I think 240 randomly decides to chime in with postings about terrorism whenever he feels like ignoring the facts, accurate information posted on this board by myself and others on numerous occasions, and when he feels like musing about what a complete disaster Obama is from a national security standpoint.
Of course with 240, rampant speculation about GW Bush is bound to arise and fabulous accusations and inferences are drawn out of thin air to support his position.
For the last time, and try to read slowly and wipe the dust out of your eyes--- turn down your 8 track player and just pay attention.
The detainees were never supposed to be prosecuted until all relevant intel was extracted. Higher levels= obviously kept in detention longer. Those who were bled dry and with nothing else to offer, were supposed to be tried by military tribunal in accordance with the UCMJ. That means, no constitutional rights, no jury trial, counsel is appointed, no reasonable doubt standard of proof, no rules of evidence, no right to call your own witnesses etc. It also means the death penalty. Ok... Are you with me 240? Good.
Now fast forward to 2004 when the avalanche of litigation prompted by do gooder aclu douchebags (including AG Holders former law firm). While things were in limbo from a legal perspective, Bush could not do anything with these people except hold them, or let them go. The Supreme Court decided that the military tribunal process deprived detainees of their due process rights. So, a whole new set of military tribunals had to be created under the suprevision of the DC district court . Guess what? the liberal douche machine sued again and claimed that these NEW updated procedures were still not sufficent enough to meet constitutional muster. And guess what? The Supreme Court agreed again/
Finally, new procedures were implemented again-- ( Bush was almost out of office by now) and so far, nobody has sued. So explain to me what Bush did wrong exactly?
