this is not going to render justice. the president s going to find himself running for re-election and not having rendered justice for the victims of 9/11. there are going to be motions in litigation asking for the constitutionality of it. allow coerced evidence. it s a recipe for disaster. i m sorry, but i ve been saving this question. i have great respect for you an an advocate for civil liberties. but if you were in court for ksm, wouldn t you say this guy was tortured to get the truth out of him, how can you claim he s getting a fair trial. it seems 1 of 12 jurors in new york could say, i can t convict a guy on principle, if he s been tortured 183 times on the way to trial. and you re going to get it seems to me a hung jury. i don t know. i would have to think our attorney general, eric holder, from new york, a prosecutor, who spent nine months on his own reviewing these cases and files who have seen all the evidence, when he stated in november that he was confident he would be
and they were not in the united states. the court ruled against you on that. the court didn t rule against us. i m talk about the 1950 case specifically dealing with the status of people of what legal rights they have for being offshore. you might want to read the boumadean case. it is imperative we do not bring down our defenses, bring these people on the united states soils and give them constitution protections because they are aliens, foreigners and they let me go to the theatrical, apart from the law. maybe it s important to the law, i m not sure it is. why would you take people, ksm or anyone else, khalid shaikh mohammed, the reputed mastermind, and i accept he s probably going to plead guilty in all but a formal sense. he knows he did it. planned the attack on the world trade center and the pentagon back in 2001. why would you take him to new york city, where the biggest media world, the pinball world of media, why would you give him that theater to express his jihad
bad. if they re committed against innocent americans. that s right. that s called a criminal act of terrorism. that s an act of war. we pick up a taliban guy who s shooting at us over in his own country because he believes he should be running his own country. that person isn t a criminal. they re just on the other side from us, right? what do we do with them? depends what they re doing. if it s a terrorist shooting an american soldier he s shooting at a military base because he doesn t think we should be there. it s an act of war. i would say one last thing what do we do with him? in the same pen as ksm? yes we should. either in a military tribunal military commission or military base. we dealt with it in 1950 when the united states supreme court specifically said that aliens illegal people who are not in this country lawfully do not have to be tried in our court system. let s get to the other question, you were both raising it. you raised it, ron.
himself running for re-election and not having rendered justice for the victims of 9/11. there are going to be motions in litigation asking for the constitutionality of it. allow coerced evidence. it s a recipe for disaster. i m sorry, but i ve been saving this question. i have great respect for you an an advocate for civil liberties. but if you were in court for ksm, wouldn t you say this guy was tortured to get the truth out of him, how can you claim he s getting a fair trial. it seems 1 of 12 injure horse in new york could say, i can t convict a guy on principle, if he s been tortured 183 times on the way to trial. and you re going to get it seems to me a hung jury. i don t know. i would have to think our attorney general, eric holder, from new york a prosecutor who spent nine months on his own reviewing these cases and files who have seen all the evidence,
status of people of what legal rights they have for being offshore. you might want to read the boumadean case. it is imperative we do not bring down our defenses bring these people on the united states soils and give them constitution protections because they are aliens, foreigners and they let me go to the theatrical, apart from the law. maybe it s important to the law, i m not sure it is. why would you take people, ksm or anyone else khalid shaikh mohammed, the reputed mastermind, and i accept he s probably going to plead guilty in all but a formal sense. he knows he did it. planned the attack on the world trade center and the pentagon back in 2001. why would you take him to new york city, where the biggest media world the pinball world of media why would you give him that theater to express his jihadist views, anthony? why wouldn t you try him in some small place i don t know some