Holder in ‘02: Hard to Interrogate Terror Suspect with a Lawyer
It seems that our best sources here at GayPatriot are our readers. Spartann just e-mailed me a link which showed how in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, on January 22, 2002, Eric Holder had a different attitude on reading terror suspects their Miranda Rights. From an interview with Paula Zahn:
ZAHN: Final question for you, moving onto the issue of John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban. How much pressure should they put on this man to get information out of him as they interrogate him?
HOLDER: Well, I mean, it’s hard to interrogate him at this point now that he has a lawyer and now that he is here in the United States. But to the extent that we can get information from him, I think we should.
(Emphasis added.) Eight years later, Holder, now the Attorney General is singing a different tune; he admitted today “that he was the one who made the decision to treat Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as a civilian criminal.“
“I made the decision to charge Mr. Abdulmutallab [Christmas Day bomber] with federal crimes, and to seek his detention in connection with those charges, with the knowledge of, and with no objection from, all other relevant departments of the government,” Holder says in a letter addressed to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and other senators who have sought testimony from Holder on the treatment of Abdulmutallab.
In an at-times testy letter, Holder endorses the treatment of terrorist attacks as a matter of criminal justice, and implies that Senate Republicans are using the Abdulmutallab case for political gain, saying that his Justice Department relied on procedures that were not criticized when employed by previous administrations
Wonder what caused his change of heart? Or did he really have a change of heart? It’s just that back in 2002, he may have playacting for the cameras at a time when then-President George W. Bush was riding high, with strong public support for his tough policies on terror.
Still, I think we should take the guy at his word and wonder why he was so quick to ensure that Abdulmutallab had his rights read to him when, in the wake of 9/11, he thought affording a lawyer to a terror suspect would diminish his ability to provide intelligence that could help protect Americans from further attacks.
18 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Hey Daniel…. I’m only interested in getting the “truth” out …so it was my pleasure to furnish you with the link…. Whats making me chuckle, is how I found the link and so far none of the MSM is reporting the same facts… or am I just better at using a search engine than all the thousands of MSM barracudas constantly cruising the internet sea in their never ending search for information.
Comment by Spartann — February 3, 2010 @ 8:15 pm - February 3, 2010
???
Sparten – You take a quote out of context and think that makes you some kind of hero? He is clearly talking about how we need to follow “dictates of the Geneva Convention”
And way to snip the quote too. Right after he says that he says that it make “makes a lot of sense” to take him to trail and get info from him.
Further, interesting you post this on the day it comes out that we are getting a lot of info from this guy BECAUSE we followed the rule of law.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/obama-administration-secured-help-of-abdulmuttalabs-family-to-get-him-to-share-intelligence.html
Here is the money quote and I hope you moonbats read it carefully:
“people with no experience and apparently less knowledge about the case and the issues involved have made it a cause célèbre . As though there were some type of strange practice or action that took place here. When it’s consistent with all the practices of the previous administration.”
Comment by gillie — February 3, 2010 @ 8:46 pm - February 3, 2010
to gillie…you’re full of prunes……
Democrats are attempting to bolster their lame case by saying you’re doing the same as Bush did, that this time it’s OK to copy Mr Bush……. News flash, no Republican is taking te stance the Bush administration was correct in placing earlier terrorist trials in the hands of our criminal justice system, even if they were forced to because of then private citizen Holder’s obstucionism on the part of his law firm.
The panty queen was incommunicado for 5 weeks, Democrats have been outta touch from day one….. Now biyatch, go suck an egg.
Comment by Spartann — February 3, 2010 @ 9:45 pm - February 3, 2010
to gillie….
Holder says “One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people.”
“It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war.”
Holder later goes on to say, “I think they clearly do not fit within the prescriptions of the Geneva Convention………. it’s hard for me to see how members of al Qaeda could be considered prisoners of war. ”
I don’t care what consequences present themselves, you can not for the sake of political posturing, manipulate jurisprudence and expect the people to stand on the side lines and say nothing while you do it.
The panty bomber and all other terrorists are enemy combatants and should never be afforded the rights of an American citizen.
Comment by Spartann — February 3, 2010 @ 10:04 pm - February 3, 2010
IF memory serves, wasn’t it Holder whom Reno sent to interrogate David Koresh?
Comment by Ran / Si Vis Pacem — February 3, 2010 @ 10:12 pm - February 3, 2010
Dan, And Spartann,
Y’all seem to be reading far more into the statement than what appears there. Holder said (as you actually highlight): “it’s hard to interrogate him at this point now that he has a lawyer and now that he is here in the United States. ”
So? How do you interpret that as saying that he should not have a lawyer, and that he should be, maybe, in some place that could be argued is not “in” the United States, though we control it.
He is just making the obvious point that someone with a lawyer might be harder to interrogate than someone without a lawyer. Is that some controversial statement?
The undie bomber is being treated the same way that the shoe bomber was treated by the Bush administration.
“…wonder why he was so quick to ensure that Abdulmutallab had his rights read to him..”
Because its his damn JOB – to be the chief law enforcement offical of the United States, to DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION. I realize this is a strange concept to you conservatives, but that is to your shame.
Comment by Tano — February 3, 2010 @ 11:00 pm - February 3, 2010
Sorry, the logic between the two linked sources is so twisted, it seems I cannot follow it. Where is the inconsistency between mirandizing Mutallab, and thinking that doing so reduces the amount of intelligence that can be collected? Perhaps those two things are in tension, but they’re not inconsistent. From the interview transcript, it seems Holder is in agreement with giving terrorists treatment “almost consistent” with the Geneva Conventions.
I also have to ask a more general question – what is the ‘generally accepted’ conservative approach to treatment of terrorists, and what is the reasoning behind it? Maybe there is not such a consensus, and that’s why I’m failing to understand.
Comment by DRH — February 3, 2010 @ 11:04 pm - February 3, 2010
Tano-
Rich. As an Obama voter, you don’t have the moral ground to stand behind the US Constitution. Have you ever actually READ it? Or the Declaration of Independence? I read them weekly.
And Obama’s role as President under the Constitution states that HIS PRIMARY job is to DEFEND the nation against enemies foreign and domestic. PRIMARY. NUMERO UNO.
Giving Constitutional Rights to terrorists should be grounds for the immediate impeachment of Holder & Obama.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — February 3, 2010 @ 11:06 pm - February 3, 2010
to Ran/ Si Vis Pacem….
not only was Holder the wacko Reno sent to Waco…but he was also instrumental in the 1999 commutations of the 16 FALN members that were convicted of a bombing campaign in NYC and Chicago back in the 70s and 80s….. The dude sees the application of the law from an even further leftwing perspective than Obama…… hard as it is to imagine anyone could be further to the left than Mr Obama is.
Comment by Spartann — February 3, 2010 @ 11:10 pm - February 3, 2010
“Giving Constitutional Rights to terrorists should be grounds for the immediate impeachment of Holder & Obama.”
Don’t you mean Islaminc terrorists only?
or maybe:
Terrorists who are not white and only captured under a Dem Prez.
And do you really read those docs “weekly”???
Really?
Yow.
I suggest you find a book club.
Comment by gillie — February 3, 2010 @ 11:14 pm - February 3, 2010
“Democrats are attempting to bolster their lame case by saying you’re doing the same as Bush did, that this time it’s OK to copy Mr Bush”
No.
Folks are saying “Why are you calling for Obama’s impeachment for doing the same thing as Bush did in this same instance?”
Can any of you answer this?
And Spartann, clearly he was saying that they need to be treated under the “dictates of the Geneva Convention”
I know you are trying to be a Hero and fight for truth here, but you can’t do it by snipin’ and cutin’ quotes to fit your meme
Comment by gillie — February 3, 2010 @ 11:20 pm - February 3, 2010
to Tano and his twin sister gillie….
Both you biyatches need to get your ducks in a row…. no way are you gonna be able to claim the moral high ground by trying to piggy back on Bush because it’s the politically expedient thing to do….
Richard Reid happened 3 months after 9/11, the system wasn’t set up at that time …. it took the administration several years(thanks to the constant challenges by Eric Holder and his firm) to put together a legal mechanism necessary to conduct the military tribunals……. I’ll be the 1st one to say I disagreed with Reid ever being put in the civilian courts. Luckily he pled guilty and never saw the inside of a court room. …… the same thing would have happened with KSM, remember he too pled guilty. However, AG Holder in his infinite wisdom didn’t accept the plea….. sup with that biyatches?
Comment by Spartann — February 3, 2010 @ 11:50 pm - February 3, 2010
And we should also remember what the Barack Obama Party and Eric Holder endorse and support lawyers doing for terrorists.
And this was too funny.
Terrorists who are not white and only captured under a Dem Prez.
Is anyone else amused by the fact that gillie and Tano demand that non-citizen terrorists have “constitutional rights”, but that American citizens do not?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 4, 2010 @ 2:56 am - February 4, 2010
to North Dallas Thirty…..
Lynne Stewart was free on bond until November of last year, when she lost her appeal and is now serving her sentence.
http://www.pbs.org/now/blog/2009/11/lynne_stewart_loses_terrorism.html
Comment by Spartann — February 4, 2010 @ 6:46 am - February 4, 2010
The Toyota boondoggle and consequences to the US Market – Auto and Otherwise?
Toyota Silver Lining.
Dear Taliban we have the repair fix for your Toyota – shim this.
http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2010/02/toyota-silver-lining.html
Comment by keyboard jockey — February 4, 2010 @ 11:04 am - February 4, 2010
I see none of you can answer.
Instead you set up straw men.
It makes sense.
Since the conservative belief set is based upon so many logical fallacies, the only way to defend them is to use more logical fallacies.
Classic
Comment by gillie — February 4, 2010 @ 11:21 am - February 4, 2010
So gillie I’ve said it before. We should treat the terrorists under the geneva convention. Which means we can do whatever the hell we want with them.
In case you’ve not noticed, there have been accolades for President Obama walking back on civilian trials for the terrorists.
We say that the Shoebomber mistakes were made. It was how long after 9/11? You’re using that mistakes were made to defend the current actions. *shakes head* gods, you’re that desperate to defend the man’s policies? You’re ‘defense’ is that in 8 years we should be making the same mistakes with the shoe bomber?
And of course bring race into it. I’d expect racial profiling from you.
Comment by The_Livewire — February 4, 2010 @ 12:15 pm - February 4, 2010
And of course, gillie, who regularly shrieked that Bush should be impeached, is now arguing that Obama is doing the same thing as Bush and thus should not be impeached.
Also, we notice that gillie can’t condemn his fellow Obama Party members like Lynne Stewart for supporting and endorsing terrorists.
It really shows you the complete lack of principles and intellectual consistency that underpin liberalism.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 4, 2010 @ 9:22 pm - February 4, 2010