Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Still think the terrorist trial in NYC is a good idea?

This is a video of Senator Lindsay Graham (also known as Senator Graham-nesty! LOL) raking Eric Holder over the coals during a Senatorial hearing for his decision to hold the KSM trial in NYC, and affording him a civilian trial.

As Graham ends his spiel "this [decision] is a perversion of justice."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG7lm8Sfbo4&feature=player_embedded

 
LoriKeet

Asked by LoriKeet at 7:55 AM on Nov. 19, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

Level 45 (194,908 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (25)
  • Of course he is, why else would the trail be set for 2012? I mean, we have only had him in custody for how long? You would think they would have a rock solid case and be able to go to trial much faster than this. Especially considering Holder's 'former' law firm is defending terrorists, I am sure they are on the ball. Nothing like fixing the game. I don't know what they plan to accomplish with this whole spectacle (besides swaying the ignorant voters).

    QuinnMae

    Answer by QuinnMae at 9:19 AM on Nov. 19, 2009

  • Of course not never have thought it was a good idea..Graham-nesty is right lol..I do not much care for Graham but he did well here..
    tnmomofive

    Answer by tnmomofive at 8:01 AM on Nov. 19, 2009

  • Not a good idea, but terrorist are all over our contry so it doesn't matter where they have the trial anything can happen anywhere.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 8:17 AM on Nov. 19, 2009

  • He couldn't even answer how he would handle Bin Laden. Holder is looking for political gain moreso then justice, imo.
    grlygrlz2

    Answer by grlygrlz2 at 8:35 AM on Nov. 19, 2009

  • There has been no outrage about any other terrorist being tried in civilian couts, even the "20th hijacker" was tried on civilian court. But I guess that was OK because the decision was made by a republican....


    also, Eric Holder described these men as terrorists, so all your bull pucky about them not using that work is null and void.

    sweet-a-kins

    Answer by sweet-a-kins at 9:20 AM on Nov. 19, 2009

  • also, Eric Holder described these men as terrorists, so all your bull pucky about them not using that work is null and void.


    WTF are you talking about?

    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 9:24 AM on Nov. 19, 2009

  • also, Eric Holder described these men as terrorists, so all your bull pucky about them not using that work is null and void. WTF are you talking about?


    Man made disaster....

    sweet-a-kins

    Answer by sweet-a-kins at 9:29 AM on Nov. 19, 2009

  • Nobody here even mentioned that. Why did you bring it up?
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 9:35 AM on Nov. 19, 2009

  • Quinn: You said it all. We have only had him in custody for how long? The real question for me is why hasn't he be dealt with before now? This is not Bush bashing (I voted for him), but it's a legitimate question which we should have been asking several years ago,
    Phase3

    Answer by Phase3 at 9:37 AM on Nov. 19, 2009

  • phase 3...Look up how many terrorists from Gitmo actually had a trial and how many were just released with no trial.....
    Three cases had been commenced in the new system, as of June 13, 2007. One detainee, David Matthew Hicks plea bargained and was sent to Australia to serve a nine-month sentence.[5] Two case were dismissed without prejudice because the tribunal believed that the men charged had not been properly determined to be persons within the commission's jurisdiction on June 4, 2007, and the military prosecutors asked the commission to reconsider that decision on June 8, 2007. [6] One of the dismissed cases involved Omar Ahmed Khadr, who was captured at age 15 in Afghanistan after having allegedly killed a U.S. soldier with a grenade.
    sweet-a-kins

    Answer by sweet-a-kins at 9:41 AM on Nov. 19, 2009