Lawmakers blast civilian court treatment for UBL son-in-law
Sulaiman Abu Ghaith appears in NYC courtroom on terror charges
- Duration 7:30
- Date Mar 8, 2013
Sulaiman Abu Ghaith appears in NYC courtroom on terror charges
Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Fox News alert Osama bin Laden's son and a -- pleads not guilty in -- -- city courtroom this happened just moments ago he is just steps away.
From ground zero Solomon -- -- gate is his name the charges against him are conspiracy to kill Americans.
Now top Republican senators have expressed outrage about the fact that this trial is taking place in downtown Manhattan.
That is not being held at Guantanamo Bay here is senator Lindsey Graham on this.
This guy -- rob a liquor store.
He's a spokesman.
Close to as you can say the people who killed over 2900 Americans.
And now we got our hands on.
Why in the world are we treating him as if he's some common criminal.
And why in the world -- -- -- it.
Being held by us under our terms and conditions as -- -- -- when he takes to get good intelligence and if they tell me we've got all we need to know.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- All right that from Lindsey Graham joined now by Charles Sculley stimson is served as deputy assistant secretary.
A defense for detainee is so he knows a lot about this subject he is now at The Heritage Foundation Kali welcome back good to -- you.
You look at this scene downtown -- snow's falling this man is inside this courtroom and a lot of people were taken very off guard by this development he's been in this country since March 1 were told now.
Right and he was picked up actually by the Turks and held for 33 days.
No doubt that was unpleasant matter for him and that there -- open question is whether or not.
High value interrogation group had access to them during those 33 days that would be an important factor now and then when he crossed over into Jordan.
Whether there -- Georgia eight Jordanians interrogated him allowed our folks to interrogate him as well so I think -- a lot of open questions have here so far they're better.
Whether it will we ever now whether or not they they were able to ask him questions before he got back to this country.
And is it likely is it likely given the history of the administration this issue.
Somebody knows in the administration.
Whether the public will know I don't know if they tell congress congress leak and then the public will now.
I think the more -- -- question here Martha though is you know it.
This administration has shown a penchant.
To kill terrorists.
Through drone strikes rather than detained in lawfully interrogate them and no doubt.
During the opportunities they've had we've -- intelligence because of the failure to capture and lawfully.
Detain and interrogate them and and and in on.
Glad those guys captured.
Yeah that's an excellent point in the big picture of how these things have been handled and whether or not.
There was an attempt to take him out with a drowned once his identity was established and we knew where he was he what about the -- Ronnie and element to all of this.
Too early to tell.
What the Iran -- element it is and for those like senator Graham and others who haven't been federal prosecutors like me and others.
I would point out the following legal matter and that is sure we want him to be brought to justice after lawful interrogation we don't know how long he's been interrogated if at all.
But if you want to bring him to justice.
I'd highly doubt that he's eligible.
First off he can't be brought to trial military commissions for material support because the appellate court said that's not a traditional war crime.
And he probably can't be brought to commissions for the conspiracy charge.
Under which he's been charged with here in this indictment that I'm holding -- -- here because conspiracy is not a traditional war crime so if you want to bring to justice.
Not just opinion -- probably have to go to federal court like it or not so you believe.
That luckily he's in the right place and because that the process has played out and because of the kind of he's accused of this is where he should -- I think that he needed to be exploited for intelligence purposes first and foremost and that should have been our top priority.
And we could have held him for as long as we needed to to exploit the intelligence.
If the administration is of the opinion that they've done that -- -- them out and got all the information they need.
Then you want to bring to justice and federal court is probably appropriate venue.
Tell you that that just just class in the last moments and -- say that they expect that this this patent case we'll take about three weeks what does that tell you.
Well what it tells me when I read this indictment by the way this is the thirteenth.
Superseding indictments of 1112 previous indictments that have been sealed against this guy.
That they're not a lot of there there in terms of the substance -- substance in the case -- if you read the indictment which is available on line.
Really only three things he's done.
He met with Osama bin Laden on that September 11 in the evening and said he'll help them he told him he would.
Act as a spokesman in that he encouraged others to take up arms against Americans and others.
And he's been a spokesman that trial doesn't sound like it's gonna take very long.
Yeah it we're just also learning according to the US prosecutor John -- and on this case said this in federal court this morning.
-- gave that made at quote extensive post arrest statement that totaled 22 pages.
And then he gave no details about what was said in that statement but -- and you know a bad that will be come public I would assume right.
Could be part of the trial if they choose to use it in the government's case in chief.
They could strategically set up the case so that they forced him to take -- stand by not introducing that haven't try to explain away his statements and then cross examine him with it too early to tell.
I suspect more likely than not we'll know about what's in the statement or most of what's in the statements -- -- later.
I mean that the criticism of this by -- is that potential.
That he could go for -- And then then he can walk out of that courtroom advocate find him not guilty of these charges.
And that you know because of the -- to the court in the jury system that that's a possibility -- what what's your what's your feeling on how how people should look at that.
Well if he was tried military commissions -- tried in federal court he's presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt -- standard he could be acquitted in either.
If he's acquitted in either.
The administration could take the next move and decide to declare him to be an enemy combatant detained without charge is the standard of proof is much lower.
For the period of hostilities -- the irony is.
If they take -- -- -- which some people don't want him to be there.
And they indicted in triumph he's acquitted.
That could still decide later on down the road to hold and isn't about you in the United States or even take them to get a -- initially -- them as enemy combatant could they not.
Maybe they did.
They might have Martha that's the thing and it.
They certainly didn't hold and as of criminal defendant right off the bat because he probably -- -- it up because they they would at Brandeis and so there was a period.
At some point.
Where he was not a criminal defendant we don't know where that is yet and we don't know whether that statement he gave.
Was given -- Miranda then he was marine and guys -- -- -- -- extensive post arrest statement which would lead me to believe -- that was you know.
With this team in front of this right.
But my point is that we don't know whether or not he was interrogated prior to.
-- at that statement and then I just a question sort of back and got that statement from.
What happened in Turkey or Jordan before he got is an open question Colin thank you very much I think Martha.