richard reed was an american citizen. no, he wasn't. >> but he pled guilty. system in place to enter -- interrogate richard reed. >> that's the bottom line principles in which we built our country. do we believe in the federal justice system? >> i don't think the terrorist deserved our benefits of a justice system. this is a fundamental argument over how you interrogate terrorists, and i'm sorry you don't know if we got information from the underwear bomber, nobody knows because he was given a lawyer fairly quickly. >> not unlike the shoe bomber. >> forget the shoe bomber, steph. >> he got read his miranda rights less than five minutes after his capture. >> and in this case, why would we give this guy a lawyer? the minute we gave him a lawyer, he stopped talking. so when joe biden says we might have another attack, we don't know. >> larry: let me get a break and we'll talk about sarah palin and others as well. don't go away. can be more confident in their ability to be ready with cialis. with two clinically proven dosing options, you can choose the moment tha

that includes richard reed, the shoe bomber. that includes mue sueie, the 20th 9 9/11 bomber.republicans applauded that. dick cheney supported it. rudy giuliani said he was in ah of our justice system after he was convicted. so the real system is why the change in attitude because because we had the change of presidents? the reason they were tried was because that was the most efficient effective way to bring people to justice. and in terms of vinsing rights in these prisoners, it was judge mukeski who then became the attorney general under the bush administration who ruled that there were certain rights that even people who are enemy combatants had rights to a lawyer, and various other procedural protections, habeas corpus and so on. so, no, this isn't new. we haven't invested anybody with one more right than they had before we took office and we're not behaving any differently than the last administration did. which raises the question, is this about politics or is it about dealing with the issue at hand? >> speaking of politics. you could make the case that the most interes

one case in particular on this point, richard reed was arrested for attempting to ignite a bomb in his shoe while on a flight to miami in december of 2001. reed was advised of his miranda rights within five minutes of being removed from the aircraft and was reminded of these rights four times within 48 hours. and now is serving a life sentence in federal prison. to my knowledge my republican friends did not criticize the bush administration for handling that case or any of the other cases that we have on file. this applies -- this motion to recommit applies to the high value detainees so that in the toughest cases they want us to play by a completely unreasonable set of rules that will slow us down and make us weaker. that is why the department of defense opposes this. the director of national intelligence opposes this. the department of justice opposes this. i think this morning it's time to say, enough with the games. it's time for us to stop playing politics with our nurelt -- national security. it's time for us to create a system that makes those responsible for our safety play wit

. >> what about richard reed they argue? >> richard reed was arrested three months after 9/11.e didn't have military commissions in place at the time that he was brought in. so he couldn't be tried before a military commission. >> so there are big differences between then and now. >> yes. then was then, now is now. plus there are huge differences between the way you're supposed to deal with the guy who tries to stick up a 7-eleven and a terrorist. we have laws of war that encourage people to fight lawfully with uniforms following a chain of command, not targeting civilians and so on. if they do that, they get p.o.w. treatment. if they don't, then they can be dealt with as unlawful combat t combatants and tried before military commissions. >> on friday, it sounded like there were sources inside the white house saying it's not going to be in new york. it's going to be some place else. we've instructed the department of justice to look for some other location. now, apparently, new york is not off the table according to the deputy or acting attorney general talking yesterday at a b

individuals convicted under the bush administration in criminal court in article 3 courts beginning with richard reed, going to omar abu ali, zacarias moussaoui, nabazul nabazulla zazi charged as well as padilla, lynn, the lakawana 6 and so on and so forth and put these on the record. the point is that a president should have flexibility to cite the venue for trial. all i can say is those of us on this side of the aisle did not criticize president bush for doing this at this time and we view with some suspicion the fact that president obama is being criticized for following policy that had been established since 9/11. >> madam chair, i will add the names of the people, the information released as a result of these trials where we held the trials. and i will discuss further disagree with your characterization. thank you. >> senator whitehouse? >> madam chair, i have not been here 34 years. i have been here only three years, but i find it extremely discouraging that with these gentlemen before us, the head of the defense intelligence agency, the head of the fbi, the director of national intelligence, h

individuals convicted under the bush administration in criminal court in article 3 courts beginning with richard reedabu ali, zacarias moussaoui, nabazul nabazulla zazi charged as well as padilla, lynn, the lakawana 6 and so on and so forth and put these on the record. the point is that a president should have flexibility to cite the venue for trial. all i can say is those of us on this side of the aisle did not criticize president bush for doing this at this time and we view with some suspicion the fact that president obama is being criticized for following policy that had been established since 9/11. >> madam chair, i will add the names of the people, the information released as a result of these trials where we held the trials. and i will discuss further disagree with your characterization. thank you. >> senator whitehouse? >> madam chair, i have not been here 34 years. i have been here only three years, but i find it extremely discouraging that with these gentlemen before us, the head of the defense intelligence agency, the head of the fbi, the director of national intelligence, head of the centr

attorney general saying that the united states of america, the minute they walked a mirandaized richard reeddn't have attention? it's a principal that has -- it's a principal that we've had for as long as this country has existed. so i don't know if he ruled that law attention didn't exist on that day. >> on the case, how concerned is the president or white house legislative team about what appears to be a growing number of senate democrat signing on to block all funding entirely. to what degree is the president telephoning members to try to persuade them to hold off or change their mind? >> i don't know know of calls that the president has made. there may have been calls from the council office or from legislative affairs to discuss people's opinion on legislation or on potential upcoming votes. look, i just leave it at this. >> it was a very important consideration of congress in the entire debate, was it not? >> there's no question about it. and i think -- it is an important aspect of this. it's an important aspect of our broader efforts in dealing with terrorism. and it's something that