- God did not create the universe, says Hawking
- Rapper T.I. arrested for drug possession in LA
- Hurricane Earl bears down on East Coast | Video
- Burger King agrees to $3.3 billion sale to 3G Capital | Video
- Bernanke takes blame for muddled message on Lehman
- Oil sheen spreads from Gulf platform after fire
- Eastern Atlantic depression could head for Caribbean | Video
- Justice Department sues Arizona sheriff in immigration probe
- Economic data damp down fears of new recession
- Why Apple rental plan alienated most studios
NYSE and AMEX quotes delayed by at least 20 minutes. NASDAQ delayed by at least 15 minutes. For a complete list of exchanges and delays, please click here.
Economy weighs on midterms
Tough economic times and aggressive campaigning by the Republicans weigh heavy on President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. Follow Reuters for complete analysis, opinion and polls ahead of the November midterm elections. Full Coverage
Holder defends criminal trials for 9/11 suspects
Attorney General Eric Holder testifies at the House Appropriations Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, March 16, 2010.
Credit: Reuters/Larry Downing
WASHINGTON |
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Attorney General Eric Holder on Tuesday defended plans to prosecute some terrorism suspects in traditional criminal courts, urging lawmakers to avoid politicizing the decision and inflaming public fears.
Holder has faced fierce criticism for planning to try the self-proclaimed mastermind of the September 11, 2001, attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in a criminal court, with many calling for military trials for him and four alleged conspirators.
Faced with the prospect of Congress withholding funds for both the trials and closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the White House has intervened and is now reconsidering the trial venue. However, that decision is weeks away.
Nonetheless, Holder defended criminal trials as a successful method for prosecuting terrorism suspects, noting that security at past trials has been tight with no incidents and they make it easier to get guilty pleas from suspects.
"They are tested ... they are secure, we have tried these cases in a safe manner," Holder told a House Appropriations subcommittee. "Our allies around the world support us in bringing these cases in (criminal) courts."
Republicans, and even some of President Barack Obama's fellow Democrats, have demanded that the five men be prosecuted in revamped military trials, arguing that they should not receive full U.S. legal rights or be given a platform for their anti-American rhetoric.
"There is a very legitimate and robust conversation we should have about it," Holder said. "But we cannot allow the politics of fear to drive us apart."
Holder bristled at suggestions that the suspects would be "coddled" if afforded full U.S. legal rights, saying they would be treated "just like any other murderer."
He also said that judges have prevented outbursts by terrorism suspects, pointing to the recent trial of a Pakistani woman in a New York court last month, during which the judge removed her repeatedly in response to her outbursts.
FULL LEGAL RIGHTS?
Still, Republicans on the subcommittee slammed the prospect of criminal court trials for terrorism suspects and clashed with Holder on whether full legal rights should be given to enemy combatants captured overseas.
"This is war and in a time of war we as a nation have never given constitutional rights to foreign nationals, enemy soldiers, certainly captured overseas," said Representative John Culberson.
Seizing on the suggestion by Holder that al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden would be treated similarly to mass murderer Charles Manson, Culberson argued that showed a disconnect between the administration and the American public.
Holder said that the Obama administration knew the United States was engaged in a war but said that it was vastly different than past wars and that even in military trials the defendants are given access to lawyers and other legal rights.
"I understand we are at war with al Qaeda," Holder said, adding that the United States was unlikely to face the prospect of putting bin Laden on trial because he had indicated he would rather die fighting.
"We would be reading Miranda rights to the corpse of Osama bin Laden," Holder said, referring to a criminal suspect's right to remain silent and have an attorney present during questioning. "He will never appear in an American courtroom. That's a reality."
Later in the hearing, Holder tried to clarify his remarks, saying he frequently has heard that terrorism suspects are being given the rights equal to the average American.
"They are not treated as average Americans. They are treated as murderers," he said.
Holder said a decision about where to prosecute Mohammed and the four alleged co-conspirators was likely weeks, but not months, away.
"Facts, facts, not fear, must be the basis of all of our discussions," he said.
(Editing by David Alexander and Eric Walsh)
This stupid trial has taken way too long and far too many discussion are taking place. Put the dude in a pitch black cell for fifty years and be on with it.
Keep them honest we need a public trial to get the truth. No more hiding like guantanamo. Good call Mr. Holder the American People support you and your decision to re-investigate 9/11.
Liberal tradition: give more rights to criminals and now, we can add foreign terrorists.
More of our money being squandered foolishly.
Why should people have to sacrifice their jobs, be hungry and go without healthcare while the country has plenty of money for this.
Since the left wants to ban history from the schools-Holder does not need to put himself in a history book.
Holder has got to go. We can’t afford terrorist sympathizers in such high places. I believe Holder will be their best defense in court, and that he is intent on their release so he can blame it on Bush.
Holder is a legal fraud and a sham and the American people deserve better. He orchestrated the release of terrorists who murdered a police officer in Puerto Rico during the Clinton Administration and he is clearly a product of the Janet Reno Justice Department of the 90s. As for trials for terrorists and combatants captured on the field of battle, they should be held as prisoners-of-war until there is victory or a lasting truce in the Global War on Terror. Those PWs who over stepped the bounds of established warfare should be tried just as the top Nazis were after World War II. We don’t need to treat al-Qaeda’s declaration and acts of war as just that, a war, not a stack of meaningless felonies to be argued out in court.
Whomever nominated this nut-job should be fired. Where does he get off thinking he is somehow imbued with the authority to grant citizenship rights to foreigners, especially foreigners who murder Americans?
There are a few little items missed by even cave men, but not by most Americans.
Civilian courts are not very liberal, thanks to cave men Repo-saurs, because it is they who use courts to incarcerate millions for profit. Little chance a prejuging jury would let alleged terrorists off unless they were completely innocent–like the several hundred Shrub had to release–no evidence, it was.
Military courts might hide facts that might interest even a cave man in what is left of our constitutional democracy. Mostly, military secret courts would not so likely want to embarass their previous benefactor by bringing out the sleazy and illegal methods he let them use.
And how is a creative cave man to profit by truth, when so many security jobs would go away if fear and slander were replaced by reason.
Cave men just don’t get democracy or fairness.
bobby99
