Author Topic: Why didn't Bush Prosecute KSM? (Read 4374 times)

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #50 on:** December 07, 2009, 01:58:21 PM »

Quote from: Benny Blanco on December 07, 2009, 01:52:16 PM

Plenty of evidence to convict him that was not obtained by torture. Including his CONFESSION.

His confession came after the torture.

shootfighter1 · « **Reply #51 on:** December 07, 2009, 02:06:10 PM »

George, you are often a great source of information. Glad your on the board.

240 is Back · « **Reply #52 on:** December 07, 2009, 02:18:40 PM »

"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?)

George Whorewell · « **Reply #53 on:** December 07, 2009, 03:35:46 PM »

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.

shootfighter1 · « **Reply #54 on:** December 07, 2009, 05:14:28 PM »

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.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #55 on:** December 07, 2009, 07:04:13 PM »

Quote from: George Whorewell on December 07, 2009, 03:35:46 PM

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.

Skip8282 · « **Reply #56 on:** December 07, 2009, 07:09:44 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on December 07, 2009, 07:04:13 PM

Damn right GW!

Its incredible the blind faith people are putting in Obama on many issues.

Yes we can!

regmac · « **Reply #57 on:** December 07, 2009, 07:10:34 PM »

No more picking on GW. Blame Obama now.

shootfighter1 · « **Reply #58 on:** December 08, 2009, 05:28:28 AM »

While blame for certain things is shared, Obama has had control for 1 year now. He owns it.

OzmO · « **Reply #59 on:** December 08, 2009, 08:44:01 AM »

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?

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #60 on:** December 08, 2009, 08:45:16 AM »

Quote from: OzmO on December 08, 2009, 08:44:01 AM

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.

OzmO · « **Reply #61 on:** December 08, 2009, 08:47:28 AM »

Quote from: 333386 on December 08, 2009, 08:45:16 AM

Do you even read posts?

GW gave a detailed explanation as to why.

So Obama can't put him before a MT?

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #62 on:** December 08, 2009, 08:50:19 AM »

Quote from: OzmO on December 08, 2009, 08:47:28 AM

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.

OzmO · « **Reply #63 on:** December 08, 2009, 08:53:55 AM »

Quote from: 333386 on December 08, 2009, 08:50:19 AM

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?

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #64 on:** December 08, 2009, 08:54:56 AM »

Quote from: OzmO on December 08, 2009, 08:53:55 AM

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.

OzmO · « **Reply #65 on:** December 08, 2009, 08:56:58 AM »

Quote from: 333386 on December 08, 2009, 08:54:56 AM

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?

George Whorewell · « **Reply #66 on:** December 08, 2009, 10:35:58 AM »

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.

shootfighter1 · « **Reply #67 on:** December 08, 2009, 10:39:36 AM »

He should be under a ton of pressure.

Holder and others want to make it a point to try terrorists in civilian trials IMO.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #68 on:** December 08, 2009, 10:40:58 AM »

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.

George Whorewell · « **Reply #69 on:** December 08, 2009, 10:45:43 AM »

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.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #70 on:** December 08, 2009, 10:47:26 AM »

Quote from: George Whorewell on December 08, 2009, 10:45:43 AM

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!

240 is Back · « **Reply #71 on:** December 08, 2009, 10:57:35 AM »

"To add insult to injury, literally, the guy wanted to plead guilty last year!"

Why didn't Bush let him?

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #72 on:** August 02, 2011, 03:25:08 PM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on December 06, 2009, 11:59:15 AM

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?