Leahy: We wouldn’t bother to interrogate … Bin Laden?
posted at 12:55 pm on November 19, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
If you want to see why a law-enforcement approach is absolutely the wrong way to defend the US against dangerous terrorists abroad, look no further than this asinine statement from Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT). Lindsey Graham asked Eric Holder how he would go about interrogating any terrorists captured by military and intelligence personnel in the future if the DoJ would have them tried in civil courts rather than military tribunals, including the most notorious man of all, Osama bin Laden. Leahy scoffed at the notion that we would need to interrogate him at all:
If the U.S. captures Osama bin Laden, there’s no need to interrogate him, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Thursday.
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the chairman of that committee, said that arguments raised by Republican senators about whether bin Laden would be afforded Miranda rights if he were captured amount to a “red herring.”
“The red herring that my friend [Sen.] Lindsey Graham [R-S.C.] was covering is not realistic,” Leahy said during an appearance on “Washington Journal” on C-SPAN.
“For one thing, capturing Osama bin Laden — we’ve had enough on him, we don’t need to interrogate him,” Leahy added.
Really? No need to interrogate him at all? The US would not be interested in discovering, say, any current plots to attack the US and its allies? Perhaps the location of Ayman al-Zawahiri? The identities of sleeper agents in the US?
Leahy may not be concerned about those issues, but our intelligence and military communities are, as well as our allies. And we’re not going to get that information from bin Laden or any other terrorist by handling them the same way we do Americans arrested for committing normal crimes. A display of good-cop/bad-cop is not going to get hardened jihadists to spill their guts; it takes intelligence agents with specific training to do that even under the best of circumstances, and the environment for that would create massive problems in a federal trial.
This is why we need people other than Pat Leahy in charge of national security. The big prize for Leahy in capturing bin Laden isn’t national security, but a big splashy trial. The fact that Leahy isn’t even dimly aware of these considerations is reason enough to dismiss him entirely, and those of his colleagues who don’t understand the difference between arresting a murderer and capturing an enemy abroad. The law-enforcement approach Leahy champions so ignorantly with this assertion will leave America blind to plots against us.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
This is why he’s in the KSM Holiday Card portrait.
BKeyser on November 19, 2009 at 12:58 PM
“I’m sorry Mrs. Leahy..there was no way for us to know that OBL had all the details on the plot to assassinate your late husband. We just didn’t think it appropriate to ask him, since our standing in the eyes of World was at stake”. – Eric Holder, sometime in 2010
jamie gumm on November 19, 2009 at 12:58 PM
open mouth, insert foot
cmsinaz on November 19, 2009 at 12:58 PM
You can’t interrogate a corpse. Shoot on sight.
rbj on November 19, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Term Limits!
Knucklehead on November 19, 2009 at 12:59 PM
If Leahy was ever confronted with a situation like that screen cap in real life, he’d prosecute Batman first…
Rogue on November 19, 2009 at 12:59 PM
2nd
cmsinaz on November 19, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Epic Stupid
NoFanofLibs on November 19, 2009 at 12:59 PM
So stupid, it’s diffucult to actually even respond to this statement.
PatriotRider on November 19, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Obama and his gang of criminal Marxist vermin in Congress are a clear and present danger to the nation.
elduende on November 19, 2009 at 1:00 PM
What about the smaller fish that we don’t have rock solid evidence agaisnt? Presumably we’ll need to interrogate those guys, for both intel and evidence of their crimes.
Do we need to ensure they get Miranda rights? What types of precautions do our soldiers on the ground need to take when capturing these guys?
These are the questions Holder should have an answer for. But he doesn’t, and it gives away the political motivations behind this move.
BadgerHawk on November 19, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Nice.
BadgerHawk on November 19, 2009 at 1:02 PM
I can see OBL asking for his lawyer (the ACLU membership would trip over itself)… thus ending all questioning.
mankai on November 19, 2009 at 1:02 PM
Dear god, we are so screwed.
Johnnyreb on November 19, 2009 at 1:02 PM
can’t recall but is Leahy up for re-election this year?
Time for him to go!
cmsinaz on November 19, 2009 at 1:03 PM
i lose 25 IQ points every time i listen to that asshole breathe
JJKRN on November 19, 2009 at 1:03 PM
If we keep going down this path that we are, I’m doomed. I got bad knees. No way could I pray on my knees 5 times a day. *THUD*
capejasmine on November 19, 2009 at 1:04 PM
i lose 25 IQ points every time I listen to that ass**le
JJKRN on November 19, 2009 at 1:04 PM
I don’t even know where to begin.
peterargus on November 19, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Where has Sec. Gates been on this? Haven’t heard a peep out of him.
Kelligan on November 19, 2009 at 1:04 PM
The Gopher pop’s his head out and speaks donkey crap!~.
Go back to the hole from which you originated from.
hawkman on November 19, 2009 at 1:05 PM
So much for showing the world how fair & great our judicial system is when the AG already guarantees conviction. This seems like something out of the old west, you know, where cowboys convict and then hang um high. I thought the dems were anti cowboy.
Kissmygrits on November 19, 2009 at 1:06 PM
I meant 2010
cmsinaz on November 19, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Well, if your goal is a conviction, he is right, we can prosecute him without interrogation.
IF, however, your goal is to help fight the war on terror, and prevent further attacks, then you DO interrogate.
I guess we know what his priority is.
redshirt on November 19, 2009 at 1:06 PM
The only reason for doing this is to embarrass and shame your country and the previous administration and to reveal your country’s espionage secrets to its enemies. Treasonous.
kingsjester on November 19, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Survey SAYS: Stupid.
peski on November 19, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Sure, but you haven’t caught him (if he’s even alive after years of running and hiding from cave to cave from Bush with his kidney dialysis machine).
And since Obama hasn’t caught Bin Laden, the leftwingnut standard for the success of his presidency has determined that Obama’s entire presidency has FAILED. It’s that simple.
No OBL? FAILED PRESIDENCY.
Not my rules. Those are the Democrats’ rules.
Good Lt on November 19, 2009 at 1:12 PM
What a complete boob. Why, oh why, do the people of Vermont keep inflicting this fool on the rest of the country? (Actually, don’t answer that. I momentarily forgot we’re talking about the People’s Republic of Vermont).
WarEagle01 on November 19, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Where has Sec. Gates been on this? Haven’t heard a peep out of him.
Kelligan on November 19, 2009 at 1:04 PM
I would guess a gag order from oboobi…
SHARPTOOTH on November 19, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Every once in a while, the sheer stupidity of the people “in charge” scares the h*ll out of me. This is one of those times. Vince Flynn has American politicians pegged to a T.
ProfessorMiao on November 19, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Wow, the democrats are really setting themselves up for failure on this issue.
Let’s just hope we can fix all the problems they’re creating after they’re out of office.
blink on November 19, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Leaky Leahy’s brain is draining again.
Del Dolemonte on November 19, 2009 at 1:15 PM
It would seem to me that if we’re to try them in this manner and they are considered to be innocent until proven guilty, Bin Laden “the great goat romancer” (alledged goat romancer) should have those rights as well.
And in which case… didn’t I hear Bill Clinton plead his case that he tried to kill this man not once but a couple of times? Looks to me like ole brushy Bill should face attempted murder charges. At least in regards to this new hope and change logic.
Ed?
onomo on November 19, 2009 at 1:16 PM
I know that the C-Span folks are non confrontational but geesh, are follow ups off limits?
Cindy Munford on November 19, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Yep. I would add short-sighted, too. Almost makes one hope that the next attack on the capital has a little more impact on these miscreants. Almost.
ProfessorMiao on November 19, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Patrick Leahy, were you born such a dumbass, did you work to achieve such dambassedness, or did you have that dumbassedness thrust upon you?
JohnGalt23 on November 19, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Technically, Old Baldy is right, as his Dear Leader at the time, Bill Clinton, had his Justice Dept. indict bin Laden in 1998. And one of the charges was that he was working directly with Iraq.
Of course that part of the indictment will mysteriously disappear and bin Laden will never be accused of working with Iraq.
Del Dolemonte on November 19, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Good point. If we’re using the law enforcement model, can we at least put Obama on administrative leave, pending an investigation?
trubble on November 19, 2009 at 1:19 PM
8 years of Palin and 8 years of Liz Cheney.
Holger on November 19, 2009 at 1:20 PM
Leahy should be made co-VP along with Plugs. Between them, they have half a brain.
hawksruleva on November 19, 2009 at 1:22 PM
That right there is ten pounds of stupid in a five pound bag…
Roc on November 19, 2009 at 1:22 PM
I’ll never forgive Maggie Gyllenhaal for interrupting the Joker right as he was about to slice up Leaky Leahy.
Doughboy on November 19, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Amended.
mankai on November 19, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Marxism > stupid
faraway on November 19, 2009 at 1:26 PM
I see no reason to interrogate bin Laden if we catch him. We won’t, though, unless we invade Iran. Everyone is playing that he’s in Pakistan, which I have never believed. He’s somewhere in Iran.
Just shoot him on sight and be done with him. He’s no more than a figurehead, really. For those under him–get out the boards, the water, and the cattle prods.
Liam on November 19, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Democrats don’t much seem into interrogations at all: Obama Creates Information Hotline to Ease Nerves of Interrogation Service Customers http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/04/obama-creates-information-hotline-for.html
Mervis Winter on November 19, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Absolutely astounding.
surrounded on November 19, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Dumbass.
Terrye on November 19, 2009 at 1:33 PM
And along those same lines: Leahy recently supported the Attorney General’s ridiculous decision to bring the prisoners from Gitmo to the US for prosecution under US criminal law. In his statement of support, Leahy cited the fact that he had prosecuted “a lot of homicide cases”.
For the record, Leahy was the country prosecutor in Chittenden County Vermont and MAY have prosecuted one or two homicides over the years, but I doubt it was more than that. For him to suggest that it was “a lot” is simply NOT true. Did anyone fact check that statement? Of course not. He’s a liberal Democrat, so it’s all good.
Another career politician/attorney who has just one goal in mind. Prosecute George W. Bush and Richard Cheney. To that end, this move is perfect.
GoldenEagle4444 on November 19, 2009 at 1:35 PM
I am not sure I have all the comments in context but the Holder and Leahy seem to indicate that they have so much evidence against Bin Laden that they don’t have to Mirandize him and still can try him in civil court. I don’t think that is how it works…or are they are changing things so that if they think they have all the evidence they need, they can grab someone and try them in civil court without Mirandizing or interrogation of any sort…well, why have a trial? Just summary execution. And that’s anybody Holder, Leahy or their minions have “enough evidence” on.
Er, isn’t this what the Nazis did? Mao’s Cultural Revolution? The Star Chamber? These wannabe tyrants label themselves “progressive”?
“Chilling”, I would call this considered short-circuit of the justice system. Just who the hell do these people think they are?
Harry Schell on November 19, 2009 at 1:35 PM
That asshats like Leahy, Biden, Dodd, Boxer, Waters, Waxman, and Wexler (just to name a few) could gain and hold office make me wonder whether the whole idea of self-government is a viable one. The question is by no means settled.
Cicero43 on November 19, 2009 at 1:37 PM
The idea of giving bin laden a miranda warning is ludicrous.
Johan Klaus on November 19, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Our ‘moral superiors’.
Liam on November 19, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Die Obama Riech!
Johan Klaus on November 19, 2009 at 1:40 PM
You have to believe you’re in a war before you can fight one.
tgharris on November 19, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Riech.
Johan Klaus on November 19, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Reich.
Johan Klaus on November 19, 2009 at 1:41 PM
They shoot traitor don’t they?
Or is hanging the proper method?
jukin on November 19, 2009 at 1:43 PM
We are so FUBARed
Defector01 on November 19, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Leahy provides stong evidence that liberalism is a mental illness.
TrickyDick on November 19, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Dead men tell no tales…
juanito on November 19, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Douchenozzle
Flyboy on November 19, 2009 at 1:52 PM
It’s interesting that the idiotic Holder decision to try enemy combatants in a civilian court is getting LITTLE, if ANY coverage over at HUFFINGTONPOST. Wonder why?
bannedbyhuffpo on November 19, 2009 at 1:54 PM
Leahy isn’t intelligent enough to address the questions Senator Lindsey Graham posed to Eric Holder in yesterday’s hearing.
bannedbyhuffpo on November 19, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Because even they know in their limited capacity for thought it’s a bad idea. This decision by Holder can really mess up their stuff.
Plus, they’re torn between their ideology and their collective gut.
Liam on November 19, 2009 at 1:58 PM
It’s about time the people of Vermont retire that senile old fool.
GarandFan on November 19, 2009 at 1:58 PM
Could someone please explain what the guy with the clown makeup is doing to Leahy? This picture has been used before, and I want to be in on the joke, too.
Dirty Creature on November 19, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Setting aside the stupidity of Leahy’s statement, if I’m not mistaken, if you don’t Mirandize Bin Laden or other suspects, any information they provide you about other attacks cannot be used in civilian courts.
It’s analogous to the ‘fruit of the poisonouse tree’ standard where illegally obtained evidence cannot be used to prosecute another person.
Just another example – as if we need one – of the can of worms opened by using law enforcement tools against terrorists waging war.
What a mess. I blame Bush.
SteveMG on November 19, 2009 at 2:03 PM
This is beyond comtemptible.
Leahy is a total asshat. (Actually, it’s much worse than that but I am pretty certain that proper description would be deleted)
Are all Democrats genetically predisposed to being idiots?
drjohn on November 19, 2009 at 2:04 PM
bin Laden is a focal point, not a matter at hand.
Liam on November 19, 2009 at 2:06 PM
Just a thought: If Dems like Leahy think we don’t need to interrogate but should be paraded through for a show trial, what about those rightwing-conservative radicals that were once (but only temporarily) on the terrorist watch?
shick on November 19, 2009 at 2:09 PM
He’s both actually.
To me.
Anyway, as Andrew McCarthy points out, bin Laden’s already been indicted for previous acts – the embassy bombings – and because of that automatically has a right to counsel.
It just shows, once again, the absolute confusion for our people in handling such terrorists. Miranda rights, right to counsel, et cetera. It’s just a mess.
SteveMG on November 19, 2009 at 2:10 PM
Why are you sissies going soft and advocating a mere shooting for Osama?
I was thinking death by fingernail clippers.
misterpeasea on November 19, 2009 at 2:12 PM
Bin Laden and KSM should be thrown from a building
faraway on November 19, 2009 at 2:17 PM
True on all counts on your part. But ‘thought’ in our government is limited. We focus on him, but he’s not all what he claims to be. We, on the other hand, accept him on his terms with disregard to what is reasonable.
Catching bin Laden won’t change a thing. I imagine, at this point, bin Laden is disposable to the greater ’cause’ of Islam as set by others of his kind.
Liam on November 19, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Heath Legder as the Joker in Dark Knight, about to give that guy some gills.
peski on November 19, 2009 at 2:19 PM
WE die first by summary order. The Islamists get trials.
Liam on November 19, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Vermont… the home of rampant child molesting and Patrick Leahy… NOT SURE which one is worse… Both EVIL…
Khun Joe on November 19, 2009 at 2:27 PM
You are going in the right direction. There was a pro-lifer who murdered an abortionist and said that he was defending the defenseless. That pro-lifer was wrong but he had an unfair trial. He wasn’t allowed to speak in his own defense. And the trial, being highly controversial, normally would have been in the public eye but instead was ordered to be done quietly.
shick on November 19, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Can you update with the link on that quote. Leahy’s statement is so astonishing and damning that I just have to save a link to it.
John E. on November 19, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Do you have evidence to support that? I’d love seeing it to use against liberals who post here and elsewhere in my life.
I, too, see a lot of what’s going on. No way will libs acknowledge the evidence but I need to see it for my own edification.
Our government is wimping more and more every day.
Liam on November 19, 2009 at 2:35 PM
Dimly is the correct word in reference to leaky lahey, he and biden are in the same wattage of bulbs,about a 1/2 wit(watt).
tim c on November 19, 2009 at 2:36 PM
AAAAARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!! F’ng MORON.
keldog on November 19, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Sure you can – if you’re trying to get info from somebody besides the corpse. Don’t you remember that scene from The Untouchables?
connertown on November 19, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Regarding previous request, found link
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/68593-leahy-no-need-to-interrogate-bin-laden-if-hes-captured
John E. on November 19, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Wow! Breathtaking! Who’s dumber, Senator Leaky or the Vermont voters who empower him?
olesparkie on November 19, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Yes you can. In the end, the dead invariably vote Democrat.
Liam on November 19, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Leahy would barely qualify as a janitor. The fact that he’s a Senator tells the story to it’s conclusion as to why the government of this country is so screwed up and over-reaching to the point of obsurdity.
Griz on November 19, 2009 at 2:46 PM
FIFY, Citizen. I couldn’t resist…
Liam on November 19, 2009 at 2:48 PM
Shoot on sight. If he manages to survive, sure pump him for information before we hang ‘em. But no enhanced interrogation, thanks.
Trent1289 on November 19, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Another senile old coot.
Term limits!
rockbend on November 19, 2009 at 3:04 PM
This is silly. Given the Miranda context, he was clearly saying that we don’t need to interrogate ObL in order to gain evidence against him for his role in the 9/11 attacks.
orange on November 19, 2009 at 3:09 PM
No, you are.
Ozzie could put to rest once and for all whether or not he had help from other countries in orchestrating those attacks. If other countries are involved, wouldn’t you want to know about who they are?
Actually, you probably wouldn’t.
Del Dolemonte on November 19, 2009 at 3:42 PM
But we would to get other information. So….. see post #2.
jamie gumm on November 19, 2009 at 3:49 PM
I think Leahy confused a “Red Herring” for a “Reductio ad Absurdum”. Graham didn’t introduce distracting info, he tried to reveal the absurdity of Holder’s arbitrary reasoning by following it to its logical conclusion.
Apparently, he did a pretty good job of it, too.
BlueCollarAstronaut on November 19, 2009 at 3:50 PM
*Gills*?? Wow. Glad all over again I see so few movies these days… sheesh.
Dirty Creature on November 19, 2009 at 3:58 PM
Apparently this senior member of the JUDCIARY COMMITTEE doesn’t know that federal judges have been tossing convictions when felons in custody VOLUNTEERED information without having been warned of their right to shut up–or in situations where the judge presumed they didn’t really understand it.
No Miranda = Vacated Conviction. That’s Graham’s point.
Chris_Balsz on November 19, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »