But isn’t this sort of no-matter-what-the-law-says-we’re-holding-you precisely what Bush was called evil for?
No. Bush was called evil for not bringing charges or having trials at all.
How far are you willing to backtrack in order to find something to continue to be “outraged” over, Bricker? How much more bald misrepresentation of the facts do you think will go over here?
Come on now.
But that’s exactly what those pushing for a trial are fighting against-- the prospect that the United States could indefinitely imprison a danger to the country during a time of war.
Pushing for a criminal trial of KSM and others is precisely a repudiation of the ability of the President to detain anyone, of any nationality, without said criminal trial.
Personally, I find this all madness. Either we are at war or we are not. If we are at war, military commissions have always been perfectly legitimate mechanisms in U.S. history. If not, then everything we do is open up to legal challenge-- every Predator strike, every military assault, everything.
The line was drawn, and pretty clearly. Now, the line has been erased, and like others have said, why bother having a trial if you already know the verdict? If anything, this is worse than what came before-- you couldn’t make a mockery of the civilian courts when you never bothered to use them in the first place.
Shameful political grandstanding, IMHO.
Tapper speaks 12 times in that transcript. Garrett speaks twice, the first one after Tapper’s SEVENTH rejoinder.
At yet somehow it’s Fox News’ fault? Why isn’t it ABC’s fault?
Answer: because you know that if you bleat out “Fox News!!” as the Universal Lefty Signal To Disregard, it’ll work.
Sorry. This exchange was started and dominated by the ABC News Senior White House Correspondent.
But will continue to be confined.
So it was evil to keep him confined with no trial.
But to keep him confined regardless of the results of a trial… THAT’S enlightened, upstanding leadership.
Gotcha.
Obama didn’t say he was holding him no matter what. People speaking for him do not know that. It has a lot top do with what judge is picked for this trial. If the judge drops evidence that was coerced ,then the case may be a little weaker. I suppose the first action will be a push for change of venue. It might be hard to get an impartial New York jury. They should move it to Dearborn, Mich.
Show us anything, anything at all, of a factual nature to support your contention that that is indeed what Obama is planning. “But his spokesman won’t say he isn’t” doesn’t cut it.
Do you even know what “making shit up” is? Does it even matter to you?
The official Obama spokesman absolutely and categorically refused to say that KSM would be released if he isn’t convicted. Most posters in this thread seem to agree with the wisdom of that decision.
Yet most posters in this thread were violently opposed to President Bush’s approach to the situation, which is functionally equivalent… in fact, was more honest. Obama will apparently have a trial, but not release the guy no matter the results. Bush, a simpler fellow not enlightened like Obama, was just going to confine him and not have a show trial.
Either back that up or retract it. NOW. :rolleyes:
There is no point in continuing to discuss falsehoods, no matter how often you repeat them.
I read the exchange as wanting Gibbs to state whether he would continue to hold KSM under an alternative (likely military) legal theory, if found not guilty for these crimes. Gibbs didn’t say yes they would, or no they would not (the only two possible “hypotheticals”).
The reason you don’t answer, is not necessarily for KSM who is as close to 100% as you can get to being found guilty, but for future detainees. If you say you’re going to set one “free” if found not guilty, it would apply to all.
Obama gnerally says a lot by saying nothing. He’s not saying he won’t continue to hold KSM as an enemy combatant; He said he has the right to detain under the AUMF (but never said he couldn’t detain under inherent an Presidential power). It’s tactically a proper way to handle it in the press because they will exploit it (as they should).
No, but in theory, the press secretary’s job is answering questions. It’s a legitimate question. As said above, I understand why Gibbs doesn’t want to answer this, but there’s nothing wrong with the question. It’s a real issue, and even if the odds are a billion to one it will apply to Mohammed, it might apply to other detainees whose involvement with Al Qaeda or other groups is not so clear cut.
I was hearing Friday that there are 215 people detained at Guantanamo. With about 90 scheduled for repatriation or resettlement and about 40 going to be tried by a military tribunal or a court, the fate of about 75 of them is not clear. Cite. Something does need to happen with that group.
So what, if anything, should we actually infer from the complete refusal of the president’s press secretary to agree that if KSM is acquitted, he’d be released?
More to the point: what’s the right answer? Bush was vilified for saying, in effect, “I’m going to keep these guys locked up.”
Now, clever Obama, who says a lot by saying nothing, is… saying nothing. Which means – what, exactly? Will he release KSM if the guy is acquitted?
Seriously?
He wasn’t being asked for his decision. He was being asked what his boss’ decision was.
Not “…will the Press Secretary let them leave?”
So then why not say, and do, just that?
“When will the President stop beating his wife?” would be equally legitimate as a question.
Please. You’re only embarrassing yourself here, Bricker.
I think Gibbs dodging the question is smart.
There simply is no point in saying that a terrorist might be freed. The brainwashed Fox News teabaggers will simply take that one line out of the transcript and repeat erroneously that Obama plans to free terrorists. Everyone and their grandmas know that’s what they want.
On the other hand, saying there are plenty of other legal tactics to keep KSM in jail makes Obama look like Bush, and a one line admission of that on a TV show isn’t going to have the nuance that an actual legal tactic like that deserves. We all know there’s probably plenty of ways KSM can be kept in jail indefintely. But those would be legal tactics justified by our laws. That point is not going to come across well in an interview.
All of this does not answer two salient questions:
- Why didn’t we just shoot his ass when we caught him?
- Why the hell is ObamaCo trying him in a civilian court instead of a military court?
And so the difference between Obama and Bush on this point is…?
And, btw, for those claiming this is going to be a show trial…I happen to know a few federal judges. They have life tenure, can’t be demoted or have their salaries reduced. They are not likely to just voluntarily bend over for anybody. Judges tend to take the integrity of their office, and the proceedings in their courtrooms very seriously. Obama and the Justice Department can’t pull a string to make the Judge talk on cue. I believe whichever Judge is assigned to this case will try it just like any other to the extent possible…and that includes enforcing pre-trial discovery as needed.
When I say Obama has gone all in, I mean that he has to win convictions in these cases. If he doesn’t, he’ll be unemployed in 2013. He knows that. He also knows that once the case is in the hands of the civilian court, he can’t control the outcome.
I have heard speculation on Right Wing Talk Radio that this is a gambit designed to put various Bush policies on trial. (Policies including imprisonment without trial, and the use of torture-like techniques, for example.)