Speaking tonight to liberal lawyers, Attorney General Eric Holder stoutly defended the administration's counter terrorism policies, including its intended use of military tribunals, as well as its decision to push for federal trials for the 9/11 suspects. In remarks seemingly designed to respond to critics from his right and left, Holder declared, flatly, that because "we are a nation at war [and] in this war, we face an intelligent, nimble and determined enemy," the government had to use weapons that transcend any "rigid ideology or narrow methodology." Holder delivered the keynote address at the Constitution Project's annual awards dinner in Washington. The Project's leaders have been critical of the administration's assertion of the state secrets doctrine and its willingness to send Gitmo detainees to military tribunals. (They've also praised Holder and the Justice Department for numerous new initiatives.)
Within the framework of the "rule of law," he said, "I know that some of those weapons may be unpopular. But when it comes to protecting the American people, the charge that we are "coddling terrorists" is no more accurate than the equally vehement cry that we have "rubber stamped the Bush Administration's counterterrorism policies. In fact, we would be derelict in our most basic duties if we did not rely on the full scope of our law enforcement, intelligence, military and diplomatic capabilities to keep the American people safe."Within the framework of the "rule of law," he said, "I know that some of those weapons may be unpopular. But when it comes to protecting the American people, the charge that we are "coddling terrorists" is no more accurate than the equally vehement cry that we have "rubber stamped the Bush Administration's counterterrorism policies. In fact, we would be derelict in our most basic duties if we did not rely on the full scope of our law enforcement, intelligence, military and diplomatic capabilities to keep the American people safe."
\
On military tribunals versus federal trials: "This Administration rejects the false choice critics would have us make, because if we were to exclusively follow only one path while blocking the use of the other, we would undoubtedly fail in our fundamental duty to bring every terrorist to justice. That is simply not an outcome we can accept."