NPR's Temple-Raston Carries Water For Holder on Terror Suspect Trials
NPR's Dina Temple-Raston touted Attorney General Eric Holder's reluctance to give detainees at Guantanamo Bay military trials during a segment on Monday's All Things Considered. Temple-Raston and host Michele Norris only featured sound bites from the Justice Department head, omitting clips from supporters of the military tribunals.
Norris began by noting the Obama administration's "major reversal" in their decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other 9/11 suspects in military court. After playing a clip from Attorney General Holder's recent press conference, where he announced the move, the host turned to the correspondent and recounted how " in late 2009...Holder announced that these five conspirators will be tried in New York City in a civilian trial. So today's decision officially reverses that."
Temple-Raston, who conducted a sting operation against U.S. border agents earlier in 2011 by wearing a headscarf and posing as Muslim woman, mainly acted as stenographer for the attorney general, though she did acknowledge the mismanagement of the rollout for the civilian trials plan:
TEMPLE-RASTON: Yes, this was a decision the attorney general didn't want to make. I mean, when you talk to Justice Department officials privately, they tell you they thought the civilian trials for the 9/11 suspects were not only possible, but actually preferable. And then, back in November 2009, when Holder announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the others would be tried in New York, the announcement was just badly handled, and the Justice Department didn't get local officials in New York on board first. So, just days after the decision, there was a ton of local opposition. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars just for trial security, and, frankly, that was the beginning of the end for trying the 9/11 suspects in a federal court.
The NPR correspondent continued toeing Holder's line when Norris asked about the vigorous reaction to the proposal to have civilian trials in New York City:
NORRIS: This reaction in New York that ultimately forced the attorney general to switch venues, how strong was that?
TEMPLE-RASTON: Well, it was strong, but that was only part of it. He blamed Congress for tying his- Attorney General Holder blamed Congress for tying his hands. Basically, what happened is Congress imposed all these restrictions that made it basically impossible to bring any detainees to the U.S. for trial, and they blocked funding from moving the prisoners to the U.S. They wouldn't allow the Justice Department to spend money on prisons that might house detainees in the U.S., and it seemed like Attorney General Holder was really angry about that. We have tape of what he said.
HOLDER: Decisions about who, where, and how to prosecute have always been and must remain the responsibility of the executive branch. Members of Congress simply do not have access to the evidence and other information necessary to make prosecution judgments.
TEMPLE-RASTON: You know, and then the attorney general said the administration would continue to try to repeal those restrictions and bring other detainees here for civilian trial in the future. But the way the Justice Department sees it, Congress essentially told them who they can or can't prosecute, and that's what's upset the attorney general.
NORRIS: And you could hear that in his voice. Dina, help us understand something: what will a military trial actually mean for these men who are linked to the 9/11 attacks?
TEMPLE-RASTON: Well, the feeling had been that since Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the self-proclaimed mastermind of the attacks, that it would be fairly straightforward. But Holder mentioned in the press conference that it might not be so simple. He said it's an open question whether a military tribunal would give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or the other four men the death penalty if they plead guilty. That's because, you know, the statute for the military commissions hasn't been tested. What we do know, if someone is convicted, they might get the death penalty, but we don't know if they just plead guilty whether they would. That's still untested.
Temple-Raston actually co-wrote a book with ACLU executive director Anthony Romero in 2007 which hyped the "dangerous erosion of the Bill of Right in the age of terror." An article in Monday's New York Times noted that Romero condemned the Obama administration's decision on Guantanamo detainees: "The attorney general's flip-flop is devastating for the rule of law." The NPR reporter must now find herself in interesting position, given how her one-time collaborator is publicly berating the man she carried water for on the air.
- Matthew Balan's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
And yet,
Submitted by ThisnThat on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 7:16pm.
and yet...... NPR will maintain that people listen to them, because they are the only news outlet that employs actual intellectuals -- for intellectuals -- in the entire country. When you want news. When you need news. When only the truth matters -- tune into NPR for the ultimate in information satisfaction.
Yeah, right.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
Congress simply does not have access to the evidence???
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 8:20pm.
Hey Holder, about 20 million youtube viewers had access to the New Black Panthers clip which was a slam dunk, and WTF did you do with that?
Oh yeah, you just summarily dismissed the case you'd already won, right?
This racist worm makes Bobby Kennedy look like a saint by comparison.
double
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 8:21pm.
double
Hypocrites!
Submitted by andrew - des moines on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 9:47pm.
This is golden. I read the reference to the border agent sting then went to Gatewaypundit to do some reading. That site has a story on an interview where recently fired Vivian Schiller condemns the sting tactics that got her canned. In particular, Schiller is offended that such tactics are associated with the word 'journalism'. I hope Fox or Newsbusters (hint, hint) puts a spotlight on this.
andrew
Submitted by Ashrak on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 10:37pm.
Here ya go
Me, I am looking forward to the eventual heat lamp of another "sting" at the border.......called GunWalker. ;)
In Holders' concession speech,
Submitted by Ashrak on Tue, 04/05/2011 - 10:33pm.
he admitted to hiding information from Congressional oversight. He stated clearly that he had information that the Congress did not have. He said that he knew things Congress did not. I am surprised that point has not been picked up on yet by anyone besides us here on the internet.
Holder talked about not being able to delay the trials any longer. Yeah, it is HOLDER and SOETORO and DEMOCRATS who have stopped trials from happening all along!
The base argument that Democrats just lost here, just admitted to LOSING, is this. Terrorism is not a crime, it is an act of war. It does not warrant a policing response, it demands a military response. All of the hammering against Bush for his responses are admitted as not only foolhardy but also factually incorrect. The flip flop isn't devastating to the rule of law, just to the make-it-up-as-you-go-along style of it progressive liberals like to play games with.
Hey HOLDER, Congress creates the courts and the laws so it stands to reason, with even a quick reading of the Constitution, that indeed the Congress will decide who is prosecutable and who is not and additionally where and how it will be done as well. It is your job to DO it as TOLD to you by those tasked with creating the path for you to FOLLOW. See that yet?
Who Will Be Holder's Staunchest Defenders?
Submitted by Boil It Down on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 5:51am.
I've had entirely too many occasions to write about our lawless or 'law du jour' DOJ in the past couple of years. Now that a few folks are publicly calling for Holder to resign, it will be very interesting and telling who steps up to defend him. These will be the people who support a government that does not operate by the rule of law or the Constitution. After the fray, it would be nice to have those people included in an article about their lack of integrity.