Shoulda brought it up when it was fresher; it could have been added to the Teabaggers brouhaha and maybe inspired an epic case of buyer’s remorse.
Oh, well, I can see the strategic possibilities of keeping something back for later. Wouldn’t do to run out of grist for the mill, would it?
What I’d like to know is where the fuck was FNC’s/RNC’s faux outrage when we tried other terrorists like Timothy McVeigh, Zacarias Moussaoui or the guy who was behind the first WTC bombing. I’d didn’t see anybody too worried about what would happen if those guys were found not guilty.
On this same note, the Daily Show had a great bit tonight comparing what Rudy Guiliani said a few years ago about Moussaoui to what he’s saying about this particular case.
Ah, are you saying that Cheney did not sign the PNAC document? I deny being a truther based on lack of evidence. But there is ample evidence that they wanted something like 9/11 to happen. I suggest you google for the PNAC document I referenced. It’s genuine and its disgusting. Cheney and Rumsfeld called for a Pearl Harbor event and signed it.
Really. Because you are welcome to find such statements from prosecutors and post them. You really do love do dodge and weave around the issue. Here and in every other thread. I can’t ever recall having heard a prosecutor or spokesperson say what you have posited, and not from lack of stupid questions from the press.
It must be very depressing not to have the Bush scum in charge anymore when you can pretend you disapprove but love the destruction of law.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
Here’s the PNAC letter. My mistake about Cheney signing it. See page 63 of 90 of the pdf.
And I didn’t see anyone unwilling to say, “If McVeigh is acquitted of all criminal charges in state and federal court, of course we’ll release him.”
Who are you thinking of that was asked that question and bobbed and weaved instead of answering it?
This is getting hilarious. Apart from (I think) two people in this thread, no one is willing to address what actually happened here. As though somehow the right wing is responsible for the White House’s inability to confirm that they either do, or do not, plan to follow the rule of law.
Now, the two exceptions: Fuzzy Dunlop, who apparently cannot be a true liberal, because he’s willing to acknowledge that the failure to answer the question about releasing a prisoner if he’s acquitted has some troubling implications; and Richard Parker, whose post is actually an honest assessment of the politics vs. the policy.
So the rest fo you craven cowards: are these two wrong? Is Richard Parker’s mind off in Crazyland? Or is he onto something, and if he is… then why is everyone else frantically denying it?
I think this is as close as anybody has come. On Friday, Holder didn’t provide any more specifics than Gibbs did:
You’re referring to a paper published before Bush was even elected, with this single sentence?
And where do they say they wished for it? And why do I even care? Did Bush sign it? Did Cheney? Did any Cabinet Secretaries sign it? Any Sentators? Representatives? Does did ANYONE sign it?
No. There’s a list of names at the bottom, yes, but:
So you’ve managed to post a paper published in September 2000, before Bush was even elected, one that makes no claims relevant to the discussion at hand, signed by nobody except some think tank?
You could have posted a cite for the yearly fluctuation in the price of guava paste and it would have had just as much relevance. More, in fact. I like guava paste.
I said IF such prosecutors had been asked that question…
SO you find me a prosecutor that’s been asked that question, and I’ll show you his response.
So much for asking the Justice Department.
Thanks.
Well. Now we’ve got THAT handled. Looks like the Justice Department was asked.
From Marley’s cite:
Well, SDMB? Is this outrageous, or wise?
Or just outrageous when Bush does it, but wise now that Obama is doing it?
Because nobody bothered asking that question.
There was no reason to ask that question about McVeigh. His legal status was much clearer. And I guess it goes without saying that this is yet another reason guys like Mohammed (and perhaps more importantly, the men with less clear links to terrorism) should have been put on trial years ago, so there would have been fewer complications. But you can’t un-waterboard that bell.
Sure. Because from the beginning, McVeigh was handled by our criminal justice system. Mohammed was not arrested after a grand jury indicted him. He was not given a preliminary hearing and there was no bail determination made.
So it’s entirely reasonable to ask, if we plan on trying him in the criminal justice system, and at the outside chance happens and we lose, are we going to free him? The answer for McVeigh was obviously yes. Because Mohammed didn’t begin his journey in the criminal system, there is no cealr answer for him. It’s a very legitimate question.
Bricker, I think you’ll find, after rereading this thread, that a large percentage of the posts here disagreeing with you (including my own) are some form of Richard Parker’s “politics vs. the policy” argument.
To be clear, the article states Obama is continuing to hold people as Enemy Combatant’s, who are Enemy combatants (this is not news, he slightly redefined EC, but he can still hold them). The article then states “legal analysts” say it’s possible to be moved from being a criminal, back to being detained as an EC.
I don’t think the article states Obama would do that. (not that he’s said he wouldn’t)
You know what real stupidity is?
Making the same mistake over and over.
I have the worst confirmation bias in the world when it comes to stuff like this. And every time it’s pointed out to me, I smack myself and resolve to not to do it again. And I find myself doing it again.
I reread the thread, making little notes on each post. (I am unable to see one participant’s posts in this thread). But for the others, I made a little notch tally as I went.
I may have counted some posters more than once, but I found only six posters that seem to be defending the non-answer answer, or throwing up distractions to avoid addressing it. And I counted thirteen that were either condemning it or at least acknowledging it was a political dodge.
So let me (again!) retract my sweeping condemnation and replace it with: if any of you six want to explain why Bush=bad, Obama doing same thing=good, please go ahead.
And I apologize for my hasty generalization.
I would answer, but I guess I’m too much of a “craven coward” to do so.
When Bush was promulgating the category of “enemy combatants,” there was strong condemnation from many posters here over the evil claim that he could indefinitely detain them.
It’s not news, as you say, that the Obama administration has not renounced that claim.
So: is it still evil?
I don’t see how you can be sure of this. Much of the evidence may end up inadmissible. He was repeatedly tortured, so his own confessions may be tainted. Who knows what else – wiretaps or intercepts that can’t be used for some national security reasons? Statements from other prisoners who might also have been tortured?
I always assumed that one reason the Bush administration didn’t try these guys was that they knew there wasn’t sufficient evidence, in large part because they were contemptuous of the rule of civilian law in wartime, and they’ve been poisoning the well ever since.
I think there is a very good chance he won’t be convicted. If he is convicted, I think there is a very good chance that the trial will seem a mockery of justice – with a ‘pet’ judge allowing in all kinds of questionable but damming evidence that would routinely be disallowed in normal trials.
Nevertheless, I believe it is necessary to attempt a trial. And I believe it may actually be necessary to release him.