Thursday, November 19, 2009

Who's Eric Holder Trying to Fool?

Our current Attorney General, like his boss Obama, are doing their damndest to make lawyers look really, really, bad.

Successfully, we should add.

The Bozo-Lawyers want us to believe that:

A non-US citizen
Who committed war crimes
As a non-State actor
Who was captured on foreign soil
By US military

....deserves a civilian CRIMINAL trial rather than the customary military-tribunal (or my favorite, summary execution.)

In other words, he thinks that the public is a bunch of damn fools.

Sorry, Eric, we didn't go to law school--so it's possible that we are NOT fools.

Courtesy Sykes, we learn that even Senator Graham gets it:

Not only does Graham have to tell him that there’s no precedent for trying battlefield detainees in civilian court, but Holder’s emphasis on how we don’t need a confession to convict Bin Laden completely misses the larger point Graham’s trying to make. The real worry in a district-court trial isn’t what’ll happen to archterrorists like Osama or KSM, whose perpetual detention is assured; the worry is that those trials will establish precedents that’ll be exploited by lesser jihadis at their own trials later on. KSM won’t be released because the political consequences to the administration are too dire, but what about some other terrorist who’s less well known to the public and whose guilt, while certain to the CIA, is less provable under normal evidentiary rules? A confession in a case like that might be critical — but what if he wasn’t Mirandized before he confessed? What then? That’s Graham’s point, and Holder seems to want nothing to do with it.

It won't be long before the title "lawyer" becomes a spiteful curse rather than the quasi-giggle it is today.

Maybe that's what Holder wishes for--to bring about the end of the Rule of Law in the US.

He'd better hope that he doesn't effect that. We're not fools, Eric. And we don't cotton to your condescension and stupid games with our families' safety on the line.

And let's not mention the conflict-of-interest problems. Ethics, schmethics. Rule of law or rule of money?


No comments: