Yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder said that terror suspects — even US citizens — should not be afforded protections under the US Constitution:
In his most forceful defense yet of the Obama administration’s use of lethal force against U.S. citizens linked to terrorism, Attorney General Eric Holder said Monday that the Constitution does not protect U.S. suspects plotting to kill other Americans.
Holder said in a speech at the Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago that the government is within its rights to kill citizens who are senior leaders in al-Qaeda or affiliate groups who pose an “imminent threat” of attack against the USA and whose capture is “not feasible.”
Is this the same guy who has spent the last three years telling us that terror suspects should be tried in US civil courts?
Eric Holder, June 2011:
In a speech before a Washington gathering of liberal lawyers Thursday night, Mr. Holder spoke out in defense of civilian courts to try terrorism suspects. He said the U.S. won’t achieve security and victory over terrorism “if we adhere to a rigid ideology, adopt a narrow methodology, or abandon our most effective terror-fighting weapon — our Article Three court system.”
Holder does realize that Article Three is from the US Constitution, doesn’t he? Or does he just want to give terror suspects trials in US civil courts but not allow the defendants Constitutional protections? And if so, what would be the point in that?
We’re not in the best of hands.
Update: More Holder news: Former Taliban defender appointed to third highest position at the Justice Department