Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: OzmO on December 06, 2009, 11:39:44 AM
-
I know the righties are freaking over Obama and Holder trying him in a civilian court.
I GET IT! So don't blabber about it.
It Wastes millions, doesn't guarantee a guilty verdict, isn't a US citizen, mockery of the court, drawn out circus, etc.....blah blah blah
But why, if BUSH had him for years, and he confessed, didn't he try him?
I just want to know if anyone knows why or can at least speculate.
-
For the same reasons he never made a solid decision on Gitmo--he was too much of a puss and wanted to drop it into the lap of Obama or McCain.
-
The only evidence they had is that which they beat out of him - and it won't stand up in a military tribunal.
in other words, they knew if they put him on trial, he walks. No admissable evidence. So rather than fail, they just kept him locked up.
obama knows this, and he's doing the only thing he can do - - - try them blocks from ground zero and hope they're convicted on emotion and not evidence.
All these people shitting on him are ignorant of this...
-
Uhhh hello- They were milking him for as much intel as possible and then the retarded Supreme Court decided that Gitmo was part of the US mainland so the entire procedure for military tribunals had to be tinkered with. These animals were also give the right to Habeas before the DC circuit court, which also prolonged the legal process further.
By the time all the legal bullshit got sorted out, Bush was no longer in office and KSM was ready to be tried before the revamped military tribunal process as laid out by the Supreme Court and plead guilty.
Then, Obama decided that having this scumbag quickly sent to his maker was not a good idea and opted to have a 5 year long circus trial in NYC instead.
Blaming this civilian trial on Bush is idiotic.
-
Uhhh hello- They were milking him for as much intel as possible and then the retarded Supreme Court decided that Gitmo was part of the US mainland so the entire procedure for military tribunals had to be tinkered with. These animals were also give the right to Habeas before the DC circuit court, which also prolonged the legal process further.
By the time all the legal bullshit got sorted out, Bush was no longer in office and KSM was ready to be tried before the revamped military tribunal process as laid out by the Supreme Court and plead guilty.
Then, Obama decided that having this scumbag quickly sent to his maker was not a good idea and opted to have a 5 year long circus trial in NYC instead.
Blaming this civilian trial on Bush is idiotic.
Got any links or anything that talks about that? Because it still doesn't make much sense to me. How long did they have KSM?
-
Makes sense to get as much info as possible out of him and the did get valuable intel which helped identify other terrorists, recruiting & training info and prevented other attacks. While I support not abusing the majority of prisoners, I'm fine with what they did to this terrorist.
Good question Oz, they should have gathered intell and then prosecuted him in a military tribune. Bush made a mistake in not doing this later in his 2nd term...now we get the left allowing him to parade in a civilian court, appauling.
-
Links?
I took a class in National Security. I can dig up my notes and post them here ( if I can find them)-- But any half ass legal scholar knows this stuff already.
The Gitmo detainees have been in legal limbo for years because of lawsuits filed by left wing doo-gooders ( including AG Holders old DC law firm nonetheless) and the ACLU flunkies defending these nuts. Throw that in with the Rasul v. Bush case and the Boumedhine v. Bush case and you have the Supreme Court throwing a monkey wrench into the Bush administrations plans to do anything productive with these people.
If, as it was before the Rasul case, the Eisenstrager case ( where the Nazi WW2 saboteurs were tried by military tribunal and executed) had been followed, none of this would be an issue. All of the detainees involved with 911 would have been tried before military tribunal and executed already.
-
Even when libs are presented with factual evidence they still deny and make excuses so what is the point of providing evidence? hell when the illegal firing of inspector general walpin took place, oh and by the way this was a law that obama supported to be passed, the breaking of that law by the admin was denied, then hurried under the rug and subject changed. there was mounds of factual evidence in that matter, did libs recognize it? nope
-
so all these cases against the govt for abuse - they all ended on jan 21, 2009?
Or, did Obama just decide it's time to stop pussyfooting around and finally hang these bastards, as he stated?
In that case, props to obama for flipping the bird to lib lawyers, and not caving as Dubya did.
-
yea good the cases against government from terrorist claiming abuse stop, now he abuses his power against people in congress that shine light on his admin corruption not a good trade off, seeing as how these people were just doing their jobs , not a good trade off
-
so all these cases against the govt for abuse - they all ended on jan 21, 2009?
Or, did Obama just decide it's time to stop pussyfooting around and finally hang these bastards, as he stated?
In that case, props to obama for flipping the bird to lib lawyers, and not caving as Dubya did.
Wtf are you talking about? The bird to lib lawyers are the ones that sued to get these pieces of shit constitutional rights-- Bush didn't cave, Obama did-- hence KSM is being tried in civilian court. As I mentioned above, AG Holder's former law firm is one of the outfits that sued to have these scumbags tried in civilian court-- Now, (big shock) he is the one that pushed to have a civilian trial even though KSM was ready to plead guilty before a military tribunal and executed.
Trying to blame this on Bush just shows what an out of touch dumbass you are.
-
So basically BUSH didn't prosecute KSM in a military court because lib lawyers prevented it?
-
well, I wouldn't try him like that if I was obama, either. 33 has pointed out his points, and I don't like the idea of a circus in NYC either.
i'd probably just keep him locked up for 4 or 8 years, then let the next guy worry, if I was obama.
-
so all these cases against the govt for abuse - they all ended on jan 21, 2009?
Or, did Obama just decide it's time to stop pussyfooting around and finally hang these bastards, as he stated?
In that case, props to obama for flipping the bird to lib lawyers, and not caving as Dubya did.
quit being a numb nut fuck and arguing for the sake of arguing if you have a good valid point spit it out but at this point if you have nothing better to say go back to deepthroating barry's cock. ::)
bush didnt prosecute b/c he knew they would probably get off on a technicality obama is prosecuting b/c he knows no matter how egregious the breach in legal protocol is they will get convicted...so you have a mockery or our civilian legal system in which anybody can get railroaded into a guilty conviction
sorry 240 but if it wasnt for you libs he would have died a slow boring death but b/c of you and obamas ilk we must make a mockery of our legal system and put this shit out for all the world to see ::)
-
quit being a numb nut fuck and arguing for the sake of arguing if you have a good valid point spit it out but at this point if you have nothing better to say go back to deepthroating barry's cock. ::)
bush didnt prosecute b/c he knew they would probably get off on a technicality obama is prosecuting b/c he knows no matter how egregious the breach in legal protocol is they will get convicted...so you have a mockery or our civilian legal system in which anybody can get railroaded into a guilty conviction
sorry 240 but if it wasnt for you libs he would have died a slow boring death but b/c of you and obamas ilk we must make a mockery of our legal system and put this shit out for all the world to see ::)
LOL. I've never heard of "breaking the law" & "war crimes" referred to as a 'technicality' before.
So what you're saying is the American legal system is broken, and that those accused who get subsequently convicted, are convicted not on a fair impartial review of evidence, but simply to assuage public anger?
-
LOL. I've never heard of "breaking the law" & "war crimes" referred to as a 'technicality' before.
So what you're saying is the American legal system is broken, and that those accused who get subsequently convicted, are convicted not on a fair impartial review of evidence, but simply to assuage public anger?
Jag - you are not a layer. KSM was not apprehended with the thought and procedures one would do if the matter were heading to civilian court. The violations of those procedures can and may result in a dismissal of the charges.
-
LOL. I've never heard of "breaking the law" & "war crimes" referred to as a 'technicality' before.
So what you're saying is the American legal system is broken, and that those accused who get subsequently convicted, are convicted not on a fair impartial review of evidence, but simply to assuage public anger?
no the legal system is fine, the problem is you dont apprehend someone with the intent to prosecute in the military legal system and then turn and try to prosecute in the civilian legal system...
ever heard of miranda rights jag?
you think this guy got his read to him?
or do you think they just started questioning him right away?
-
Bush should have tried harder to force a military trial against KSM in his 2nd term.
Obama should do the right thing and try KSM in a military court room.
Very simple...instead of the mess and circus they are creating.
-
i'm with you on that shootfighter1...
Obama shouldn't be doing the civvie thing. But Bush is also at fault for leaving the job unfinished. If there was time to play golf and pretend to look for imaginary WMD in the white house couch cushions, then there was time to put these guys on trial in the military trib.
-
i'm with you on that shootfighter1...
Obama shouldn't be doing the civvie thing. But Bush is also at fault for leaving the job unfinished. If there was time to play golf and pretend to look for imaginary WMD in the white house couch cushions, then there was time to put these guys on trial in the military trib.
He should have just got everything out of this murderous piece of filth and hung the bastard.
-
Bush should have tried harder to force a military trial against KSM in his 2nd term.
Obama should do the right thing and try KSM in a military court room.
Very simple...instead of the mess and circus they are creating.
bush gave up golf remember? barry is the golf playing president... :-X
-
correct 333386.
he got away with starting 2 wars with minimal evidence and pretty much defying the world for 8 years. you're telling me he couldn't hang 5 guys?
Come on... just as there's some fishy shit around most big political things, there's probably something smelly on this one too.
-
correct 333386.
he got away with starting 2 wars with minimal evidence and pretty much defying the world for 8 years. you're telling me he couldn't hang 5 guys?
Come on... just as there's some fishy shit around most big political things, there's probably something smelly on this one too.
Maybe they felt he was holding out on them and had more intel? I dont know.
-
"Maybe they felt he was holding out on them and had more intel? I dont know. "
Could be. But they had him over 5 years. After they waterboarded him and he confessed to everything under the sun, they had 4+ years to hurry up and hang his ass.
Some say the long-standing relationship between the bushes and bin ladens is why these guys got off easy. Who knows. Just because 2 families got realllly rich off each other for 30 years doesn't mean they'd grant favortism to an associate years later, right?
(Of course, if Obama family and bin ladens had been in bed for 30 years... then Obama failed to prosecute Bin laden's #1 man... lol the CTers would be very loud!)
-
Yeah, at some point you have to put a close to it. I'm not a fan of holding these people for 5-10+ years. Get the intel we can get from these terrorists then prosecute them in a military trial.
-
So basically BUSH didn't prosecute KSM in a military court because lib lawyers prevented it?
Lib lawyers and the Supreme Court.
-
(http://imaksim.com/images/ksm_500.jpg)
-
(http://imaksim.com/images/ksm_500.jpg)
We are not taking this silent Kazan. I stood out in the cold rain on Sat. and will do so many times over to stop this mess.
-
We are not taking this silent Kazan. I stood out in the cold rain on Sat. and will do so many times over to stop this mess.
Good luck, but it seems this administration does whatever it wants, regardless of the people's opinion.
-
Hope there is another rally in the spring when there's better wheather. When is the trial supposed to start?
-
Hope there is another rally in the spring when there's better wheather. When is the trial supposed to start?
Andrew McCarthy, fomer prosecutor who handled the 93' trials, said it will take at least three years because the discovery process is going to be so extensive as to overwhelm the govt for a long time on this.
-
OK, so what should Obama do? Give it to the next president?
-
OK, so what should Obama do? Give it to the next president?
Let KSM plead guilty in front the military tribunal as he asked to do and proceed with a firing squad.
If he wants, I will make myself available to perform the deed, with rifle and bullet in hand. I will use my .308 so its one shot and done.
-
Let KSM plead guilty in front the military tribunal as he asked to do and proceed with a firing squad.
If he wants, I will make myself available to perform the deed, with rifle and bullet in hand. I will use my .308 so its one shot and done.
If Obama can do that WHY COULDN'T BUSH?
-
If Obama can do that WHY COULDN'T BUSH?
We need to figure that one out. I dont have an answer to that.
-
We need to figure that one out. I dont have an answer to that.
So at this point, don't you think its a little premature to criticize Obama on this? (not like you don't have plenty of other things to get him on)
GW says lib lawyers and the supreme court are doing this. So then Obama or BUSH may not have any choice because they could be forced to release him.
-
So at this point, don't you think its a little premature to criticize Obama on this? (not like you don't have plenty of other things to get him on)
GW says lib lawyers and the supreme court are doing this. So then Obama or BUSH may not have any choice because they could be forced to release him.
unless you just let him rot away in obscurity, maybe this is why bush never tried him...
-
unless you just let him rot away in obscurity, maybe this is why bush never tried him...
THey won't let him do that.
-
No, Obama gets his own criticism because he could try this in military tribunal. He and other liberals are forcing this into civilian court.
We don't know the details but it seems Bush could have pushed harder for the military trial.
-
No, Obama gets his own criticism because he could try this in military tribunal. He and other liberals are forcing this into civilian court.
We don't know the details but it seems Bush could have pushed harder for the military trial.
It still doesn't make sense, if BUSH could do it why didn't he? It seems people are assuming Obama can.
-
It still doesn't make sense, if BUSH could do it why didn't he? It seems people are assuming Obama can.
Go watch the youtube clips of holders' hearing.
-
There is quick way to end this, tomorrow morning they find that he hung himself in his cell, problem solved.
-
Go watch the youtube clips of holders' hearing.
I did already. But the same thing that's stopped BUSH likely has to be stopping Obama. Or BUSH could have and decided not to. Which begs the question...WHY?
-
I did already. But the same thing that's stopped BUSH likely has to be stopping Obama. Or BUSH could have and decided not to. Which begs the question...WHY?
Then dont you think Holder or Obama should have said so and explained why the were prevented from doing so if that was the case?
-
Then dont you think Holder or Obama should have said so and explained why the were prevented from doing so if that was the case?
Were they directly asked? No.
All this would be worthy of total upheaval if BUSH hadn't had KSM for years.
There's more to it, because BUSH couldn't do it either.
Because of that, this particular criticism of Obama seems unfounded. But there may, of course, be much more we don't know here.
-
So at this point, don't you think its a little premature to criticize Obama on this? (not like you don't have plenty of other things to get him on)
GW says lib lawyers and the supreme court are doing this. So then Obama or BUSH may not have any choice because they could be forced to release him.
Oz you are misquoting me. I said that Bush didn't do it because of lib lawyers and the Supreme Court. Obama CAN do it and chose NOT to do it and that's why there is such widespread outrage.
When Bush opened Guantanamo there was absolutely no indication that any of the non-enemy combatants would be subject to the constitutional rights afforded Americans. Then the Supreme Court muddied the waters and complicated things exponentially by declaring Guantanamo as American soil. This effectively entitled everyone at Guantanamo to a laundry list of rights and legal entitlements they normally would not have received.
Once clarifications were made detainees were suddenly given their own lawyers, habeas rights and everything else under the sun. OK- Once that occurred, the government tried to separate the detainees into two distinct groups; those that were going to be tried in civilian court and those who were going to be tried before military commissions. Of course, high value detainees were also separated from low value detainees based on the potential intel that could be extracted. Next, the lib lawyers representing the detainees sued in Supreme Court, challenging the procedural due process afforded non-enemy combatants being tried before military commissions. So, the government made certain alterations to the military commission’s process. Now, once these changes were made ( And bare in mind the Supreme Court never explicitly decided what changes were necessary to satisfy the procedural due process rights of the detainees), a few military trials began.
This did not occur until Bush’s second term was almost over- (2006, 2007). Obviously the administration tested the waters with the new military commissions process by prosecuting low level detainees—ie the guy who claimed he was only Osama’s driver.
Trying KSM before a military tribunal was neither feasible nor possible during Bush’s administration.
-
Oz you are misquoting me. I said that Bush didn't do it because of lib lawyers and the Supreme Court. Obama CAN do it and chose NOT to do it and that's why there is such widespread outrage.
When Bush opened Guantanamo there was absolutely no indication that any of the non-enemy combatants would be subject to the constitutional rights afforded Americans. Then the Supreme Court muddied the waters and complicated things exponentially by declaring Guantanamo as American soil. This effectively entitled everyone at Guantanamo to a laundry list of rights and legal entitlements they normally would not have received.
Once clarifications were made detainees were suddenly given their own lawyers, habeas rights and everything else under the sun. OK- Once that occurred, the government tried to separate the detainees into two distinct groups; those that were going to be tried in civilian court and those who were going to be tried before military commissions. Of course, high value detainees were also separated from low value detainees based on the potential intel that could be extracted. Next, the lib lawyers representing the detainees sued in Supreme Court, challenging the procedural due process afforded non-enemy combatants being tried before military commissions. So, the government made certain alterations to the military commission’s process. Now, once these changes were made ( And bare in mind the Supreme Court never explicitly decided what changes were necessary to satisfy the procedural due process rights of the detainees), a few military trials began.
This did not occur until Bush’s second term was almost over- (2006, 2007). Obviously the administration tested the waters with the new military commissions process by prosecuting low level detainees—ie the guy who claimed he was only Osama’s driver.
Trying KSM before a military tribunal was neither feasible nor possible during Bush’s administration.
Sorry about mis-quote.
2007? Well then he (bush) had time to do it. All he had to do was enact it, get it started. Yet he didn't didn't? KSM is probably the most important guy to put before a MT.
Anyways, if things are as you say and i have no reason not to think so, Why hasn't a reporter pressed this issue on Obama? Any articles or clips anywhere?
-
I honestly believe that Obama has not been pressed on this stuff because 1) Most people have no idea this stuff occured and 2) The media is in the tank for the administration.
The Supreme Court decisions in this area are so lengthy and vague ( and in some cases contradictory) that unless you really took the time to dissect the line of holdings, the actual effect of the courts opinions are almost incomprehensible.
For example, the decision that held the procedural due process safeguards in place for detainees under the Bush Admin's revamped military tribunals were insufficent was a 5-4 decision that was 98 pages long.
-
-
The only evidence they had is that which they beat out of him - and it won't stand up in a military tribunal.
in other words, they knew if they put him on trial, he walks. No admissable evidence. So rather than fail, they just kept him locked up.
obama knows this, and he's doing the only thing he can do - - - try them blocks from ground zero and hope they're convicted on emotion and not evidence.
All these people shitting on him are ignorant of this...
Plenty of evidence to convict him that was not obtained by torture. Including his CONFESSION.
-
Plenty of evidence to convict him that was not obtained by torture. Including his CONFESSION.
His confession came after the torture.
-
George, you are often a great source of information. Glad your on the board.
-
"Plenty of evidence to convict him that was not obtained by torture. Including his CONFESSION. "
And Bush didn't convict and hang him because... ???
(He trusted the next lib would handle it correctly?)
-
Thanks Shoot-
The feeling is mutual.
I think that in many respects people (even educated ones) place blind faith in what politicians and members of the media tell them without taking the time to examine reality for themselves. Actual interaction with people in the know about a certain subject is the best way to learn about something-- Short of having real life experience yourself.
Fortunately I do have some knowledge about the legal issues surrounding this trial above and beyond what is available to many people.
-
I don't see how anyone can have much faith in politicians. We must hold them accountable and force real transparency (not the lipservice that was promised by this administration).
Most of the population has a short attention span and want shocking headlines, it's getting worse as the media is feeding this appetite for ratings. Few people take the time to learn details unfortunately or have the patients to listen who do. The media is so important and one of the many reasons why the media must be impartial. It has been a huge disappointment that mainstream media is not questioning this administration appropriately. I hate group mentality, slogans and bandwagon mentality that we saw last election. I suppose the backlash was predictable but the political pendulum swung way too far left in electing this administration.
-
Thanks Shoot-
The feeling is mutual.
I think that in many respects people (even educated ones) place blind faith in what politicians and members of the media tell them without taking the time to examine reality for themselves. Actual interaction with people in the know about a certain subject is the best way to learn about something-- Short of having real life experience yourself.
Fortunately I do have some knowledge about the legal issues surrounding this trial above and beyond what is available to many people.
Damn right GW!
Its incredible the blind faith people are putting in Obama on many issues.
-
Damn right GW!
Its incredible the blind faith people are putting in Obama on many issues.
Yes we can! :D
-
No more picking on GW. Blame Obama now.
-
While blame for certain things is shared, Obama has had control for 1 year now. He owns it.
-
I'd just like to know why he hasn't been publicly pressed by RUSH or the repubs or FOX news to put him before a MT.
WHY?
-
I'd just like to know why he hasn't been publicly pressed by RUSH or the repubs or FOX news to put him before a MT.
WHY?
Do you even read posts?
GW gave a detailed explanation as to why.
-
Do you even read posts?
GW gave a detailed explanation as to why.
So Obama can't put him before a MT?
-
So Obama can't put him before a MT?
I dont know, but he certainly did not have to put them in a civilian trial. if the issue was that they were working through the kinks for a MT, they should just have let the dirtbag rot.
By putting them in civilian court, this means that soldiers would have to read miranda warnings to everyone on the battlefield and act according to criminal producre as far as evidence gathering goes. Thats absolutely ludicrious on so many levels.
-
I dont know, but he certainly did not have to put them in a civilian trial. if the issue was that they were working through the kinks for a MT, they should just have let the dirtbag rot.
By putting them in civilian court, this means that soldiers would have to read miranda warnings to everyone on the battlefield and act according to criminal producre as far as evidence gathering goes. Thats absolutely ludicrious on so many levels.
Maybe they can't let the dirtbag rot. My the SC and L.L.'s won't let them. From what I understand according to GW, and I could have misunderstood, they can put him on a MT. So why hasn't Obama been pressed?
-
Maybe they can't let the dirtbag rot. My the SC and L.L.'s won't let them. From what I understand according to GW, and I could have misunderstood, they can put him on a MT. So why hasn't Obama been pressed?
I really dont know, but the reason Holder gave was incoherent at best.
-
I really dont know, but the reason Holder gave was incoherent at best.
But there's obviously more to the story here.
Either Obama can or can't put KSM before a MT
If he can't then you can't really blame him.
If he can, then why isn't RUSH and his drones, the repubs, and FOX news going ape shit over this?
-
Oz- He can and he's not.
The victims families and members of the GOP pressed Holder on this issue directly-- even KSM's willingness to plead guilty before an MT
Holder's response was something along the lines of - KSM doesn't get choose how he is prosecuted.
There is a MT system in place for trying AQ members now.
I think that people are outraged and that the right wing pundits are licking their chops at the prospect of a civilian trial.
When the story was first broke I was tuning into O'Reilly who had Congressman Weiner and some other lib douchebag on his show. O'Reilly spent 10 minutes shouting at the guy.
This is a HUGE deal, but the story is still in it's early stages. Right now Afghanistan, Healthcare, Enviromental Issues like climategate and the economy are bigger stories-- But wait another couple of months and this stuff will be on the front page of every Newspaper in America.
-
He should be under a ton of pressure.
Holder and others want to make it a point to try terrorists in civilian trials IMO.
-
GW - I have listed the procedural issues involved many times. People unaware of law criminal procedure are cluess as to the many pitfalls ahead in this.
Obama/Holders' remarks ensuring a guilty verdict alone probably added a few million dollars and a year of delay by taining the very core of the system itself - thatt he defendant gets a presumption of innocence from the get go.
-
Yup.
And what people also don't realize is that you don't need to prove that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no discovery, there is no jury and there is no appeals process for a military tribunal.
Why on earth would you make things harder on yourself when trying to prosecute the guy who perpatrated the 911 attacks?
Outside of trying to put the Bush admin on trial, I cannot think of a single good reason for Obama to do this-- and even then, its good for liberals and bad for the country.
-
Yup.
And what people also don't realize is that you don't need to prove that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no discovery, there is no jury and there is no appeals process for a military tribunal.
Why on earth would you make things harder on yourself when trying to prosecute the guy who perpatrated the 911 attacks?
Outside of trying to put the Bush admin on trial, I cannot think of a single good reason for Obama to do this-- and even then, its good for liberals and bad for the country.
To add insult to injury, literally, the guy wanted to plead guilty last year!
-
"To add insult to injury, literally, the guy wanted to plead guilty last year!"
Why didn't Bush let him?
-
The only evidence they had is that which they beat out of him - and it won't stand up in a military tribunal.
in other words, they knew if they put him on trial, he walks. No admissable evidence. So rather than fail, they just kept him locked up.
obama knows this, and he's doing the only thing he can do - - - try them blocks from ground zero and hope they're convicted on emotion and not evidence.
All these people shitting on him are ignorant of this...
Really 240?