
is a moron and this country has proven it likes morons as leaders, as evidenced by Regan and GWB. I have a bad feeling about 2012.
All the more reason to be vigilant about Palin and the other Know-Nothings. We as a nation cannot afford to go down that moronic road again.
You're supposed to push people a little in interviews, play devil's advocate and make them respond to the other side's arguments.
... at a parade of Republican apologists, then parroting those talking points back at a Democratic guest is the media's job?
thank you Sgm
In TV interviews, Conservatives get away with the most blatant Lies imaginable. And they are believed by a large minority.
Report: CNN ‘Wanted Dobbs Out,’ Gave Him $8M
For that kind of money you would think they could hire someone with better aim.
Carly Fiorina's still got him beat. She got $40 million to go away.
... poltical office.
"We have a judicial system that is the envy of the world."
LOL. His horizon doesn't seem to stretch to Europe or Japan.
The U.S. judicial system was already a joke before 9/11 and has since then been pushed beyond the Western civilization consensus on judicial systems.
are on the strectched horizon of western civilization.
... are you therefore agreeing with 'some people' that suspects like KSM do not deserve the benefit of law, nor public trials?
"The U.S. judicial system was already a joke before 9/11"
Agreed. Look at our draconian drug laws for one thing. Also, there's two sets of rules - one for the rich and one for the rest of us schlubs. You never see a rich white guy get the death penalty when he commits murder, do you?
It all goes to show that right wingers are cowards who don't have faith in our justice system. It's not like we haven't done this before, that is try foreign terrorists in this country. In fact we've been quite successful at it, more so than the military.
Does he get a weekly check from Rupe??
He sounds like a Cluster-Fox echo chamber...Old man is senile and can't think for himself anymore....Otherwise he'd know better than to stoop to the level of these knuckle-dragging right-wing scum bags.
"WHEN IN ROME, DO AS THE ROMANS DO."
LEAHY: "I think that Eric Holder, our attorney general, is right. I think the president is right in holding the trials of these murderers in New York City."
The senator should choose his words more carefully. Labeling them murderers before they even have a trial is prejudiced.
... because Leahy's words are so much more inflammatory and prejudicial than the conservatives insisting the suspects are 'animals' and undeserving of the benefit of law.
Totally unacceptable to call the charged 'murderers' before the trial is over and a conviction occurs.
,
SCHIEFFER: "But I guess the point that some people are raising.."
Some people?You.You're raising the point Bob.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYA9ufivbDw
nice grab.
Well,actually I say that.
So Bob Schieffer is doing what a talk show interrogator is supposed to do. He is asking Leahy to substantiate his opinion on the subject at hand. Really, do we want to get to the point that no one appears on the shows and every one is so politically correct that just the boys in the back rooms succeed? There is room for expression of all critical thinking.
Schieffer was just doing his job
Mon, 11/16/2009 - 08:54 — Bitter Scribe
You're supposed to push people a little in interviews, play devil's advocate and make them respond to the other side's arguments.
* reply
* Ignore user
* Flag As Inappropriate
Staring in slack-jawed wonder ...
Mon, 11/16/2009 - 09:01 — Shadowgm
... at a parade of Republican apologists, then parroting those talking points back at a Democratic guest is the media's job?
* reply
* Ignore user
* Flag As Inappropriate
some people say ...
Mon, 11/16/2009 - 09:21 — real_earl
thank you Sgm
* edit
* reply
Sure, but ONLY when interviewing Progressives-
Mon, 11/16/2009 - 09:09 — KWillow
In TV interviews, Conservatives get away with the most blatant Lies imaginable. And they are believed by a large minority.
* reply
* Ignore user
* Flag As Inappropriate
Federal prosecutors in New York have a perfect batting average on terrorism cases. Not a single acquittal. And that includes those tricky terrorism-financing cases that have deviled other districts (18 USC 2339(C)). Bottom line: if you want a terrorism conviction, go to the Southern District of New York.
Next fake controversy, please!
Therein lies the real fear of the anti-American Justice System crowd. We have already been violating these defendants' rights in the most gruesome fashion we could imagine. If we now proceed to a genuine trial where defendants' rights are respected, our own crimes will come to light, and be the subject of serious, courtroom discussion.
Bob fucking Scheiffer is actually advancing the argument that, since we've been breaking the law so far, we ought to keep breaking it.
a) send the legal team to Mars and try him there, where he won't be a target or create a "circus"
b) send him directly to jail without a fair trial
c) just execute him, "we don't need no stinking evidence"
C'mon, what's the issue? Is there an issue? This is fucking America. People are allowed a fair trial by a jury of their peers. If he gets off, he gets off. That's the system. Don't like it, move to Iran.
gosh darnit' dontcha see...?
his peers ...would be other brown skinned turrists!!!! arrrrhhhhh!!!!!! FEAR! FEAR!
Love the way Scheiffer lays out all the winger talking points - "but what about . . . . . . ?" I remember when the Sunday news shows were worth watching - now I put them on, but I do the NYT crossword at the same time so I don't throw something.
Many of us in Middle America are scratching our heads with the announcement that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four of his alleged underlings will be tried in New York civilian courts. After watching and listening to President Obama and Attorney General Holder justify the decision, the reasonable person is left with a very simple question: “Why?”
It’s easy to get lost in all of the political spinning and back-peddling taking place to justify this decision, but there is only one question that needs to be answered to determine whether or not these individuals should be tried in civilian or military courts. That question is whether the bombing of the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001 was an act of war or a crime. If the bombings were an act of war, then these individuals should be tried in military courts, period.
Unfortunately, President Obama and Attorney General Holder do not consider the bombing of Americans on U.S. soil an act of war, but a crime instead. This seems out of step with Middle America, which rejects the mental gymnastics required to arrive at the conclusion that the bombings were a crime and not an act of war.
Like many of the decisions made by President Obama, this one too is rooted in political expediency, rather than sound policymaking. President Obama has shamefully chosen to afford these terrorists all of the constitutional rights reserved to American citizens. These terrorists will now ironically and perversely cloak themselves in the very protections of the U.S. Constitution they are trying to destroy, and turn their trials into a media circus. They will portray themselves as victims of over aggressive interrogators and prosecutors, giving terrorists gasoline to pour on their fire of Islamic extremist hatred around the world as they continue to work to destroy this nation.
The techniques used by the CIA, FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security to keep this nation safe and bring these terrorists to justice will be in full display in civilian courts and in the media for the world to see, compromising the ability of these agencies to keep Americans safe now and for years to come.
President Obama and Attorney General Holder have placed New York in the crosshairs of the world’s highest profile assault on Islam, jeopardizing the safety of its residents and ripping the scabs off the wounds suffered by thousands of the survivors of loved ones lost on 9/11.
What really indicates that this is a political exercise and poor policy is the fact that these terrorists will be completely unable to get a fair trial in New York, since every person in this nation experienced the horror of 9/11 to one degree or another .
Further, the president and attorney general have given Islamic extremists exposure they couldn’t buy any where in the world—center stage in New York—to parade their message of hatred to the world.
With the past 12 months as its guide, Middle America is cynical about President Obama’s real reason for trying these terrorists in American civil courts. This administration has been looking into the rearview mirror for the past year, running against the failed policies of George Bush and Dick Cheney, rather than looking forward and putting solid policy solutions on the table for American families. In keeping with their modus operandi, President Obama wants these trials to be an indictment on George Bush and Dick Cheney, around whose neck he plans to hang the fruits of the spectacle that will be viewed by the world when these trials commence. 9/11 was an act of war and these terrorists should be tried in a military court, off of American soil, period.
A. Muser
http://americanmuser.wordpress.com/
You seem awfully sure about that "act of war rather crime" talking point. Not all of us in middle America- the middle Americans that voted for Obama and haven't been holding it against Obama for being guilty of not looking like all of us, not taking exactly the same positions as all of us (BTW, tweve months? Guy's only been in office for just short of nine)- believe that there isn't some nuance in there. Without being members of a sovereign state's military or intelligence service, can what happened on 9/11/01 actually be an act of war? Did Tim McVeigh commit an act of war? What, other than the religion and color of skin differentiates McVeigh from Al Qaeda?
Login or Register to post comments.