Before a congressional committee Holder was asked about how he felt we should deal with bin Laden if he was captured, with the obvious parallel to current prisoners and trials, he gave this reply:



Personally I view this as a total cop out, since it doesn't answer the question, nor do I view it as a hypothetical. If we get bin Laden it's going to probably be when some SF force descends on his hideout from the thin blue sky. Even those willing to die or kill themselves for the cause don't tend to keep a cyanide pill around and it's fairly absurd to take as a given that during a sudden surprise assault he'll blow his brains out or one of his loyal followers will decide to shoot at him instead of the people attacking. Most people who don't want to be taken alive but who the authorities want to take alive tend to be captured alive and your average SF trooper is a good enough shot to be able to not kill him, especially since thanks in no small part to bin Laden our combat medics have become amazingly talented at treating gunshot wounds. He knows that, or should know that, so I have to view that as a deliberately evasive response. Combined with some of his other actions, it only adds to my view of him as sub-par for the vital job of AG. The Attorney General of the US should not be ducking legal questions, especially by using such a thin cover. From either an ethical or legal base there is no reason to treat bin Laden as different from any other foreign terrorist, except as more important and dangerous, so if Holder can't answer this for bin Laden, he obviously doesn't have a decent answer for any of the others. The head of the Department of Justice shouldn't sliding away from answering legal questions on grounds of the answer being politically volatile. And if he does, IMHO, his probably not fit for the job.