By now you might have heard Lindsey Graham go to work on Eric Holder by hypothesizing whether Bin Laden would require Miranda rights were he to be captured and, presumably, tried in U.S. Federal Court. If you haven't the video is below. 

But before that, Graham asks what, to me, is an even better question: (The part to which I'm referring is in the first minute.) 

"You're not suggesting if by some one in a million fluke one of these defendants were acquitted or given a short sentence that they would be released anywhere?"

Wait....what?

If that's true, then why the F&@$ are we trying this monster at all? We're literally going out of our way to bring the mastermind of 9/11 back to Ground Zero and voluntarily afford him a trial and all of the terrorist world a public relations bonanza...a trial that, should it end less than favorably won't make a goddamn difference because we'll hold him anyway?

Is this for real? Listen to Holder's, um, qualified response to the question too. It sure as hell doesn't sound unequivocal to me. 

I can't fathom this. We're going to try the 9/11 mastermind in Federal Court under the blinding glare of American media and the veritable 87-ring circus that will inevitably follow, give KSM access to the Government's prosecution materials through discovery, broadcast the trial worldwide so that every present and future terrorist can watch and then if, in a not-so-unbelievable scenario, he gets off we're just going to send him back to GITMO or wherever the hell they are at that point?

Does this make sense to anyone on the planet outside the warped brain of Barack Obama? Am I missing something?

Dude.

Russ

Update on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 at 7:36PM by Russ

Ok, I'm going batshit crazy over here.

Go to 4:45-4:52 in the video.

Does the Attorney General of the United States of America, in response to a question from Graham regarding whether enemies captured on the battlefield will be read the Miranda warming, say "their Miranda warning"?

"Their Miranda warning"?

The terrorists...on the battlefield...firing grenades at our soldiers....their Miranda warning?

Ladies and Gentlemen, the progressive sickness is more deeply ingrained in the hearts and minds of this administration than I could have ever possibly imagined. 

This wasn't a slip of the tongue. Eric Holder believes that terrorists captured on the battlefield are entitled to their Miranda warning.

We're in serious trouble.

Update on Thursday, November 19, 2009 at 12:22PM by Russ

UPDATE:

I still haven't gotten an answer to my question, but at least Chuck Grassley asked the question:

"It's my understanding that if [Mohammed] is not convicted, and somehow the judge lets him off on a technicality or something, then he becomes an enemy combatant, and then you are right back where you started," said Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican. "So what do you gain?

What, damn you, what do we gain?

Of course now I'm pissed at both Grassley and Graham for not getting an answer from Holder.

What is the goddamn point of trying this barbarian at all if he'll end up in the same position he's in now?

Russ

Update on Thursday, November 19, 2009 at 1:01PM by Russ

HotAir, finally, gets on board.