welcome to the Mccarthy Report Podcast, where I rich Lara, discuss with animal Mccarthy, the latest legal and national security issues this week. What else the latest done access the binding vaccine mandate and the twins anniversary of September 11th, you were eleven fewer listening, of course to podcast. If it listens, podcasting I you that calmer glad have you better be easier for you and better, firstly, made as part of your feet this truly sources out there from Spotify to Itunes, and please give this part Gaston, Annie Mccarthy, the glowing into gushing five star views they deserve. Itunes and now without further Ado, I welcome to this very podcast through the miracle of zoom, none other than an hour. You rich, good, any hurry, you I'm ok, I'm always

this time, a year whenever we get to nine eleven, I always with each passing year. I or even older than I am since I got involved in all the stuff like eight years before nine eleven happened, but then Last night I throw on the tv and there's like forty five year Old Tom Brady throne for touched our best. So here's to all people were saying Let's, let's hit the current high level controversies net then we'll go go to September, eleventh, birth, verse, permutations of that's attacks We had a deal J lawsuit as promised against Texas over this abortion law. Harpy abortion bill says, is any any chance. What's the theory, what the

given here rich. This is even worse than be case that the Supreme Court throughout last week and the Justice Department knows this. I think it's really I expected at as I think we all did, that merit garlon would try to enforce. Joe Biden policy priorities that would all attorney general's do and is that's not politicization of the Justice Department that there's natural politics involved in making choices about what you were in force the priorities are and if the bided administration wants to put more emphasis on say civil rights enforcement then order enforcement, You and I may intensely disagree with that set of priorities, but that would elections or about and as long as the Justice Department does, that lawfully. That's not politicizing the law, but with what is politicizing the lot.

is he's taking actions, but you know are not legal and men are obviously not label and merit garland, who was for a very long time I'm a judge on. One of the most distinguished federal appellate courts in the United States knows full well that the Justice Department doesn't have standing to file this lawsuit, but they filed. So this is putting the Justice Department in the service of having Joe Biden able to say he's on the right side of doing something about abortion, but as a legal matter, the Justice Department has even less standing, then the abortionists who couldn't file the suit, but the Supreme Court throughout nine days ago, because at least the abortion providers have a potential of having a concrete injury

if they perform the procedure. Whereas the Justice Department is taking the position that the existence of the law chills abortion providers, which derivatively chills women from exercising their role, verses Wade, Manufacture

the right to have abortions and as Garland well knows, the Supreme Court has said about a million times. You can't get standing on the basis of supposition or speculation about a non concrete situation where you might have an injuring. That's not a basis to have standing, and the other thing I would say about it. Just quickly is no institution in the country has more interest in their being stronger standing standards. Then the Justice Department, because what would standing does is it make sure that the great public questions of the day yet resolved in the democratic process, by elections and by by elect

representatives who answer to the public and if you dont have standing requirements. What happens? Is self avowed or self proclaimed special interest groups marching to court and file lawsuits against any federal law, several policy that they don't like, regardless of whether they ve been injured by it? Just because they happened to, interested in it and if you will allow that to happen, what you had this government by courts which are politically unaccountable and which don't have the same resources to study issues like Congress does Congress can take a controversy or take an issue of great public importance and they can look at it from me getting to air, whereas courts can only rule on controversies that come before them, which may not be representative of how

Particular issue is important to the society at large, so for them because their their prison for looking at things is is can be skewed and because they don't answer to the borders, we want court. decide as little as possible, and no one has more interested in that than the Justice Department does so to see them go into court and try to eviscerate visceral just standing rules. Just some Biden can look to the progressive like he's been strong on abortion is really, I think, the kind of thing that would disappoint you about marriage girl and I'm not saying that we had heist high hopes, the Garlon policy why's that this is the kind of crap. I didn't think you'd do so where'd you go next. Is it who come here?

It goes to the federal District judge who they filed it in front of me. They got a very favourable draw for their side. They have a particular what a surprise they managed to get in front of a particular judge who has been very favourable toward the pro abortion side. Historically, so they'll have proceedings in front of that judgment. And well we'll see what happens. If the judge rules on it, then it would go the circuit one way or the other and then to the Supreme Court and obviously an enormous amount of attention to this fact. I see a mandate that Biden announced yesterday and Legal literary about whether he has this thorny or not, for a second The people who are saying well, maybe does have its authority point to just how sweeping

rational grants authority were to OSHA, which I guess might be the most powerful it and see? How and the federal government from from with my my this reading here, but it is is there any case for the sandy being being constitutional and provide heavy? Sorry do this work, which we are very close here? I think tat same discussion. We had in connection with the with the eviction moratorium in that you have to. When you ask, is this constitutional? You have to sort. Divide. The original s position on the commerce clause, with the hash that the Supreme Court has made the commerce clause. So if I was asked like straws straight up as an original list, is this constitutional? I say it's not because there is no general federal

health care power in the constitution. The constitution in in article one, says that Congress, among other things, is supposed to provide for the general welfare, but that's not an open, ended licence to regulate anything under the guise of welfare. gotta be done through the enumerated powers of Congress in its limited by that that's at least the way it supposed to. And the power that were we're talking about here, and it is undoubted we. The power that OSHA relies on is the commerce clause. Now vaccines are not even commerce, let alone interstate commerce and even in connection with health care, which the federal government obviously extensively regulates. It doesn't regulate it really directly. The way the federal government gets to health care.

Is by going to the health insurance market, which is obviously in a two state market and that's how they derivatively reach actual what they're really interested in, which is allocating medical treatments right so here without should we have the same sort of thing? We basically have law from the Nineteenth Seventys, which builds on precedents from the new deal, which essentially say that the commerce clause isn't even like a bump in the road for Congress to have to get over in order to regulate stuff, and you have Supreme Court precedents that that say even though I don't see how this can possibly be squared with the right there General understanding, the commerce clause that something does it need to be commerce, to be regulated and the activity can be completely intra state. In order to be regulated

as long as it's something that, in its totality, could have a potential effect on the interstate market, and there are some cases which go to the extreme of saying. Basically, it's really up to Congress Congress intended for an activity to be regulated. Then it can regulated, so it almost completely eviscerate the commerce clothes I shouldn't even say almost because literally it does so what you get down to his. What we got down to me eviction moratorium case in what we get down to and most of all, these cases, which is

Did Congress delegate this authority to whatever federal regulating agency is involved, and did it speak clearly in doing so and what the Supreme Court the way the Supreme Court tries to rein in these agencies now is not to deal with the commerce clauses. That's like a lost cause as far as their concern. What they look at is what is the legal authority that the agent he says it is relying on, and when you look at that legal Authority has Congress given a clear on. ambiguous. You is authority to the agency to do what it wishes to do now. I think oceans, gonna have a very long time. On that. For the reasons that we lay out in our editorial about this, and in fact, as we point out, they are safe

surely concerned about this that they don't wanna, have a public comment period like you're supposed to have in the administrative procedure they want to go this emergency testing standards thing, and just just do this without anyone view and the last time they try to do that was nineteen, eighty three and it got thrown out by the courts. So I think this is very problematic, but it shouldn't it would probably won't be for the rich

it should be, which is, I don't see, any authority in commerce clause, as originally understood for the federal government to do that, not just the president, an ocean. I don't think this is a federal government power, but what will probably end up tripping them up is that there is not a clear statement by Congress that enables them to do this in the occupational safety, and so there is likely to be a ruling on the basis of violation of aid in the field of procedures act because that they have gone through the various comments periods. You. What do you think I like it? I think it'll be two things which I think number one. It will be that it will be that they tried to jump to this emergency procedure, which is dubious to begin with, without going through the hopes of the imminent administrative procedures, and you know, as we noted from- and this goes back to your son,

Stop the justice Chief Justice Roberts did during the Trump administration, but they ve been much more per snickey about the Administrative procedures act in the last few years than than they had been previously seem like everything's failed. I administrative procedures, act. Young, pose unilaterally. Policy, fails, animus, rider procedure that you write beyond to unilaterally. He fell sound administrative cigarette, yet the only they yet but the electors of arbitrariness. What you would say about this is its remarkable Oh, how things fail on the administrative procedures act depending on what your policy proclivities were go, and you know like if you if you are told which judge has the case right. You know who the hell cares, what the administrative procedure comes out, whatever, where they wanted to come out, but the other thing I think, that's Belinda, be an important year. Is it's only a couple of weeks ago that they decided the eviction moratorium case and what they do? What they

pointedly said in that case- is that when you are dealing with an area that is traditionally state law area in particular, it is incumbent on Congress They want to try to override which traditional state authority. They have to be clear about it, and I think you know that principle may end up being a kind of act or way of getting to what the original understanding the commerce clause was, which is that we have a federalist system and that the states are supposed to sovereign over their internal affairs. I don't think you'll get a court to say that, but I think you will get a court to say look. Vaccination is a state issue and it's always been asleep

issue. If the federal government's gonna come in here and do that, we don't want to say that they can't was then we have to get its whole commerce closed the rest, but they certainly have to be clear about it and the president can't do it unilaterally. You gotta show us the Congress said this is what we want. So let us leave aside the password. timber, 11th, two thousand and ten versuri I was I was outside for a little bit earlier and it remind me a lot of that day. It wasn't a cloud in the sky, wonderful feeling in the air when, when she was kind of perfectly balanced between summer and fall, and that's what that that's, what that day was like twenty years ago it, was not a cloudless sky and what I. What I remember even more than the whether of the day is the fact that I

might not by now work. My son was now his MID thirty's, but I took him, but my brother and I took him to work Jack game on Sunday at the year at the metal lands and we happened to have come out of the stadium after I don't know what who are the jets lost that day but yeah, but as we leaving the stadium, it was yet another. One of those days is, but you know, Bob Murphy, the old method NASA used to say the sky is a Robin's egg. Blue. You know it was exactly that kind of a a day and we happened to come out right at the park where you can see the twin towers from giants Stadium, and it was just one of those fake tattoo days worthy the sun is up in its like blaring off the year, the buildings, and you could see them clear, Isabel and of course they were always they are. So wasn't anything remarkable about that accept. It was just

gorgeous day and then two days later, less than two days later, they were born and mean that was Sunday afternoons reserve. This was Tuesday morning so hit me every year, because in particular, because I got involved in this eight years before when they tried to bond, Trade Centre and it was always kind of a young there's, no reason for us to have felt this way, but I use it. A feeling of satisfaction I don't wanna say accomplish, because we really do anything they they just failed, but we I am very happy that they fail and United Member, the bravado Ramsay you suffer was one of the who is the main builder in ninety three: when he was. Finally, you know, even before he was killed, could he sent a letter out for public consumption etc?

calculations were off this time, but next time will do it right- and I always remember you know we used a mark- is rubato about that and the thought that the these guys could take the World trade Center down and, of course, they ultimately did so There is a real there's, a failure, frustration about that. That's some that's kind of personal and I I you know. I know you shouldn't feel this way, but I do feel a kind of a sense of failure in the sense that you are very proud of what we did with the blind shape and the work that we put in and getting all those guys, including him sentenced to life. But that was all we could do under the circumstances and from his. Present confinement, meaning from the life sentence that we got imposed on him.

He ended up issuing the fat wall, which is the Sharia edict that they require to him to green light atrocities like this, he issued the fat what that Bin Laden later credited for being the green light for the nine eleven operation. So you know I was always kind of ambivalent about capital punishment yards. Clearly constitutional, I'm always some. wondered whether it does more harm than good. As far as the YAP, a legal system is concerned, as we spend so much energy on it and it screws up other areas of the law, but it really hit home to me that you know there was some guys who can't be stopped them? Was there but the death and engage in connection with the blind shape? We did everything we

under the law that was available to us, but we didn't stop. You know we were, we would run around. So we brought him to justice the way that that phrases is thrown around, but it didn't stop and minutes not to say that been lied when they got in some other shape to give my fat war. But it just goes to show how how were deadly seriousness So did you where you are situated? Did you guys have have a constant sense that the systems Blake red and anything happen at any given moment, and no one is aware of this, and this is a terrible problem, or was it not was? Was it not that level of a sense of urgency? Now to us, the system was in New York, it seem like it was blinking read because we were dealing with and the people who were running the government warrant out. We, like the most people on nine eleven. They were pretty know. Why me mister there only that is only the knife month of the young of the administration.

And the frustrating thing for us at the time, in addition, is the thing is The cases never went away for us, because, once you start these litigations, they go on for years, You're spending part of your time prosecuting the cases, but you spending other parts of your time investigating the people behind it, because you always think they're up to other things, so that the thing that was chewing us up at that point in time was that the coal had been bombed in October of two thousand and November. Eighth did anything about you know Clinton he was end of his term, and he just didn't respond. I mean no response at all, not even at least ninety eight. They loved a few topical tomahawk, the missiles Afghanistan on the coal, where seventeen of are sailors were killed and they almost sank of a multi billion dollar destroyer. We did nothing

no response, no prosecutions, no military response, no nothing, and it was one. these things where it was at the end of its term and Clinton's term. At that point, you remember better than I do had been uniting that that last few years, a Clinton's term between the impeachment than the scandals and everything else was really Rock n roll and then the Bush people came in and they had. There was a lot of disarray. In terms of setting up that government, because the controversy with Gore over the election went on for so long that they didn't get up and running as smoothly and as quickly as they should have an, even though I think Bush ultimately decided that this was more of a national security issue? Then a law enforcement issue and one or two handle that way. They didn't really get to that till after nine eleven happen. So we have.

This particular anniversary- we really are unfortunate, coincidence, right here, hard against September, eleventh the fall of Afghanistan today, the tell and which particularly, has formed a government. That is bans. Government said he what was expected. That's not quarterboat inclusive. As we are constantly hearing in the wishfulness driven the bind folks another's yeah yeah, I guess one thing riches, it's not that I mean I'd like to think it was just purely a coincidence, but it's really not and discuss the like somebody, just sheer astonishing calculations of the star.

But by and for whatever reason wanted to get out by September. Eleven like he made that a magic date even know, that's exactly what the Taliban would have wanted beside. You know that really didn't make any sense, and because that was that was what he proceeded from You know we started our evaluation at what they consider because of their because of it Geothermal, lay out of Afghanistan. They consider this fighting season, whereas if Biden wanted to do Do you want to do? We should wait until the winter and then we would, be running into September eleven. So part of the reason these events collide and come together is precisely because Biden for whatever reason targeted September, Eleventh

that he wanted to be out by, even though that was going to allow the Taliban to to be very celebratory. The inn in connection with the twentieth anniversary of this atrocity. That wouldn't have happened. Had they not allowed Al Qaeda to use their territories a launch pad. So what's here, what's your read on what's been happening and bizarre Sharif? Ah, I think it, The Taliban. I imagine that what's going on behind the scenes, is they want those funds on frozen There's billions of dollars of afghan government money and reserves that are in the control of. The United States and also other governments under the auspices.

the U N and already the? U N, is sir, in the last couple of days, saying that they may have to come to some understanding with the Taliban, for they can release a lot of these funds, because otherwise it will be a catastrophe for the act. And people, that's always their excuse for doing things. They should do, and I would imagine the Bind administration, and the administration, the same kind of conversations are going on with the state Department, but think what's going on. Is that you're, the Missouri Sharif is an obvious instant. But it's not the only manifestation of it, there's probably dozens of little joke points where the Taliban is making life difficult for Americans where they can? and certainly afghan allies of Americans where they can in order to have low

bridge over the United States to try to squeeze us into releasing these eight billion dollars and they want to get there hands on so are you know? Some of this is just flat out philosophical. They hate us, so it's humiliating to have. Are claims that Americans want to get on and get out of the country. It's humiliating that that we can't you had tab. eight department go out publicly? I don't know what blinking is smoking these days, but I mean to go out publicly and say first of all, like deny that it's happening and then to say. Well, it's happening, but you know we really don't have any real. forces on the ground to do anything about it. At this point, nubs now like Yahoo, whose idea was there for out of love, and I think that dumb they like recklessness. That's being projected here, and so by the way I mean, we shouldn't think the Taliban

and on their own look here. There are obvious, getting very cosy with the chinese government They have. You no saw some obvious, so potential division points there were you know things could get. Friendly in a hurry. But for the moment I get the chance these are holding out the possibility of helping them with getting international recognition if they allowed the the Chinese to come in and exploit all the young. The mineral wealth in the in the country, which is much more substantial than people, may realise twenty years and what the chinese one out of them is that they don't allow terrorist organizations to make a big deal with the fact that they persecute Muslims in their country, which the Taliban for the moment maybe willing to roll with so

you Don T, except the United States, is being you Milly, aided and all this it would be foolish to think that the China and Russia, not in the background, trying to orchestrate some of this, said there that there is any attempts news about the other day about the Taliban, letting people girl. In Kabul that one plain yeah one plain one one play in that they led out because cutter basically intervened. There are our new friends from the yeah. You know the Muslim Brotherhood havens of Catherine and Turkey are using their What's with the Taliban, it's just wonderful, but it was one plain it it had. My my right recollection about this is their will less than thirty Americans involved and not all of them, ended up getting on the plane.

Some Canadians and some Europeans as well, but they ve, let one flight get out of Kabul and Body went up and they like the plank. In the meantime, you not distills, explained sitting in bizarre Sharif, and there still, you know the other reports were getting rich, that they don't want to give a lot of coverage to Are you dont? The Taliban has broken up a bunch of women's marches to the point where the women are basically stopped. Coming out of their homes goes it's too dangerous, especially if they dont conform to word. The fundamentalists protocols for draft but they're: u dont, there are basically shooting at, but for the moment they have moved down a bunch of people, the shooting in the sky, but their dispersing these crimes

Are they going from house to house looking for people in parts of the country where there are a concentration of people who have been helpful to the american effort and some of those people being brutally killed in front of them families as an example there imposing the same all Taliban structures that existed twenty years ago. You know no music because that's against their interpretation of the Koran, their pain, Oliver murals a day even painted over a bureau of George Floyd. I don't know, I don't know if they, if anyone's told Biden about them

you never have to be made out of upset a bright, but done you know they're there and you dont, because those Reich icons icons are not permitted in their interpretation of Islam. So you know they're they're doing all this stuff. They ve taken the four guys or for the five guys who Obama in twenty four. Team traded for Bobo Doll and they put them in top positions in their new regime, including the head of intelligence. So those are the four guys that that dub, oh boy, Emma surrendered. Forget now in order to get the Taliban to come to the table. So we could cut the deal with them that eventual evolved into the situation we are now dealing with, but these five guys were at the time we knew notorious for having been very close to Bob

Milo Mohammed Omar was like the founder of the Taliban, so why you would think that a government that would take those guys in and put them in stolen in important, Positions in the government why anyone would think the Taliban would be any different than the Taliban we saw twenty years ago when it's the same people. This is kind of beyond belief, and then I think the other thing rich that's going on, which is really. I think this is probably a theme that goes back to when O Burma allowed the Taliban are helped. The Taliban established this diplomatic presence in Doha back in two thousand eleven, two thousand twelve. I think what you finding is. The Taliban has like us, State Department division, so they have like these wanna be Taliban diplomats who down in Doha- and they made me-

South Wales, odd in Europe over the young people, in the fashion that the diplomats maiden and they speak any patois that diplomats vacant, and I think what happens is the Taliban says an awful lot of stuff in Doha, but the idea what they say in Doha in those of you know in those whatever chancellor ease, they happen in Doha. The idea that that gets translated to the street in Afghanistan, where Rob you know the Taliban always relied when it was in charge. The last time in the places where it was. would you govern on you know, they're the regime, Mullah Omar, let it be known what the Ideology was and how people were expected to behave in a lot of the way it was in force. Was they gonna young Muslims on the street enforced what they understood the Taliban wanted it forced into

their interpretation in Korea. So it's not like you have. Like an organised government, that's enforcing standards, they have kind of I think they have broad guidelines of their interpretation of Korea and they expect the Taliban people around the country Hawaii. Mainly these young armed guys enforce you're, not to take matters into their own hands and enforce the law, and that's that's the way it work the last time, and I think it's gonna work any different this time, but nobody should think that anything that the Taliban says in Doha is gonna translate onto the streets of Kabul. It's not gonna happen to lasting ANA asked him

we get it did get now. So do you think there some real chance that we recognise the Taliban government, I'm worried about that? Yeah I mean you, don't look. I think we would find it. You know I think Biden is showing himself to be. You know one of these guys just when he gets sudden in his head. He can't be talk to me like the we're just gonna we're gonna get out, so I could easily see Biden be the kind of guy you don't look, I'm tired of all this serve this. He s about the form, all public recognition when Clayton was president. We basically let the pet Taliban. get up and running when Bush was president, we treated the Taliban like they were the regime when we were asking them to surrender Al Qaeda. When Obama was president, we let them open up an and have a diplomatic presence

in Doha. So why do all this stupid de facto stuff it? Why we just recognized you don't? I could easily see that, and I also think that if you know we whatever we think, however badly they think it is. The administration knows it's worse. I beat their people and our intelligence community that no a kind of stuff that's going on over there- and I think they have a lot of leverage points on as they could make this very embarrassing for Biden. If they you know, if they take hostages who try starred killing people, I mean he. Basically, I don't know who it was who said first, it binds the future. Abiden presidency is now in the hands of these these jihadis. Mujahideen body, but it really is, I mean I have it, but the really in a position to do a lot of political damage to him. So you know I mean rich, look at it this way if they want to get back,

In the ran deal, what wouldn't they do so anyway, we have the resumption or a closer resumption of trials of some key detainees and get my latest astonishing. enough after twenty years has been legal rigmarole, but nothing is has happened. So what what's going on here? Well, what you got picked up back up and running this week You are quite right, we're talking now mainly about the K S, I'm case the collegiate Mohammed and for other surviving main planners of e of the nine eleven attacks

and just so people get a sense of how long this has gone on. I think Collegiate Mohammed was apprehended in two thousand and three, if I were right, most of these other guys were apprehended like somewhere between two thousand to two thousand for two thousand five, so we ve had these people in custody upwards of sixteen years, Bush ordered B, military commission set up and we had a lot of legal controversy over it, but people were finally transferred into the military commission system in two thousand eight, These guys were arranged on an indictment in two thousand twelve. After, Obama originally wanted to send them to civilian port and then decided. No, we won't do that will do the will, keep the military commissions at least to these guys, so they ve been arraigned under indictment in the military permission for nine years,

had not been able to get this case the trial there was some hope that it was going to be started in twenty twenty like tat because of covered it gotta. It got pushed back, it's not going to be started in twenty twenty one. They are what happened this week. Is they had it court pre trial motions before the judge, who is now the fifth judge to preside, with this case has just started this week and they are not anywhere close to the start of this trial being eminent. It might happen at the beginning of next year. It might happen. You know several months into next year, the delta variant of it, if it if it has to reach the same havoc on the military, is itself as its doing to the rest of the country and

widens gonna. Have these draconian regulations that he's gonna try to do? Who knows when get more will be open enough for business that they could have a trial remember to have a trial. You have to have you no twelve uniform military officers who sit as the commission and they're gonna have to be sequestered. were the trial be interesting to see how they do that. I think they have five fast food restaurants on the island at kid. How these guys would have to be sequestered for a year that people think that the trial would take a year

if they could actually get it on the way- and there is still a lot of legal problems that the that have to be sorted out, including the authority of the commission, even to try the charges that are in the indictment, so I just take it so we all have to those of us who supported the commission system. I think, have to be and say that it's been a failure. That doesn't mean it would have been the right thing at the time to move the cases into civilian court, because you still have the same problem in civilian court that you ve always had, which is, if you try to apply civilian due process to these people, you have to turn over to the defence so much in telling

Since that you make Al Qaeda, I mean what are invariably happens. It's your turn, the stuff over to the defence, and then I mean it. My case we turned over a coke conspirator list. A list of all the people who were on the government's rate are two hundred people and entities were on this list, the weak, the trial. The week before the trial story. I gave it to the defenceless the first document ever to go out of government custody that had been law, burdens name on it. In addition to all these other people and entities- and we now know that within a couple of weeks of our turning it over toward defendants and the blind shake trial, Bin Laden had the list in Sudan and Al Qaeda was poor, in over it and trying to figure out. How did we know this guy? we know that guy what source, might we have out what ways had we penetrated them? So it's crazy to try to apply civilian,

due process in a national security situation. When you have. War, time enemies and you're, giving them information about what you know about them and their operation? which was the reason we had the commission system in the first place, but you To be honest, I mean it has it work now part of the room it worked is because it's been relentlessly attack by the lawyer left and it continues to be and it simply was not ever strong enough to withstand this constant stream of legal challenges, but I think also to be honest the water. The reason it has it work is that the military system simply has not been as confident as federal judges who run these cases in a way that every court of appeals that's looked at. The cases is his thought was a model of how useful-

the run trials so be it in the military system rich in in all these years. They have not gotten a single trial took patient, you ve been eight or nine please, most of those cases, the judges gave the YAP the person in question a slap on the wrist and then transfer them to another country, whereas those people would have been hammered if they had been civilians, system as they should have been. So why would a trial take a year. well. I've always been other mine that, once the lawyers tell you that the trials gonna take longer than three months, maybe even eight weeks what they're really saying is they don't have any idea how long it's going to take. You know the blind shake case. If you would ask me before the trial, I would have said we can get it done, and you know four months or so.

and I took ten months your eyes on a trial. The pitcher connection case, which is the law, This federal criminal drown. History. I think we told the court at the beginning. It would take forty six months. It took seventeen, so you don't things just dump. The trial is enough of a crapshoot, because you really prepare for everything, but you don't really know which directions it's going to go in And you know that this one is going to be put particularly complicated because the key issue, case, assuming they can get over all the hurdles about whether there whether the court has jurisdiction to try, the offences that are in the indictment, which is which is a big question. But assuming you get to that point- The big issue in this case is going to be the confession. Evidence and I dont know if all five of these guys were subjected to coercive you don't be enhanced and-

relation techniques at least three of them, I think reward aborted, but all of them, I think we're subjected. to all of them were in the CIA Black sites. At one point, and they were subjected to enhancing the interrogation techniques if you ve noticed in the coverage in the last week, the word torture is back. You know: torture, torture, Georgia, It's almost like insurrection, you don't you just just like every sentence, you didn't you hear torture and I I would just put it. You know, I feel like we're back in two thousand seven again right, but done this wasn torture as torture is defined under american law will know I'll ever had that argument again, because the narrative is that it was torture, but it wasn't torture but whether it was torture or not. Is irrelevant to the question of whether the statements were coerced or not

Was an anglo american law that tradition is if the defendants will is over born in eliciting a statement from him. You can use that statement. and if you do, then the trial is not a trial as be met. The anglo american tradition understands a trial, so that's it the problem that they have the issue with here. I think a lot of people are under the misimpression that what the government wants to do is take like you. Now they want aborted Polytech Mohammed, to take statements he made in the session where they were born in him and improve them at the trial. That is not what they are trying to do. So what happened? Was the CIA under protocols that the Justice Department signed off on because they didn't think it was torture?

The CIA elicited information from these guys in coercion, interrogations separately. There were FBI teams which they now call clean things which were kept cabin door was. This is what we are told they were completely cabin door from the CIA guys in terms of what the sea I did to elicit statements and what information the detainees provided. No statements and in the FBI, interrogations the guy's made statements again and what the government wants to put it at the time while all the statements that were made in the FBI, interrogations and the line of authority that they're talking about here is a pretty basic doctrine of law. That says, if you give it in a civilian time, if someone illicit statement that inadmissible because

Miranda, warnings warrant, given what weren't given correctly say, and then you have a second subsequent interrogation, where the FBI or whoever does give Miranda warnings and the person makes incriminating statements. You can get. The second statement admitted, even though the a statement would be inadmissible. So what the government is trying to rely on is that line of authority and what the defence is pushing back with. Is that an end? Is this is a kind of a grey area of law if the second non coerced interviews or a product of the first or if they are so temporarily connected and will be the lines questioning are the same. What defendants argue is that they already thought the cat was out of the bag, because when they were being coerced they made

all these statements and may didn't realize when they made the second statements that if they had stayed silent, those statements could be used against them. court and the elderly you have here because it's a military commission is that these guys are not entitled to constitutional rights like Miranda warnings so what are for it to be a trial in the anglo american tradition, you can't admit evidence against them of coerced statements, but like how much? How far do we go with the idea that they have a right to be told that the statements can be used against them in the context where their not being coerced into speaking will and then, besides this, that legal construct, here's the reality rich, these guys were proud to have done nine eleven. They couldn't wait to tell everyone, but they didn't

Eleven. What they will border boarded over was not to get it admission of guilt. No one needed them to make an admission of guilt. What we were trying to do is find out like taking bomb scenario, did they have active plans to conduct other mass murder and could we stop them? So the issue in those in those interrogations was not nine eleven. The issue was what else are these guys up to what other operations are they deducting that we might be able to interrupt? It was never an issue to get them to admit that they did nine hundred and eleven. They were delighted to have done mine or what. So what's gotten anything so what should happen now? There is a just just Satis sought through the commission system were there any alternative, which I think at this point be back very hard to put them in the civilian system, because

and you have to have a whole SIRI. It be recreating the wheel in a lot of ways. You have to have a whole series of of the proceedings about what rights they had, what rights they didn't if they had speedy trial rights, for example, there they probably wouldn't be able to be tried in civilian court. now, given the given the delight, so I don't think that's a viable alternative. I argued over the years? And this is interaction now and then, but the years that it really got no place. But I have argued for a number of years that we should have scrapped, were overhaul the military commission system and had an basically constructed a national security court where you would take the best features of civilian due process would particularly article three judges in a regular federal judges who demonstrated that

have real competence in terms of getting these cases from beginning to end, but borrow from the military system. The be provisions that allow you to protect classified information in the trials, and then you know try to melt those two things that we design a court system for the jihadist threat as it action. we exist rather than trying to pigeon hole into civilian justice where military justice words just not a good fit in either assist. Unfortunately, that didn't that that hasn't gotten anywhere. So I think what we're stuck with is the military system, And, unfortunately, you know? Maybe we gotta trials going next year, but it is not certain that we do and

I would say one other related thing about written about this rich, which is important where we are focusing on these five guys, but there are still at least two dozen and I think more people who are being held. It get mom detainees who have not been charged with war crimes and can't be charged with war crimes, because the evidence against them comes from you, don't deep level intelligence that they can experts so, where we're still retaining these two dozen or more people who there were no charges against and the real I bring this up? Is Biden keeps running around like he wants to be? He wants to be the guy who ended the endless war. And that was the whole reason for the haphazard pull out from Afghanistan. The holy

for a lot of the studies he's doing. He wants to be the president who ended the endless war well, if you end the endless war, if the war is over there You don't have any authority under the laws of war, to detain people who can't be tried, so you either have to charge them with war crimes, or you have to release them. And the reason that we're still holding these guys, even when we released the tablet commander, one thinks they said when they release developing commanders. When about always try to justify doing that, he said what the things they said is, while they're not the worst,

but would get mom like these with a lot of people in Europe- are the ones with the ones other than chaos salmon, those guys the ones we can charge of the worse people and if Bide wants to be the guy who entered the endless wore out I'd like to know what do you plan to do with these guys, because the reason they haven't been released is everybody who has looked at. This is quite certain that, if their release they go back to kill and Americans, which is what they like to do. Or I will that's all the time we have this absurd, despite gas has been produced by the incomparable Sarah? Surely they someone for listening and thank you, Annie, Mccarthy. Thank you, rich