need any statement he makes to allow us to convict him. i don t think there is any question. you have him on video and admitting he is the bomber to the guy he ends up carjacking. you have people who saw him put the backpack down. if he is an enemy combatant and tried in a mill tare arery tribunal isn t it true that those convictions are questionable in terms of not having gone to the united states supreme court? welsh the united states supreme court, first of all, has said and i got a lot of respect for peter but i disagree with the point. the supreme court said that u.s. you citizens when they become belligerent and they can become enemy combatants and subject to military tribunals number one. number two, i think it is the wrong lens. we can prosecute this guy if he survives and put him in jail forever. great. except that doesn t answer the question. by the way, it is not just the department of justice through the fbi that can mir randize
unconstitutional and i don t believe we he have a true basis to do this. i say interrogate the heck out of this guy i disagree. as long as it takes but let s have a trial. jay is absolutely, correct. he can be he designated an enemy combatant and get as much entell against as we can from him. it is up to the president. the president is not going to do it. let s deal with the cards we have. that doesn t mean he should don t it. he should do it. judge jeanine: based upon the way the u.s. attorney has spoken we are going in under the public safety exception and charge him and once they charge him and the federal defender is jumping up and down trying to get permission to represent him it is clear that both are going to happen. we need to say to the world that our criminal justice system will take you down if you take americans down. i m proud of our system. he did take americans down and we don t know he if they are going to take him down. we have to get the intelligen
two off duty officers showed up within a men or two and we were in a serious gunfight in a backstreet in watertown and 2 or 300 rounds went off and three bombs went off in a ten minute period. reporter: as the battle raged 3-year-old transit officer richard donahue was gravely wounded. tell me about that battle and the arm ament that they had? handguns and long arm and they threw five bombs. three went off, two didn t. one of the bombs my understanding is, is a similar if not exactly like the bomb that went off at the boston marathon. this guy lit something and it was much bigger. co-only make it to right there where you see there is right in front of that silver car there that is where that landed and that much so many bigger than the other ones. knocked some pictures off the wall. that was the point we were like
need any statement he makes to allow us to convict him. i don t think there is any question. you have him on video and admitting he is the bomber to the guy he ends up carjacking. you have people who saw him put the backpack down. if he is an enemy combatant and tried in a mill tare arery tribunal isn t it true that those convictions are questionable in terms of not having gone to the united states supreme court? welsh the united states supreme court, first of all, has said and i got a lot of respect for peter but i disagree with the point. the supreme court said that u.s. you citizens when they become belligerent and they can become enemy combatants and subject to military tribunals number one. number two, i think it is the wrong lens. we can prosecute this guy if he survives and put him in jail forever. great. except that doesn t answer the question. by the way, it is not just the department of justice through the fbi that can mir randize
him. you are allowing the taliban and al-qaeda and the people that hate you and me and what we stand for and the people that we love in this country, there has to be and i think and i respect you and i love what you say all the time. there has to be some respect for the constitution and i know you fight every day for the constitution. peter judge jeanine: the issue is that the federal court convictions are many in the years since 9/11 and in the military tribunal very few and they have been subject to a lot of reversals. so michael is sullivan let me go to you. which way do we go. in do we want to be assured of a conviction that is longstanding or is it better to send a message and keep this guy under questioning for the next three and a half years like jose padilla? it doesn t have to be one versus the other. i would suggest that essentially you exhaust his enemy combatant status to get as much intelligence as you