Obama Lied About Khalid Sheik Mohammad
Here is Obama in 2006 trying to reassure everyone that KSM would get a full Military trial because he was so dangerous; and, in no way would he get a civilian trial:
Of course, KSM is now getting tried in a civilian court in New York.
Yup, you can tell when Obama is lying to you because his lips are moving and words are coming out of his mouth.
14 November, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Both CNN and SkyNews in interviews with top lawyers and legal professors noted that a 2006 law was passed that if these prisoners were to go into the US they would have to be charged in civil courts.
Would, therefore this be a matter of the laws changed and there was no choice?
14 November, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Uhm, yeah, right… Watch the video again. This is Obama in 2006 assuring the public and everyone in Congress that if they pass the bill into law (which is the law CNN, SkyNews, and you are citing), it would in no way mean that “dangerous” terrorists like Khalid Sheik Mohammad would in any way whatsoever be tried in civilian courts.
Obviously, Obama lied through his teeth, got the bill passed into law, and is now using it as justification for trying KSM in a civilian court of law.
So, the law was passed under false pretenses. That’s the way Obama works.
Cheers
14 November, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Thanks for the input Doc, my line of questioning is simply to understand the matter. My playing of the video is slow as I am not home and on a mobile connection. What was the date of the speech?
As far as I understood there was two items from the Supreme Court and Congress that basically made it inevitable that any cases outside of Gitmo would be in a civil court. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (decided June 29, 2006) and modifications to the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA).
I would be fooling myself if I think that I understood it fully and since there are arguments throughout Congress and the Senate, there is obviously a heated debate to the rights let alone if it is the correct way to go.
I read a really interesting summary in the http://www.truthout.org/1113098 website. Saying that “Other critics of President Obama’s changes to the regulations governing military commissions are characterizing these changes as “cosmetic improvements,” amid a growing consensus among human rights organizations that these tribunals are designed to produce convictions while trials in civilian courts are far more likely to produce justice.”
When HR gets into it, the concept of justice gets a bit afraid to open its arms wide-enough.
I am personally in two minds about it being military or civil. Logic tells me that this is war and thus the military tribunal is the way to go, but there is a part of me that says it would be great “closure” for New Yorkers to have trials there.
Interesting topic here.
14 November, 2009 at 4:50 pm
In a war zone, evidence is not usually gathered, processed or even sought. Survival and regaining control of an area is the goal not eventual prosecution. Military tribunals have vastly different rules and regulations than do civilian courts. Military tribunals have a mechanism to view and still protect classified defense information, civilian courts do not.
This does not pass the common sense test and should be seen as it is, an attack on the military by government insiders for political gain.
14 November, 2009 at 8:47 pm
I can,t see how this would give New York closure.Quite the opposite.It will turn into a media circus,take years to decide all at taxpayer expense. It will also paint an even bigger bullseye on a city already at risk. And as we just experienced, the risk of attack has gone way up under obummer.The bullys always pick on the wimp.Guess who,s seen as being the wimp? Thank-you Mr. President! sarc.
15 November, 2009 at 11:20 am
The democrats want a circus. It helps them in their dead of night destruction of America. They can bring these people here but they cant make me sit on a jury for it. These people have no business in our courts, no non citizens have any business in our courts but as you can see these people are profitable for some but fatal for others and profit trumps people these days.
Our guvmint has bestowed the same rights on kalid that our ancestors and us have fought so hard to preserve. He fought to destroy it we fought to keep it but in the end with democrats there really isn’t any difference between the two of us.
I recently read an article on the beliefs of Bin Laden regarding America. He believes that allah is fully behind him and he predicted exactly the way that the democrats would react. Democrats are fulfilling Bin Ladens prophecies. Democrats are the greatest recruiters in the global jihad.
15 November, 2009 at 11:36 am
If democrats bestow our rights on foreigners should not the reverse apply too? Any American commiting a crime in a foreign land should be protected as well. Say an American is arrested for murder in Mexico, just tell them I demand the same rights as kalid sheik mohamad!