Bush On Military Tribunals: "I Made Absolutely The Right Decision"

Clymer News Network ^

[Recovering_Democrat]

Some Clymer hack (Terry Moran?) just asked Bush for his response to critics that military tribunals endanger a terrorist's Constitutional rights, G.W. said without wavering that these were "extraordinary times", and that he wasn't going to waver. He reminded the leftist press that Franklin Roosevelt, the icon of the socialist Democrats, did the same thing in WWII.

"So to the critics I say, 'I made absolutely the right decision." End of press briefing. Bush was done.

[dirtboy]

Not in secret, closed trials, where it is completely up to the president to decide who is and who is not a "terrorist."

I think you are confusing the Nuremburg Trials with domestic espionage cases during the war. And I imagine some spies were just shot during the war if putting them on trial would compromise intelligence resources.

This is war. This county has often changed the rules during wartime to reflect the realities of such.

[Marduk]

Democrats should be reminded that it was Democrats that invented this idea after the end of WWII. Somehow I don't hear Democrats condemning the Nuremberg trials.

[Penny1]

I would rather have the jury comprised of professional military jurists that a jury of civilians. Almost every jury these days seems to have at least one moron who can be swayed by the most ridiculous defense argument. Would you like to have Osama bin Laden tried by the O. J. Simpson jury, or one of Bush's military tribunals?

Absolutely, and not only that, Bush's point about the threat to jurors in a civil trial is very compelling--yet another way in which a faulty verdict could be engineered by the "evil-doers."

-penny

[Darlin']

FOFL. Yes, it was Terry Moran that asked the question. I love President Bush. He is driving the libs crazy.

[nothingnew]

we have always had the presumption of innocence as the center of our judicial system -- whether foreigner or citizen.

I agree with you, (but somewhat grudgingly at this precise point in time)...but did not bin laden admit days ago he was responsible?...or do I need to do many searches?...as far as I know, this ONE INDIVIDUAL admitted his guilt, or is that honor?, that he is responsible?...what next?...Miranda?...

FMCDH

[Patrick]

Can you imagine the howling and gnashing of teeth if this had been a clintoon E.O? The hypocrisy never fails to amaze.Party over principle,how sad.

[Commonsense]

OK smart guy

I'm not a "smart guy" but rather an extraordinarily intelligent woman.

Take the time to read the history on tribunal precedents and the results of those ordered by Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt and Kennedy.

[BikerNYC]

No, of course YOU couldn't prove that bin Laden is guilty of anything. You haven't seen what those in the government has seen.

If you wish to trust the government when it comes to deciding who is guilty of criminal activity and who isn't, without any checks and balances by the People through a duly appointed jury, you got more trust in you than I do.

How many criminal cases have we seen here on FR that have been brought by the government but where the evidence is justifiably shredded to death by those here? The government screws up big time. If it were up to you, the people the government thinks has commited crimes would not only be charged by the government, but the guilt of those charged would be decided by the government as well.

[lawgirl]

ROFL!! W and Rummy do such a good job reminding us that REAL MEN are in town!

[BikerNYC]

I would rather have the jury comprised of professional military jurists that a jury of civilians.

Yes, we should have had a professional military jury for the Ruby Ridge case as well. /sarcasm off. For me, the system of having the checks and balances of a citizen jury is too valuable to throw away because you might have voted differently on any particular case.

[Paleo Conservative]

Another point was ...How would they be able to SECURE a Courthouse if Bin Laden was tried in one of our courthouses???? Very Good Question!! And can't you just IMAGINE the threats that jurors would get for their LIFE!!! "Dirty" Jurors could get 140 VIRGINS!!

Absolutely correct. The original sentencing date for the embassy bombers was September 12. The courthouse was just a few blocks from the World Trade Center. Al Qaeda was trying to send a message to the court and jury and intimidate them!

[nopardons]

Oh ? And juries are SO accurate and intelligent ? The O.J. trial worked ? What about the massive jury nullifications in the Bronx, where depending upon the melanin ( sp ? ) content of the perp AND the jury, absolutely GUILTY people are freed ? I could go on, but you seem to have long ago made up your own mind.

Have YOU ever been called to jury duty ? I have.

If military trials were okay for George Washington, our own mlitary service people, and Nazis, they are okay for the bin Laden, al Quaeda scum. Case closed. : - )

[nopardons]

This wasn't an EO, and Clinton would have little to do with an actual trial. It is the military, who runs a military tribunal.

I guess that George Washington was " wrong " when he used this, as well ? There is a long line of precidence, for military tribunals. If Clinton had ad the brains to call for one, for the 1993 try at blowing up the WTC, specific info about that building, which was made public, during THAT trial, would NOT have come out, and would NOT have made 9/11/01 easier.

[Windshark]

But, but....

We have to let them go...

We didn't read them their Miranda warning...

BWAHAHAH....

BTW to those of you who actually think Bush's EO was a threat to our "rights"...I've got some black helicoptors I could sell you....and some foil hats.

[Texasforever]

Once again ignorance or deliberate deception. All Bush has reserved to himself is the power to decide which suspects appear before the Military Court. That is needed if he and his legal advisors determine that public release of the evidence would endanger national security. He does NOT decide guilt or innocence just the court venue. End of story.

[BikerNYC]

Oh ? And juries are SO accurate and intelligent ? The O.J. trial worked ? What about the massive jury nullifications in the Bronx, where depending upon the melanin ( sp ? ) content of the perp AND the jury, absolutely GUILTY people are freed ? I could go on, but you seem to have long ago made up your own mind.

I've made up my mind?

Yes, I prefer to rely on citizen juries to decide who the government throws in jail, just as I prefer citizens to decide who gets elected to public office. Do they sometimes do things that I would prefer them not to do? Certatinly. So what? I don't get to impose my will on our system. Others get to participate too. They might have different views than I do. And since when should your view of who is "absolutely guilty" take precedence over 12 other people who have heard all of the evidence in court?

With regard to the Bronx, most defendants who go to trial are found guilty. And black defendants who are found guilty are typically found guilty by juries that are all or mostly black.

And yes, I have worked in a courtroom, from both inside and outside the jury box.

[BikerNYC]

He does NOT decide guilt or innocence just the court venue.

I never said he did.

[Florida native]

I have two words for Terry Moran: Nuremburg Trials.

[skr]

Speaking of juries, how does one put together a jury of one's peers in, say, Bin Laden's case? How does one even find jurors who haven't heard about Bin Laden? Perhaps I'm being a little too person-specific, but OBL would be one of the major reasons for Bush's decision.

[nopardons]

So, military personal are NOT now your fellow citizens ? Is that it ? WOW ! Who woulda thunk it.

Seriously, I think that your position is unsupportable and unsubstancial. Just my opinion. : - )