Eric Holder Testifies Before Senate Judiciary Committee: Major Conflict of Interest Revealed
(November 12, 2009 - Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images North America)
UPDATE:
As if a day of testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee to explain away a misguided decision to prosecute 911 terrorists in Federal Court was not enough news on our Attorney General for the day, we now hear that he may have had a conflict of interest regarding the matter and should have potentially recused himself from the decision making process altogether. Holder’s former firm, Covington and Burling represents 16 Gitmo detainees. Nice twist to this already disturbing story. Here is a little plug from the firm’s website.
The firm has been involved in the Guantánamo related litigation for the last five years. In addition to the on-going habeas corpus proceedings, our efforts have included: bringing cases for review of enemy combatant classification decisions in the D.C. Circuit under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005; challenging the destruction of CIA torture tapes in federal court; filing amicus briefs and coordinating the amicus effort in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006); filing amicus briefs in support of Supreme Court review in Moussaoui v. United States, 382 F.3d 483 (4th Cir.), cert denied, 544 U.S. 931 (2005); challenging the government’s practice of redacting information from documents given to security-cleared habeas counsel; and challenging the abusive medical and living conditions that the detainees experience at Guantánamo.
Attorney General Eric Holder has now testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Here are a few clips from earlier today. Senator Graham asked him perhaps the most pressing question of the day by inquiring into where the AG would attempt to bring Osama bin Laden – if caught – to trial. Holder’s response? We would go through our “protocol” and would not give a definitive answer on whether he would be tried in federal court or a military commission.
You know I am not a fan of Senator Graham, but he really does a great job asking Holder how the administration’s “protocol” would impact the treatment of Bin Laden should he be captured. The back and forth regarding custodial interrogation. Holder has clearly not even begun to think about how future cases will be treated based on the precedent set with the 911 cases. I don’t like Holder either, but I can’t believe he wasn’t prepared for that question let alone actually have a plan for how the Justice Department will some day prosecute Bin Laden should he be captured.
Eric Holder is set to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee today in Washington, but his testimony is likely to be listened to closely up the coast in New York City. Holder has undoubtedly had a rough week since announcing Friday that he would bring 5 of the 911 terrorists to trial in Manhattan. Today, he is set to once again defend that decision and Fox News and the AP released some of his written testimony.
Holder is set to testify Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where lawmakers are likely to spar over the attorney general’s decision last week to send Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four alleged henchmen from a detention center at Guantanamo Bay to New York to face a civilian federal trial.
Critics of Holder’s decision — mostly Republicans — have argued the trial will give Mohammed a world stage to spout hateful rhetoric.
In remarks prepared before Wednesday’s hearing, Holder says such concerns are misplaced, because judges can control unruly defendants and any pronouncements by Mohammed would only make him look worse.
“I have every confidence the nation and the world will see him for the coward he is,” Holder says in written testimony obtained by The Associated Press. “I’m not scared of what (Mohammed) will have to say at trial — and no one else needs to be either.”
Addressing other concerns about the case, the attorney general says the public and the nation’s intelligence secrets can be protected during a public trial in civilian court.
“We need not cower in the face of this enemy,” Holder says. “Our institutions are strong, our infrastructure is sturdy, our resolve is firm, and our people are ready.”
Senator Lindsey Graham questions Attorney General Eric Holder regarding the prosecution of 911 terror suspects and a potential prosecution of Osama bin Laden.
Trackback URL
You republicans and your love for farmer politicians like Sessions and Graham. I am yet to figure out the allure of old country boys and their need to sound tough on war and terror every time a microphone is placed in front of them. Holder’s decision was one of sound jurisprudence and not a political maneuver. He deserved better treatment than he received on the Hill today. He is a fine attorney and an outstanding litigator. His judgment should be held in higher regard than two Senators with chips on their shoulders.
Mona: what world are you living in? A fine attorney and litigator? How is it possible a “fine attorney and litigator” would put a defendant into a situation where he or she could be aquitted when his alternative was to put them in a situation where the defendant had already admitted guilt, had stated his intention to admit guilt and requested the death penalty… and the laws of evidence are less restrictive, when it is his JOB to do the opposite? How does a “fine attorney and litigator” make a move that could set precedence for every future terrorist that we encounter that could affect how we have to deal with them and/or result in the deaths of soldiers and citizens simply because he wanted to impose his naive ideology onto the rest of us, impose his liberal stupidity in our system of dealing with unlawful combatants, and cost taxpayers an exorbitant amount of money, flick the nerves of those victims of 9/11 to the point they will never be able to get on with their lives, and needlessly give terrorists a platform where they may be able to rally their own troops to kill and more American citizens when it didn’t have to be that way, when it is his JOB to do the opposite? Yeah, he’s f…ing brilliant. Some terrorists have to go to trial because it is the American Justice System and way of life and we’re better than everyone else… except others don’t qualify for that and can be tried by Military Tribunals? Are you f…ing serious? So only “some” deserve to be tried and others don’t? He’s an idealogue and a moron that doesn’t even deserve the position obviously. He openly states that the reason he picked them was that they would be found guilty in a court of law? How is that even remotely an American tradition? How does that even remotely connect with the American Justice system where we’re all considered innocent until proven guilty and only upon getting our day in court will the matter be settled? He’s an idiot, an idealogue that puts others in danger so he can be applauded in his elitist circles, be applauded by left wing nutballs that hate America anyway, and he made such a stupid, ignorant blunder that he deserves NOTHING except to be called to task for it. He’s our Attorney General, not some ADA in a District Court in Podunk U.S.A. I’m guessing you didn’t have a family member, a friend, or acquaintance that was crushed to death on 9/11, or came to the horrible realization that Islamic nuts were about to end their lives and their children would be orphans or parentless forever. I’m real glad our Attorney General has such BIG BALLS NOW to do something about it. He didn’t seem to have them when he and his firm were trying to get these guys released from detention before he became AG. He has the audacity to call us a nation of cowards? No, we’re not, we’re a nation lead by a bunch of morons and naive idealogues that are going to get us and our soldiers killed or hurt. Proper diction, and a large vocabulary doesn’t mean anything if you don’t have an ounce of common sense… and in this case compassion for victims. That makes him a dunce. I hope Obama and Holder sleep well at night knowing that most of us realize that our elected “leaders” are selling out the people that elected them into office so they can be “liked” and “admired” by the elites in the rest of the world at our own expense. As far as your comment about “our love for farmer politicians”, you bet your ASS! Who the hell do you think you are? We’re a nation of citizen politicians and not a bunch of ruling nobles and the “in” crowd. As much as that concept has deviated, we’d be much better off with an entire Senate filled with farmers and not career politicians that have been on the public dole for their entire lives that know nothing about creating businesses, that don’t rely on the race or victim card to get things, that know and/or can actually HEAR what the rest of us unclean citizens are telling them or what our wishes are. I’m in law enforcement and know the type of “brilliant litigator” this guy is. I’ve seen them all and they’re a dime a dozen. They think they’e smart but they’re so stupid it defies logic. Put a rape victim through hell to get a guilty verdict and a sentence as opposed to allowing the suspect to plea guilty and get the same sentence? At the same time cost taxpayers millions of needless dollars that would never have to be spent and cause hurt to citizens that actually pay him to protect them. He’s Brilliant!
Dave: I don’t know if I could adequately respond to all of your comment’s high points, so I will simply say that I appreciate your comment and certainly appreciate your passion. I agree with your opposition to Mona’s comment. I struggle to find the “brilliance” in this decision. In fact, I agree with you that it is frankly anything but. I see the decision as purely a political one. This administration has engaged in a concerted effort to discredit the Bush administration and the practices of this nation before President Obama came to office at every opportunity that has been made available to them. I see this as nothing more than an attempt by the ideologues that run the Liberal Left to persecute in open court the Bush administration rather than prosecuting an admitted enemy of our nation in a military tribunal.
Thank you again for the comment. I certainly enjoyed your perspective as well as your passion.
[...] right? That’s what Due Process is all about right? I have no doubt that our brilliant Attorney General, Eric Holder will have something to say about the matter today, and I am sure that his remarks will likely add to [...]