Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama "admits defeat": NO Gitmo suspects will be tried in civilian courts

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 09:03 PM
Original message
Obama "admits defeat": NO Gitmo suspects will be tried in civilian courts
Reporting from Washington The Obama administration admitted defeat in its efforts to prosecute the self-described mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks before a civilian jury in New York City, announcing that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four others would be tried by a military commission at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The decision, announced Monday by Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr., marks a sharp political setback for President Obama, who had repeatedly pledged to use civilian courts to try "high-value" terrorism suspects. It also creates fresh uncertainty about the legal road ahead for senior Al Qaeda suspects now in custody.

A federal judge in Manhattan promptly dismissed a sealed grand jury indictment from December 2009 against Mohammed and the four others pending transfer of the case to the military tribunal. The existence of the 10-count, 81-page federal indictment against the five men was not previously known.

Several hours later, Navy Capt. John Murphy, chief prosecutor in the Pentagon's Office of Military Commissions, announced that charges would be filed "in the near future" to try the case at Guantanamo. Mohammed and his codefendants are among about 170 detainees at the military prison there.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ho...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 09:06 PM
Response to Original message
1. Gutless.
Because they might get a juror like me who would set anyone free who was tortured by the US government.

If I can't torture the people I want to torture, NOBODY TORTURES. Fair is fair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. CHALK ANOTHER CAMPAIGN PROMISE OFF! :-D Oh, wait ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apples and oranges Donating Member (772 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #1
26. So you would let a terrorist go free to prove a point?
And you're mad because you've been potentially robbed of that opportunity? Wow! Just wow!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democracyinkind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 04:50 AM
Response to Reply #26
42. And how many "terrorists" are there in Guantanomo?


Nobody really knows; especially not you. But hey, who cares?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 05:05 AM
Response to Reply #26
43. Anyone who has been tortured to the point of being
incapable of functioning, cannot be tried in a civil society. The reason they are doing this at Gitmo is because no decent person would now be able to convict this guy.

What a shameful country this is now. And I thought we were going to start fixing it when we elected Democrats in 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #43
48. As Johnny would have said: wrong doggy
breath! :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ReggieVeggie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 05:31 AM
Response to Reply #26
44. HOLY CRAP!
You people are REALLY screwed up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #44
57. Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 09:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. Rec'd up to zero.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
3. Yup
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 09:10 PM
Response to Original message
4. The MIC.....
...is in-charge and always has been since Ike. That's what he was trying to warn everyone about in his farewell message. But it was already too late even then. Now Obama knows who really runs things in this country.

- And so will everyone else as soon as they open their eyes.....

K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
5. I am such a dumbass
Here I thought the Attorney General was in charge of the Department of Justice. But I am reliably informed that in compliance with this year's fashions, I must (must, Must, MUST) trim my principles to fit. So long, slavish devotion to that quaint old document! Good-bye ideals of liberty and justice for all! It's time to get behind our party's anointed, and work, work, work to avoid a hellish turn to the right. By hellishly turning to the right.

Don't worry about the horse being blind boys, just load the wagon! John Madden said that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #5
55. great post
Thanks for the humorous twist!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
6. blame congress....they refused to fund it. should Obama pay for it out of his pocket?
Holder said at a news conference that he and the White House "reluctantly" reversed course because Congress passed legislation in December barring the use of federal funds to transfer detainees from Guantanamo to the U.S. In addition, he said, relatives of the nearly 3,000 people who were killed almost a decade ago in the attacks in New York, Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon were losing patience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starbucks Anarchist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #6
25. Don't bring facts stated in the article here.
Some posters don't want people to look past the headline. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #25
46. Yeah Obama can't do a thing! His hands are tied! He was dead at the time!
Wait....look at this:



OOOGABOOOGA!!!!

The Palin's gonna get you!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starbucks Anarchist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. Even for you, this post is bizarre.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gimama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
7. admits defeat while asking for voters' "support"..
My President continues to disappoint me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. wow. ad hominen attack. banned here. and people can think here
what they want. shove off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Yes, people can want a preening egotistical maniac as president

We had one of those.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #12
49. George Bush fought for the right to a fair trial in this country?
How on earth could Obama fighting AGAINST Bush's treasonous, anti-Constitutional policies possibly be called a 'preening egotistical maniacal president'? If anything warranted a president becoming near maniacal it would be the destruction of the U.S. Constitution and anything he did to prevent that from happening would not only be justified, it is his duty to do so. He swore an oath to do so.

The 1993 WTC terrorists, the Blind Sheik Rahman and others, were tried in Manhattan regardless of the fears of some people that the trials might provoke terrorism. Those trials went on for years and NY was able to handle them just fine.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidthegnome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. I would say that depends on the issue
Pigheaded refusal to recognize what you call futility in this case... oh I would say it is indeed a constructive character trait. Don't admit defeat - change tactics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. No, every at-bat is supposed to be an at-bat.
You want a baseball analogy, okay. If he's at the plate he needs to do what his coach/manager points him to do for the good of the team at the team. That might change with each pitch. Swing away, bunt, sacrifice fly, but at least he does what the fuck he's directed to do. Which...he does. Shame We the People aren't the coach/manager. Someone else is. Shame on that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. "We the people" being in this instance whom?

Because I certainly hope you don't mean the majority that opposes running these trials the way they are supposed to be run.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. The people that elected him.
IOW, not the corporations that have controlled him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. And you asked all these people what they want?

I always see the teabaggers going on about how government is not responding to "we the people" meaning them and their parasites.

This one is a huge issue to me and I am very disappointed.

However, the notion that "corporations" give a damn how these prosecutions are conducted is silly. Yeah, he was outgunned on this one because somehow these "corporations" told him not to hold trials.

There will be another round of suits out of this, and the end of this horrid story will be kicked further down the road, but could you please identify which corporations dictated that they be tried by a military tribunal than a civilian court. I gotta hear this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
13. 'Holder spoke with a tone of resignation,
acknowledging that the administrations hands had been effectively tied by members of Congress opposed to any transfer of Guantnamo detainees to the US.

Sadly, this case has been marked by needless controversy since the beginning, Holder said. The prosecution of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-conspirators should never have been about settling ideological arguments or scoring political points.'

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0404/In-abrup...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. This is where being a "constitutional lawyer" comes in handy for President Obama.
You see, President Obama can disregard the Constitution and Congress when he needs to bomb the shit out of someone, say like... oh... ahh.... err... Libya, for example. Particularly when the UN gives him it's blessing because he's "preventing a massacre." (In this case the words "preventing a massacre" can be interpreted as meaning "killing people in such a way as to disrupt oil exports.")

However, he can alternately disregard the Constitution and still listen to Congress when applying the due process clause to terrorist suspects.

- I'm sure that most of us never knew that the words in the Constitution could mean the exact opposite of what they say until he showed us how it can be done.......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apples and oranges Donating Member (772 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #17
29. You think Obama went into Libya just because he wanted to bomb the shit out of someone?
In the midst of everything going on in the US, you think he wanted to get involved with Libya to "bomb the shit out of" them? Really?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Sure. And he hides his birth certificate because his father is George HW Bush

I read it here on DU
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #30
36. Not father....
...but they are related. And with Cheney too!

- Eww.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #29
35. His motives.....
...can only be a matter of speculation for any of us. I doubt that he "wanted" to bomb Libya. But someone did and they won - the Tomahawks flew.

I am simply pointing out here that this obsequious acknowledgment by Atty. Gen. Holder of the administration's relative "powerlessness" in the face of a defiant Congress on this issue, is at odds with the staunch-"inyourface"-position that Secretary Clinton took, last week telling Congress that they would have ignored them anyway even if they hadn't wanted the administration to bomb Libya.

- Ironic, much?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #35
38. Amazing how that works
Typically the contradiction is ignored.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #17
32. He consulted members of congressional leadership about Libya,
and Congress has made it impossible to prosecute guantanamo inmates other than militarily AT guantanamo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #32
37. See above....
...post #35. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:31 PM
Response to Original message
16. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TransitJohn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 11:03 PM
Response to Original message
19. Wasn't that place supposed to be closed a year and a half ago?
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 03:13 AM
Response to Reply #19
39. lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 11:09 PM
Response to Original message
20. The secrets of 9/11 remain hidden
At a fair trail, the secrets of 9/11 would have been revealed.

Empire simply could not let that happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. I remember when they called in all the 'important' people to explain
Edited on Mon Apr-04-11 11:20 PM by Rex
the truth and people left thinking the truth was worse than the 'official story' or more outlandish. Wish I was a fly on the wall for THAT meeting. The govt is never wrong, it will be our achilles heel imo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #23
31. I think they figure
....we can't handle the truth.
And they are probably right.

And yes, this idea that the government wouldn't lie, is the lie.
Ah well, looks like karma is all we'll ever get. And I'd say it will take a few lifetimes to even out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. It could be true that the average American would freakout
I can believe that. I'm not sure if we get karma anymore, seems to be a surcharge on everything nowadays.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 11:11 PM
Response to Original message
21. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
apples and oranges Donating Member (772 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
24. On MSNBC today, someone was asked what would happen if any Gitmo suspects
were acquitted in civilian court. He would not answer! He just said: That wouldn't happen. Wouldn't happen? So that means the civilian court trials would be fixed? If so, what makes that a more just situation over Gitmo?

At this point, all we can strive for is to make sure no one is being tortured or mistreated while there. We can continue to be up in arms about this, but at the end of the day, nobody wants such trials in their backyard. At least then, if someone is innocent, they can be released quietly without the whole thing becoming a farce.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whatchamacallit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 11:27 PM
Response to Original message
27. He's owned and we're pwned (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 11:28 PM
Response to Original message
28. In the clearing stands a boxer, And a fighter by his trade.
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scurrilous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 11:53 PM
Response to Original message
34. You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paradoxical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 03:22 AM
Response to Reply #34
40. Despicable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 03:38 AM
Response to Reply #34
41. Continual folding
:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ReggieVeggie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 05:33 AM
Response to Reply #34
45. Without a public option, insurance companies will run free
when did I say that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #34
51. 2006: The Audacity of Hope / 2011: The Audacity of Folding
I liked the first book better. The sequel sucks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoePhilly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
50. Congress had no part in this, none ... absolutely none.
Maybe if you are an IDIOT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Logical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
52. No one supported him on this at all. I don't blame him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. Baloney.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Logical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. Proof please?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-06-11 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #54
56. You prove that "NOBODY supported him on this".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 02nd 2014, 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC