Faulty Bomb Detonated on Plane Bound for DetroitFollow

Who ever suggested, much less demanded, that they be let go without trial? Much less released to an arts and crafts rehab program?

Got any real sources?

And certainly if bin Laden really did just slip through Clinton's fingers, Bush must have been there the moment he stepped into offi- oh wait no he wasn't, he didn't even try.



Edited, Dec 29th 2009 8:57pm by bsphil

I can't seem to find any references to the trials of these two who were released...

I didn't say they should be "let go". I said the detainees should be given some form of trial and be judged according to their threat. This was done* and the administration fucked up doing it. They did it poorly. This was not "my" fault for saying it should be done, this was their fault for botching the job.

Again, you're saying that it's my fault they did a shitty job of determining their threat because if no one had asked them to do it, we'd have never known what a shitty job they'd do.

That's some ****-poor excuse makin' right there.

*Some sort of judgement of their threat was made. I don't know if they ever received a trial (even tribunal style) or were just released for lack of evidence. Regardless, it shows incompetance in either threat assessment or evidence gathering or both.

Edited, Dec 29th 2009 9:08pm by Jophiel

There was no "murky position" about their detainment. I've repeatedly pointed to the portion of the Geneva Conventions which exactly defines the conditions under which such detainment can be conducted. The "problem" to be solved was invented by the Left for purely political purposes.



Except you left off the other half of that, didn't you? The demand was for them to be tried or to be released. By insisting on ever increasingly restrictive judicial requirements for said trials, you in effect demanded that many of these prisoners be released without any sort of trial at all. First military tribunals were demanded, then the goalposts shifted to demanding civilian trials held on US soil.

When you demand that they have trials, but then demand that the trials require evidenciary conditions which cannot be met, you are in effect demanding release of the prisoners. That's what we do when we must provide them a trial, but cannot gain sufficient evidence to conduct said proceedings, right?

What the hell did you think was going to happen? Please don't insult us by pretending to be so dumb as to not understand that release is the required alternative to trial under those conditions.



Yes. And I'll ask again: What is the standard if a trial is required, but sufficient evidence to conduct said trial cannot be produced?


C'mon. You can do it... We release them. Right?



To now pretend that the release of these detainees without any trial had nothing at all to do with those demands is either the most monumental case of head-buried-in-sand I've ever seen, or it's an outright lie.

You mean that whole "I'll just make up ****" defense you use? We'll call that the gbaji defense.

It was those darned activist judges. It's too bad W couldn't have appointed someone that would side with him.

Oh wait, he did. In fact Roberts recused himself as he was one of the 3 judges who ruled on the case, in W's favor, in the US court of appeals.

Oops.

It's absolutely true that the system of information sharing between agencies in this country still sucks ***. Between that and the constent proven failures of our airport security (thankfully, usually in the form of failed tests and not actual terrorist attempts), it's a wonder worse hasn't happened yet.


Given that the Bush administration was supposed to work on exactly the spehere of information sharing between agencies during 2001-2008, I wouldn't be too smug. Apparently they got zero results for their seven years. Unless you're going to make some asinine claim that procedures suddenly reverted to 2001 standards since January.

Edited, Dec 30th 2009 9:36am by Jophiel