Quite honestly, this may qualify as one of the dumbest things a Senator has ever said:
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.
I am truly without words.
November 19th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
From FBI most wanted site. Notice anything missing?
CAUTION
Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.
November 21st, 2009 at 12:15 pm
I am a little confused about your reaction. Maybe I don’t understand the original story.
Is the Senator claiming that we don’t need to interrogate Osama, becuse we don’t need *his* statements to convict him? I believe that’s probably true. Surely we would have enough evidence to convict him of the crimes he would be charged with. If we had to rely on self-incrimination after capture, then we are screwed. So if the members of the Republic party think that we need his confession in custody, they are the idiots here, not this Senator.
But maybe I misunderstand.
Oh, and of course we would interrogate Osama for *future* or *planned* terrorist acts, but those are independent from his prosecution of past acts….I just don’t think that’s what the Senator is talking about here (interrogation for planned acts).