What do you mean by “unable”? As far as I can tell, he is perfectly capable of doing it yesterday. If he doesn’t know how, I am sure an aide could explain it to him.
Pardon me while I finish giggling. Do you really believe Obama is the first President in history who has had less-than-unanimous support by the press?
For crying out loud, Bush managed to get re-elected even though part of the press used forged documents to try to discredit him. But Obama can’t do what he promised to do because mean old Fox News is gonna frown at him.
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry - you people think even less of Obama than I do.
I don’t think you are accurately reflecting the intent of how Bush and Obama have arrived at their particular decisions. Bush had, to a great extent, a free hand to design interrogation and detention policies (within the very generous bounds of the law, of course). He had the opportunity to decide the terms under which suspected terrorists captured on the battlefield would be held, what treatment they would receive, and how their cases would be disposed of. Out of the whole range of possibilities, he chose to implement policies that were basically the worst. (Maybe not literally the worst, but certainly very detestable policies.)
Obama does not get the shake the legal Etch-a-Sketch and start with a fresh slate of options. You and I both seem to agree that Obama’s first choice of policies would be to close Guantanamo and put the likes of KSM on trial in Federal courts.
It is my layman’s contention that Bush so screwed up everything that there is a very high likelihood that the case wouldn’t even make it to a jury because the waterboarding and whatnot of KSM would present an extraordinarily difficult matter for any judge to overlook.
So what would you propose that Obama do? Because of what Bush had ordered, his preferred alternatives carry the extreme risk that KSM would be required to be set free, without ever facing a jury. Between the two alternatives – essentially letting him walk or holding him under a legal authority he apparently has, but finds detestable – I’m not sure there’s much of a choice here. (Cue SDMB hand-wringing that we ought to let KSM walk free.)
To be a little flippant about it, your OP is suggesting that there be equal outrage at two men who club and eat cute little baby seals. The difference is that one man is doing it because he loves the taste of baby seal meat, and the other is doing it because he has no other food to eat. I see a moral difference between the two, even though I still feel sorry for the baby seal. Is that unreasonable, inconsistent, or hypocritical of me?
ETA: I’m basing my opinion on this matter on fundamentally different reasons than reported by the WaPo article, which essentially states that the Administration is making a political/campaign decision on the matter. Not that I’m a White House insider, but I do not fully believe that the story is accurate in that regard.
Wait a minute. The article states that: “The administration asserts that it can hold Mohammed and other al-Qaeda operatives under the laws of war, a principle that has been upheld by the courts when Guantanamo Bay detainees have challenged their detention.”
I thought the SCOTUS said that they could be held for some length of time, but not forever, although they didn’t stipulate what that timeframe was. Am I missing something? Did the courts really say they could be held essentially “forever”?
What “error”? Having more principles than he does?
I see no reason to think that he “didn’t understand the forces in play”; this is just another example of him being all talk and no action when it comes to civil rights. He’s either spineless or corrupt. Or both.
Every person is entitled to the presumption of honest dealing. I assign Obama the mantle of honesty in this matter because I see no reason to doubt it. If you have evidence, let’s hear it.
I believe they can be held as long as there’s a state of war in Afghanistan, which isn’t technically ‘forever’ but probably pretty close.
He did take action, he tried to have KSM tried in NY. Its just his action failed and now his options are basically keep him in Gitmo without trial or let him loose.
True, but Obama is also on the record as opposing those, so it doesn’t really keep Bricker from calling him evil. Plus, as a practical matter, I’d argue that the Military Tribunal System sets a worse precedent then the current policy of detention as POWs (IIRC, the tribunals got tossed by the SCOTUS the last time they were tried, though they were later retooled by further legislation, indefinite detention has sadly already been found to be kosher).
He’s just hamstrung by a cuntbag Congress. He tried to give the dude a trial, and he’s not the one who made this mess in the first place, he just inherited it. He really has no good choice now. I would say he lacks courage for defaulting to the status quo insteading of simply giving KSM a pile of money, apologizing, giving him citizenship and letting him go like he should do (preferably buying him a big old house right next to George W. Bush or Dick Cheney), but that doesn’t make him evil, just gutless.
That’s a valid answer on the economy: Bush spent 8 years trashing the economy, so let’s not be surprised when Obama hasn’t managed to fix it in 2. But it’s bull for the question of Guantanamo Bay. As soon as he took office, he should have scheduled trials for all of the prisoners for whom we have evidence, and released all of the ones for which we don’t. Yes, some of those folks without evidence might have been terrorists, and most of the ones who weren’t probably want to become terrorists right now, and that sucks, but that’s on Bush’s shoulders. It’s still wrong to hold them.
Quoth smiling bandit:
You might not be up on current events, but they passed an amendment recently which does prohibit it. It goes something like this:
By what legal justification, for what charges, based on what evidence, adjudicated by what authority? Who should have done the shooting, and why wouldn’t such a shooting be a legal homicide?
Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean it doesn’t make sense. KSM was captured and handled in an inept way. Now we have to deal with the fact that the evidence was bungled against him and keep him off the street. If you fail utterly the guy who cleans up after you has to deal with your mess.
If Obama did that he’d deserve as much disdain as Bush has for it. Waterboarding is clearly a warcrime and no one who isn’t a blind, unthinking partisan thinks any different.
Detainees in Gitmo are being held, by Bush and now Obama, as enemy combatants (ie, not civilians). Enemy combatants can be detained indefinitely. Indefinitely means an unstated period of time (I know you know that, but just being clear). The detention is ceased at the end of hostilities. Practically every person detained in a war was detained indefinitely, only hindsight provides a finite length of detention.
So, you’re right about SCOTUS. They said it’s legal to detain an enemy during hostilities. Everyone (I would think) would agree with that principle. As you say though, the SC understands this situation/war is different and could possibly lead to, what they called, “generational” detainment. They felt very uneasy about that, but did not go as far to state detaining these combatants was per se illegal just because it’s been awhile…yet. A new case needs to come along to set some sort of parameters on how to define this “war” and just how broadly can you go when labeling someone a “combatant” in this type of war.
Come on now. Mohammed was tortured, but he’s still a terrorist and this doesn’t make sense. This is the problem with torturing these guys in the first place: it makes it impossible to prosecute them properly.
I don’t think there’s much evidence that the reason for not trying KSM is that his waterboarding makes him unprosecutable. The Obama Admin seemed pretty sure they had enough to hang him with even without any evidence collected while he was being tortured or under threat of torture. If memory serves there was a warrent out for his arrest for terrorist attacks even before 9/11, so even a decade ago the gov’t apparently thought they had enough evidence to try him.
Not that I disagree with your general point (torturing suspects make it hard to try them) but in the specific case of KSM, I don’t think torture is the reason he wasn’t tried. He wasn’t tried because Congress blocked funding for the trial.