November 19, 2009
Sen. Leahy: 'No need to interrogate bin Laden'
Ladies and gentleman, I give you the primary reason why liberal Democrats are too immature, too childish - well, let's say it - too darn stupid to run the government.
Quoted from a Michael O'Brien piece in The Hill, here's Senator Patrick Leahy on capturing Osama bin Laden:
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.
The statement by Graham that Leahy thinks is a "red herring" bears repeating:
"The big problem I have is you're criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we have mixed theories and couldn't turn him over to the CIA, the FBI, military intelligence for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now you're saying he's subject to criminal court in the United States and you're confusing the people fighting this war," Graham said.
Leahy seems perfectly willing to let bin Laden "lawyer up" and keep his mouth shut while an al-Qaeda operation may be imminent. And this from a former Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
Of course the CIA would want to interrogate him. And the cockamamie idea that he should be read his Miranda rights immediately upon his "arrest" sounds like something that would show up in a Saturday Night Live skit - if they ever did anything to make fun of a liberal. John Stewart couldn't invent anything so riotously ironic - if he ever bothered to turn his wit against his ideological soul mates.
And yet, here we have the chairman of the Judiciary Committee saying in complete innocent ignorance that there would be nothing we'd want to hear from Osama because we apparently have enough evidence to convict him.
War? What war? Where?
FOLLOW US ON
Recent Articles
- The Left Achieves Peak Political Insanity
- Saving the Jewish People
- A Third Possible Trump Term?
- Taming the Ravenous Dragon
- Rethinking Reparations For The Living Who Deserve Them
- Smart Cities: Are They Worth It?
- Corey Booker: The Attention Seeker
- Rust Belt Revival
- Birth Rates and the Future of Civilization
- Forebears of Trump’s Reciprocal Tariffs
Blog Posts
- Why Passover matters in 2025
- Lingering question: Did Ukaine have some role in an attempt to kill Trump?
- For now, California has decided not to make oil companies liable for natural disasters
- Tim Pool crowns himself the king of stupid with his backward take on Karmelo Anthony
- Florida teacher sacked after she breaks the law and uses a student’s ‘preferred name’ without parental consent
- Decoding President Trump’s praise for Democrat Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer
- Trump targets sanctuary cities: Who will be the first fool?
- If not revealed, then it never happened
- What will tariffs cost the average American family?
- Can our society regain cohesion and dignity before it's too late?
- No, a 50-percent tariff doesn’t mean a 50-percent price hike
- For Trump and Netanyahu, Iran is the issue
- Mike Huckabee: A game-changer for Israel
- Can schools force-jab children with COVID-19 shots?
- Our Lady of Perpetual Denial