Lindsey Graham gives Eric Holder a lesson in the law
This is a very different Lindsey Graham from the one we’re used to. This Lindsey Graham is sharp and articulate, charged with righteous outrage at Eric Holder and Barack Obama’s unjustifiable decision to try KSM in a civilian criminal proceeding.
Heck, Holder doesn’t even really make an attempt to justify it. Even if you didn’t think much of Holder before, it remains shocking to see how extraordinarily little he appears to have thought about the legal issues involved. He has no answer for Graham, and he seems to sense early on in the questioning that he’s caught in a trap, and can find no way out.
It’s almost painful to watch as Holder stutters his way through the interrogation. This is the Attorney General of the United States?
After watching this, I became curious to learn more about Graham’s own background. He is acting like a lawyer here, and a good one at that. When I read his Wiki entry, it all made sense. It turns out that Graham just happens to have the perfect background to speak knowledgeably on this issue [emphasis mine]:
Graham graduated from the University of South Carolina with a B.A. in Psychology in 1977 and from the University of South Carolina School of Law with a J.D. in 1981. Upon graduating, Graham was sent to Europe as a military prosecutor, and eventually entered private practice as a lawyer.
Graham decided to join the United States Air Force in 1982, and served on active duty until 1988. Following his departure he stayed in the military, joining the South Carolina Air National Guard and the U.S. Air Force Reserves. During the Gulf War, he was recalled to active duty, serving as a Judge Advocate at McEntire Air National Guard Station in Eastover, South Carolina, where he helped brief departing pilots on the laws of war.
In 2004, Graham received a promotion to Colonel in the U.S. Air Force Reserves at a White House ceremony officiated by President George W. Bush. Graham served in Iraq as a reservist on active duty for short periods during April and two weeks in August 2007, where he worked on detainee and rule-of-law issues. He also served in Afghanistan during the August 2009 Senate recess.
No wonder Graham cleaned Holder’s clock.
[NOTE: Attorney General Holder reminded me of nothing so much as one of the faltering and poorly prepared law students sweating it out under Professor Kingsfield’s Socratic method in “The Paper Chase:”
Holder’s responses were truly astonishing for a lawyer. Considering that this would be one of the most important and public legal decisions of the decade it is appalling how poorly prepared the US AG was. This guy has the full resources of the Departmentof Justice to do legwork for him.
I think it shows how little he (and his boss) really respect the law.
DirtyJobsGuy:
Not to disagree with you, but to put some nuance on your conclusion: I think it shows how much this is a political decision, not a legal one. These guys are after a political result, not a legal one, and the only thing I can think they are aiming for is to make the Bush administration look bad. My question is “why?” Do they gain anything for that? Does that assure them a second term? What good would it do them under Chicago Rules? F
Conservatives have kicked Lindsey Graham as a RINO – not without reason – and were distressed when the Senator did not back up the Bush Admin’s arguments on detainees. But I don’t think there was an accusation then that Graham wasn’t acting from principle, but that he should trim his principles for political reasons: without full Republican support for the Bush approach, there was significant danger that terrorist detainees would incrementally obtain the legal rights of citizens. Graham (and McCain) were significant thorns in the president’s side on this.
I am glad to learn that Sen. Graham’s stubbornness was based on principle (not currying MSM favor), as he is now demonstrating. He may still not be as conservative as I would like on many fronts, but I will be glad to listen to his arguments.
The “common sense” angle seems to keep evading the powers that be. Heard a quote on the radio this morning that they need 75 million to beef up security in order to stage this show in Manhattan. I doubt it will end at that figure, as this looks as though it will go on for some time…but hold off on getting that mammogram ladies, money’s tight these days.
Any predictions on the next outrage?
Do not expect Sen. Graham to maintain this pose.
He has been losing a lot in the polling in his home state, and is simply trying to stop the bleeding.
will Says: Any predictions on the next outrage?
Not sending enough troops to Afghanistan in order to assure that there will be no victory, the American people will get fed up leading to a withdrawal and the eventual takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban-al Qaeda after a “decent interval”.
This is becoming a disaster already, for the country and for the Obama administration.
Prediction: The powers that be in Washington will find a way to kill this trial before long.
I agree with huxley.
Question that follows: So then, what is this circus distracting us from? We’re staring at the shiny object, but what should we be looking at?
Pingback:Civilizing terror: Holder vs Senators « Whispers
I’m shocked at Holder’s feeble performance. To follow on DJG and F’s excellent comments, Holder’s performance suggests that he didn’t expect any serious questioning (or he’s hopeless as a lawyer, which I don’t believe).
I’m further shocked that Holder hadn’t prepared better than this, even if he didn’t expect serious questioning. This is a huge decision. Surely he appreciated that. And yet he was unaware of whether any precedents existed, and hadn’t thought through the implications? He hadn’t realized that he’d be setting a precedent that might prove disastrous later? (His feeble babbling about bin Laden’s indictment overlooks the obvious question: what about the next guy we capture, who hasn’t been indicted?)
Kudos to Graham. He should send Holder a bill for CLE.
Too bad LG didn’t display the same tactics with Sotamayor, it would not have made any difference in the outcome but I would have had more respect for him.
“Any predictions on the next outrage?”
Jury selection in which Al Taquia is practiced…
F
I think Holder and Obama view this as a win-win for them regardless of the verdict, which they are on record as fully prepared to ignore if it would free KSM.
If KSM is convicted in a civilian court, they will claim the verdict as proof that enhanced interrogation was never needed to fight terrorism. Ordinary police work would have been sufficent to roll up AQ.
If the verdict is an aquital or mis-trial, it will be the fault of the Bush Administration for corrupting the evidence by employing EI techniques.
A side benefit will be exposing information on EI during the Bush Administration, willing provided by Holder’s DOJ to KSM’s lawyers during the discovery phase, without Holder or Obama having to take any heat for doing this after publicly discarding the idea of prosecutions or ‘truth commissions’.
DerHahn: That’s no doubt close to Obama and Holder’s calculations to try KSM in a civilian court.
However, I’m saying that they have gravely underestimated the potential repercussions, including those that will damage the administration.
Judging by Holder’s breath-taking inability to answer elementary questions about his decision, it’s clear that their judgment was impaired from the git-go.
How far the damage will go, I can’t say, but I consider it possible that this will be the stupid move that pushes Obama into lameduckedness.
You know, in a way, this is no surprise. I remember Graham being on of the only people grilling Holder on the FLAN terrorists (among other things) during the confirmation hearing… In fact, it’s one of the things I was thinking the ENTIRE time I was watching this, because he turned right around and voted to confirm this joker (Holder). And you know, I saw it again towards the end. He’s sitting there excoriating Holder on this issue, and then turns right around and says, “I think you’re a fine man”, etc.
This is the problem. This is the Attorney General of the United States. This is not a college student to take under your wing. The entire time I was watching this, I kept thinking, “You voted for this…” Holder was pretty obviously not good for the position during the hearings.
That Holder was unprepared should be no surprise. That’s been the meme for the Obama administration since “Day 1”. Ask Obama a tough question, he’s not ready to answer. Tim Geithner and the plan to turn around the economy? Anyone remember how bad that “presentation” was? There’s actually quite a few examples I could toss out there (Just look at Gibbs on a daily basis!).
I don’t know if it’s planned, or if it’s out of incompetence, and I don’t think it matters. Graham also skirts around the real point in this. These people are destroying the face of the country.
The problems that Graham brings up are valid. They are correct. HOWEVER… He misses (intentionally?) one of the more… interesting… parts of the KSM “case”. By law, if Miranda was not read, if no attorney was present during “torture” sessions, the case is thrown out. Period. That’s how civilian court works. It would amount to prosecutorial misconduct, and the “guilty” party is set free (Bill Ayers anyone?).
If you try them here, with Civvy court rules, you are setting PRECEDENT IN COURT. If the case is not tossed out because of this, and KSM is tried via all the “overwhelming evidence”, then you have a recorded civilian case where Miranda was not given. Where the 4th, and at least part of the 6th amendments of the Bill of Rights were not valid/applied in a COURT OF LAW!
You are making a brand new set of rules outside of the Constitution. Who defines them. Who defines who this is applied to? If you have a SINGLE CASE in US HISTORY where the rule book is tossed out, and the trial is held to be Constitutional (IE – They convict KSM, which is upheld through the Supreme Court), then where does it stop? Could this then happen to you or me? Could we be picked up without a warrant? Without reason? Held indefinitely without being read Miranda or having access to a lawyer or phone?
In law, you cannot simply toss the rules out “just this once”. If you toss them out, the precedent is set, and Obama, or other could exploit this indefinitely.
Just my 2 cents…
This is what happens, over time, when one views the law as a method of advancing a political agenda. Obama, Holder, and Holder’s minions have forgotten justice; have forgotten constitutional principles. Such basic and boring small matters (i.e. justice and constitutional principles) are beneath them. Obama and Holder and minions have, as a result, embarrassed themselves.
It was obvious, a decade ago, that Holder was not and is not competent for the AG position. Obama selected Holder b/c Obama is focused upon the Justice Dept’s treatment of race, and Obama could count on Holder to rectify perceived racial wrongs. A race conscious POTUS nominated a hack. A race conscious Congress confirmed a hack to be Attorney General of the United States. No one in a race conscious nation wants to say the truth: Holder is an obvious hack, and is the Attorney General of the United States b/c of his skin tone. It’s an outrageous situation, and it’s further outrageous that most everyone is terrified to speak the truth about it.
Actually, Holder is AG partly b/c of skin tone which caused Congress to pass him through, and partly b/c Holder is sympathetic to Obama’s over-riding concerns about racial injustice emanating from the Dept. of Justice. Janice Rogers Brown would never be nominated to be Obama’s AG.
Well, I guess that until we’re able to have a sober, sane discussion regarding “skin tone” and what that’ll get ya in this United Snakes, we’ll be dancing this tune for a while.
God Help Us
Nyght Says:
And you know, I saw it again towards the end. He’s sitting there excoriating Holder on this issue, and then turns right around and says, “I think you’re a fine man”, etc.
This is the problem.
I’ve said it before elsewhere, it is fake genteel collegiality. So many Republican Congresspeeps do not understand this is a very uncivil war in which we are now engaged. Faux civility has no place in this battle. Their attitude should be the same as Obie’s: Take no prisoners.
Just watched the video again.
Ref! Stop the fight!
I had great hopes for Graham based on his performance during the Clinton impeachment in the House. My favorite line then was when he expounded on Clinton’s late-night calls to people like his secretary, etc., when he realized he had a problem. Graham said during the hearings, in his best folksy Southern drawl – “I don’t know about you, but where I come from, anybody who’s making phone calls at 2 in the morning, is up to no good”.
Alas, Graham has proved himself to be no conservative.
I guess I’m a few notches to the center than the bulk of the commenetrs here. But I’ve always been perplexed at where people draw the line at being a “true” conservative Republican, and a “fake” RINO. (It always seems noticed whenever McCain supports something un-conservative like campaign Finance reform– which I also oppose— but he seems forgotten when he does something staunchly conservative like oppose Bush’s prescription drug program because it was unfunded, or oppose Sotomayor. Same with Graham.)
Also, I’ve always thought that it should be taken into account that often more independently minded types like McCain and Graham are often acting on principle, as noted by Assistant Village Idiot, above rather than in an effort to placate the media or the elite. I dont think, for example, that McCain gained any elite friends by supporting the surge at the time few others did. Nor, did Lindsay Graham do so by taking on Holder.
I am for the most part conservative, but I appreciate greatly the nerve it takes to stand on one’s own and think independently of either right or left. Theres a big gap between a conservative who thinks independently, and a true lefty Republican like the unlamented Lincoln Chafee, or the ever liberal Olympia Snowe. As I’ve said repeatedly, its not fair to lump McCain, Graham, Chafee and Snowe altogether in one category, when they are all quite different.
I guess Graham’s getting an under the table deal. He can spout off, but he’ll still do the quid pro quo game. I wonder
Much of the criticism of Sen. Graham is principled and spirited criticism of Sen. Graham’s principles. This is a good thing. Sen. Graham supports Cap and Trade; is mealy about, and willing to discuss, health care legislation which will lead to government take over; is “willing to discuss nationalizing U.S. banking institutions” (quote from a week old censure of Sen. Graham by Charleston Republicans), called his constituents, and me, “bigots” when we opposed his preferred amnesty model, and these are just a few cursory items. Senator Graham is not as committed to small government and to free markets as I wish he were. It’s a good thing to criticize his misguided principles. Also, Senator Graham is perplexingly mealy about so many things. For instance, a representative paraphrase: You, Judge Sotomayor, have been an illogical and irresponsible federal judge, and I now commend you as a nominee to the Supreme Court, and will vote in favor of your confirmation. What the @#$%^&* is that?!
Thank you, Neo, for calling this to our attention. Everyone in America should view the top clip. This administration is so sophomoric and unwise that we can only wonder if we can survive it. All that Greg says about Graham may indeed be true, yet the Senator certainly does his duty to God and country here. What a homerun!
What on earth was wrong with Holder? This was hard to watch and I don’t even like the guy, but he couldn’t defend his position! He was like a clueless undergrad. I definitely expected Holder to be able to give a response to Graham that was strong, even if I disagreed with it. How can this guy be AG? Just really unprofessional and unprepared. How is this even possible? Is this his first job? Was he a paralegal? (Sorry, no offense meant to paralegals.) Please keep us New Yorkers in your prayers as we try to survive this circus.
The amazing thing is that Holder was so totally unprepared. It wasn’t as if someone had tackled him at the golf course or something. He was there to be questioned, and seemed not to anticipated that…people would ask questions. The result was the intellectual equivalent of watching Mike Tyson boxing against Pee Wee Herman.
Earlier I kept asking, “Have Obama and Holder really thought this through?”
Now we know.
There is no excuse for this.
huxley: I don’t think that thinking things through is an Obama strong point. His method is: 1) Make a promise that sounds good, 2) Give an order to his staff, 3) Throw staff member 1 under the bus and appoint staff member 2, and 4) when failure becomes apparent, blame Bush. It’s Obama’s automatic pilot mode and it leaves him lots of time to admire himself in the mirror.
This.is.not.a.legal.decision. It’s.an.ideological/political.decision.
Ideological/political decisions do not need to be defended because they’re based upon an unprovable ideological premise, they merely need to be implemented.
This was not Holder’s decision, it was Obama’s. Holder is merely Obama’s water carrier.
Everything Obama and Holder say about this issue is simply smoke and mirrors.
The political price the democrats will pay for this decision will be severe.
They’re blind to the future price they will pay and the nature of the ‘two-edged sword’ they wield because their ideological premises are in denial as to the very nature of the threat to the west that radical Islamic terrorism represents.
It shall come as a great shock to them when the bill comes due.
mezzrow asks, “So then, what is this circus distracting us from? We’re staring at the shiny object, but what should we be looking at?”
Obama isn’t closing Gitmo.
expat: That sounds about right to me.
However, many on this blog credit Obama with much more competence than that. Outside his prowess within academia and Democratic campaigns, I’m just not seeing competence.
I’m worried about the damage that Obama will do when his failures become undeniable, the fantasy implodes, and he starts thrashing around trying to get his mojo back.
mezzrow says “…. but what should we be looking at?”
The collapsing dollar….
…. but what should we be looking at?
All of Obama’s failures.
I don’t know what will happen with the Senate healthcare bill, whether the Democrats can jam it through by year’s end or (latest moved goalpost) by the State of the Union address.
However, if Obama and Reid fail to get healthcare, Obama really is a lame duck.
The real tragedy (or BS) in this and all the other problems with the Obama administration, his czars, appointees, etc. is glaring right at all of us in the bottom right hand corner of the videos you display.
It says you tube. It never says NBC, CBS, ABC, rarely says CNN or MSNBC, and never even says FOX enough. Were the videos concerning anyone in the W or Nixon administrations, well, we all know, you couldn’t be anywhere without it being flashed in front of you.
The MSM is but a group not unlike the voters who placed him where he is. They will ride this thing all the way down. They “have to”. Obama may be about him, but they bought into him, and they are about them.
Blockbuster story breaking on global warming.
The Hadley Climate Research Unit has been hacked. 61 meg of emails and data have been released, and some of the emails are damning indeed. If true, these climate scientists have been exposed in an ongoing conspiracy of scientific fraud.
I saw this story yesterday when it started to break but wanted to let it simmer longer. However, the Hadley director says that the emails are genuine, admits that a hacker did the damage, and the Center has canceled all passwords.
This is huge. I’ll be following the story further and looking at the files myself. It seems too good to be true and yet…
A couple links to get you started:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked/
Browsing around in the hacked files, I get the impression that most of the material is genuine. It would be way too much trouble to create these many megabytes of emails plus all the data and code from scratch.
The only two possibilities I can see:
(1) All of the material is true in which case all hell breaks loose for global warming advocates, including Barack Obama.
(2) Most of it is true, but someone has lightly salted some of the documents with incriminating material, which is going to be a mess to sort out and a black eye for global warming skeptics.
It seemed as if Holder didn’t understand the ramifications of the realities that Graham was outlining. Scary.