Why didn't Bush Prosecute KSM?

[George Whorewell]

So basically BUSH didn't prosecute KSM in a military court because lib lawyers prevented it?

Lib lawyers and the Supreme Court.

[Kazan]

[Soul Crusher]

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.

[Kazan]

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.

[shootfighter1]

Hope there is another rally in the spring when there's better wheather.  When is the trial supposed to start?

[Soul Crusher]

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.   

[OzmO]

OK,  so what should Obama do?  Give it to the next president?

[Soul Crusher]

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. 

[OzmO]

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?

[Soul Crusher]

If Obama can do that WHY COULDN'T BUSH?

We need to figure that one out.  I dont have an answer to that. 

[OzmO]

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.

[tonymctones]

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...

[OzmO]

unless you just let him rot away in obscurity, maybe this is why bush never tried him...

THey won't let him do that.

[shootfighter1]

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.

[OzmO]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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. 

[Kazan]

There is quick way to end this, tomorrow morning they find that he hung himself in his cell, problem solved.

[OzmO]

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?

[Soul Crusher]

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? 

[OzmO]

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.

[George Whorewell]

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.

[OzmO]

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?

[George Whorewell]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

[Benny B]

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.