Sen. Lindsey Graham has a dern good point: Holder Defends Decision to Use U.S. Court for 9/11 Trial
From The New York Times:
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, . . . argued that Mr. Holder’s decision was a mistake [because] in the future, he said, interrogators facing a freshly captured terrorist would fear jeopardizing a later prosecution.
“If you’re going to prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs, the criminal defendant is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent,” Mr. Graham said. “The big problem I have is that you’re criminalizing the war.”
But Mr. Holder argued that Mr. Graham was raising a “red herring” because the government has ample evidence to prosecute high-level terrorists like the Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, should he be captured. For that reason, interrogators need not worry about giving such a detainee a lawyer in order to make sure that their initial statements after being captured could be used as evidence.
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, . . . argued that Mr. Holder’s decision was a mistake [because] in the future, he said, interrogators facing a freshly captured terrorist would fear jeopardizing a later prosecution.
“If you’re going to prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that the moment custodial interrogation occurs, the criminal defendant is entitled to a lawyer and to be informed of their right to remain silent,” Mr. Graham said. “The big problem I have is that you’re criminalizing the war.”
But Mr. Holder argued that Mr. Graham was raising a “red herring” because the government has ample evidence to prosecute high-level terrorists like the Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, should he be captured. For that reason, interrogators need not worry about giving such a detainee a lawyer in order to make sure that their initial statements after being captured could be used as evidence.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home