If he’s trying them in open court, but planning to keep them locked up regardless of the outcome, it’s not a difference that makes much difference.
Well, then what’s the harm in saying, “If he’s acquitted, he’ll be released.” Since that eventuality will, according to you, never come to pass?
Absolutely. “With the absolutely incontrovertible evidence we have against Khalid, the President fully expects the court to render a verdict of guilty. But in the event that does not happen, we will of course be bound by the rule of law.”
Perfectly acceptable answer.
This.
Except for the execution part, capital punishment being wrong, always and everywhere. I’m good with solitary confinement for the rest of their natural lives.
It’s been explained to you already a number of times. Please.
Under Bush, the use of courts of law wasn’t even a consideration. That question was never going to be asked.
I’m not as cynical as it looks, just realistic. There’s simply a lot more value to using one’s energy on real situations than imagined ones.
BTW, even if true, it would still be incredibly foolish for the administration to claim in public that they have an airtight case. You can agree with Dio to the contrary if you wish, though.
I addressed this already. No point in giving the likes of the teabaggers any more fuel for their Obama hatred. If Gibbs had said that, within minutes it would have been a headline on Fox, only instead of “If he’s acquitted”, it would be something insane like “Obama says terrorists could be released”
I think the question was remarkably similar to the 1988 presidential debate where Dukakis (who was against the death penalty) was asked “Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?”
Gibbs was merely trying to avoid giving an answer to such a minefield of a question. I don’t think it “proves” anything, but Gibbs’s non-answer was at least marginally better than Dukakis’s response.
Pardon me if someone mentioned this and I missed it, but if he were acquitted in U.S. federal court, couldn’t he (hypothetically) also be tried in New York state court, or extradited to a trial in another country or countries?
There are several nations that could plausibly claim jurisdiction in the Bojinka case alone.
Objection, speculative. He is held for trial on probable cause and the jury will get to decide his fate. The White House doesn’t make judge or jury decisions, and the question from the press was as insincere as the OP. The federal court sitting in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed is entitled to decide where he is tried and if convicted, what the penalty will be. Why not ask the court the questions, or the prosecutors? Or does the media like gotchas as much as the OP.
Can you point out precisely what about that question calls for speculation? Is it the part about what happens when a criminal defendant is acquitted in the American justice system? I’m pretty sure that’s not supposed to be speculative.
When you send someone to face charges in a criminal court, it’s explicitly implied that there are two outcomes and what happens if those outcomes are reached: guilty/not guilty. If not guilty, you’re acquitted.
There’s no need to even ask the question to run a headline saying Obama plans to free KSM if found not guilty. You can run that headline as soon as they are sent to be tried in a criminal court. If you go to court, you can be found not guilty, that means you walk (or deported in this case).
The fact that you’re not answering an obvious question is telling (of something). Why would someone ask such an obvious question then? Because there has been speculation for years if these detainees are tried as criminals, could they still be held as an enemy until the end of the war. My guess is the Supreme Court will let us know.
Personally, it’s a legit question and I’m interested in the answer.
Again, he trying them as under crminal law, but he’s not saying he can’t still use military law (law of war) to detain them. It’s classic Obama.
Sure, you are speculating that he might be acquitted. He might be. And he might be convicted. It might be a hung jury. It might be a mistrial. Of all the possibilities, speculating that he might be freed is the least likely of a dozen possible outcomes. It is not a classic case of speculating what another is thinking, but it is certainly premature in a legal sense and wildly speculative in a practical sense.
Actually, he has said that through Holder.
Can you show me where he said that? I don’t doubt you, I’m just interested in reading about it.
I know they are trying some through criminal law courts and some in the military tribunals through law of war, but must have missed that the same person might be switched from EC to criminal, and possibly back to EC.
I saw it one of Holder’s press conferences. He said something about other jurisdictions being available as backup options, but I don’t have a cite.
But… didn’t Obama know before the election that this situation existed? Why did he promise to close it and try the detainees if Bush’s poisoning the well had made it impossible?
No one was asking Gibbs where KSM would be tried, or what the penalty would be if convicted. Those are, as you say, questions correctly left for the juddge, jury, and prosecutors.
“If he’s acquitted, will he be released?” is not a question for the judge or jury. It’s for the administration to answer.
So far, there are not too many scrupulously honest people in this thread, are there?
Probably it was the same press conference where they announced that ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent was not a journalist, but only a blogger.
Was that the one, Diogenes?
There is nothing speculative about whether one of these people might be acquitted. The possibility that the accused may be acquitted of the crimes he is accused of is fundamental and utterly indispensable to justice and the rule of law. I can’t honestly believe I had to just say that to someone who is presumably older than 10. We shouldn’t need to speculate whether there’s a chance someone will be acquitted nor what to do about it if he is.
That’s fine.
That could also mean the more likely and practical reason, too. The State of New York will be an option to try if not guilty (or Virginia or Pennsylvania). It somehow weakens the impact though of the current case, but it’s a perfectly legitimate thing to do and has been done often.