Bush In 2006: Terrorists Should Be “Tried In Courts Here In The U.S.”
With Republicans hammering the Obama administration for trying suspected 9/11 terrorists in a New York court, a Democrat points out that in 2006, George W. Bush seemed to say outright that terrorists should be “tried in courts here in the United States.”
There was no outcry at the time.
In a news conference on June 9th, 2006, Bush described his discussions with the prime minister of Denmark over the fate of Gitmo detainees this way:
I assured him that we would like to end the Guantanamo. We’d like it to be empty. And we’re now in the process of working with countries to repatriate people.
But there are some that, if put out on the streets, would create grave harm to American citizens and other citizens of the world. And, therefore, I believe they ought to be tried in courts here in the United States. We will file such court claims once the Supreme Court makes its decision as to whether or not — as to the proper venue for these trials. And we’re waiting on our Supreme Court to act.
At the time, Bush was waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on the military commissions he had established to try alleged members of Al Qaeda. At the presser, he said the administration was waiting for the high court to determine the “proper venue” for trying suspected terrorists, and seemed to say U.S. courts were a valid venue if it came to it.
At a minimum, Bush clearly saw no problem with bringing suspected terrorists to the U.S. for trial — something that the Obama administration is now doing, drawing widespread criticism on the right.
The high court subsequently struck down Bush’s commissions, and later that year, the GOP-controlled Congress and the President passed legislation reviving the system of military tribunals that the Obama administration is now eschewing.
Bottom line: When Bush suggested that U.S. courts were an appropriate venue for trying terrorists if it came to it, the idea wasn’t viewed as even remotely controversial. Thanks to Ryan Derousseau for research help.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Just another case of “they were for it before they were against it”. Shades of Giuliani again. I wish someone in the media would press this issue with the Repubs who are trying to paint this as dangerous to the country.
Holy canoli, OT:
The poll asked this question: “Do you think that Barack Obama legitimately won the Presidential election last year, or do you think that ACORN stole it for him?” The overall top-line is legitimately won 62%, ACORN stole it 26%.
Among Republicans, however, only 27% say Obama actually won the race, with 52% — an outright majority — saying that ACORN stole it, and 21% are undecided. Among McCain voters, the breakdown is 31%-49%-20%. By comparison, independents weigh in at 72%-18%-10%, and Democrats are 86%-9%-4%.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/poll-gop-base-thinks-obama-didnt-actually-win-2008-election—-acorn-stole-it.php?ref=fpa
Yes. You read that correctly.
A MAJORITY of Republicans think that ACORN stole the election for Barack Hussein Obama. The election Obama won by 192 ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES… was actually stolen by ACORN.
PHEWWWW! CRAZY!
No surprise here. The Republicans have amnesia when it comes to recalling 2001-8. That Guiliani is trotted out to speak on this subject again tells me the Cable is more interested in soundbites. They have forgotten nuance.
OT again, but here’s a pretty good assessment of Obama’s choices and the decision making hurdles he’s facing. Fair warning, there’s also some criticism.
“Obama’s rejection last week of all four alternatives presented by his national security staff marked a turning point for his presidency.
“He has figured out that the stakes are not as great as he once believed; that the commitment looks open-ended; that the conditions there are not promising; and that if he’s not careful, this will be a dead weight around the rest of his presidency,” says Harvard international relations professor Stephen M. Walt, who also blogs for Foreign Policy. “And so he’s looking for an alternative.”
It took Obama this long to figure it out, Walt told me, because “I don’t think this was an issue he had mastered before he became president. I think that early in the administration, most of the advice he was getting was from one side. It was mostly coming from people who were sort of invested in the mission.”
Since then, Walt says, Obama has heard a lot more from others in the administration — including Biden — who are skeptical of a military solution in Afghanistan. The Afghan election was a “sobering moment” that made it clear “just how weak our Afghan partner was,” Walt says. The U.S. ambassador in Kabul also recently informed the White House of his deep concerns about sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan until Karzai’s government gets it together. And for good measure, White House Budget Director Peter Orszag last week acknowledged that sending 40,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan would cost an extra $40 billion a year.
“If political realities were not a constraint, disengagement from Afghanistan would be the best course of action,” Pillar says. “But I accept the political reality that that is off the table. The president would get pilloried as being a softie and as not having the courage and determination supposedly to stand up for U.S. security. I don’t buy any of that criticism myself, but that would be the political reality he’s facing.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/19/obamas-afghan-dilemma-the_n_363411.html
Sorry Greg, it’s not just Republicans that see Obama’s carelessness. All polls show the majority of Americans see it too.
@Ethan
Dems (you included I suspect) still Don’t believe Bush was elected in 2000.
Ethan, Hoffman is spouting the same thing in NY23, Acorn stole his election. These are probably the same folks who believe he was born in Kenya. It’s remarkable but also discouraging, so much for bringing everyone together. Sheesh!!!!!!!!!!!!
Greg,
There you go again, bringing up those inconvenient facts.
“Don’t confuse me with facts. I’ve made up my mind.” — Rep Earl Landgrebe, R-Indiana, 1974.
Like Landgrebe, today’s conservatives can’t be troubled by those pesky facts. It is just so hard to keep their positions straight. That seems to be the problem with having no firm position on any matter: if your official stance is no more solid than shifting sand, it is really hard to remember what the position du jour of the GOP actually is.
The conservatives used to claim to be law and order. Even they realize that they can no longer make that preposterous assertion any longer.
I find their lack of faith in our Constitution and our entire legal system to be most troublesome. They seem to think a couple of dozen thugs with utility knives means that we must shred the Constitution and behave like the terrorists themselves.
We already know it’s “Bush who?” to today’s GOP.
How did ACORN manage to steal 10-million votes?
lmsinca – I am sure Fred Thompson is working on his Afghanistan plan and we’ll hear about it any day now.
The Lying Hypocrite Party…Palin/Beck in 2012!
“The system of military tribunals that the Obama administration is now eschewing.”
That’s just downright false, Greg. Holder is still using the military justice system.
“When Bush suggested that U.S. courts were an appropriate venue for trying terrorists if it came to it, the idea wasn’t viewed as even remotely controversial.”
I’d like to read the whole thing but Bush doesn’t say in your quote to use Article III courts – he could very well have meant military courts in the US.
Speaking of “they were for it before they were against it,” here’s Chuck Schumer:
“Those who commit acts of war against the United States, particularly those who have no color of citizenship, don’t deserve the same panoply of due process rights that American citizens receive. Should Osama bin Laden be captured alive—and I imagine most Americans hope he won’t be captured alive. But if he is, it is ludicrous to suggest he should be tried in a Federal court on Center Street in Lower Manhattan.”
And here’s President Obama:
“The second category of cases involves detainees who violate the laws of war and are therefore best tried through military commissions,” said Obama. “Military commissions have a history in the United States dating back to George Washington and the Revolutionary War. They are an appropriate venue for trying detainees for violations of the laws of war. They allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence-gathering; they allow for the safety and security of participants; and for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot always be effectively presented in federal courts.”
NYT:
“Former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani has decided not to run for governor of New York next year after months of mulling a candidacy, according to people who have been told of the decision.”
Odd, considering it’s clear no democrats on the planet are expected to win any races next year.
Andy,
Maybe Giuliani is taking his cue from Palin. You know, that he can be more effective working on behalf of New Yorkers if he isn’t weighed down by all that troublesome work of being governor. As a private citizen he will be in a position of being able to do more for New Yorkers than any governor could possibly imagine.
“Odd, considering it’s clear no democrats on the planet are expected to win any races next year.”
Even more odd since we obviously need his expertise on terrorism and since ACORN is stealing every election for the Dems including the one in upstate NY.
Noun, verb, ACORN caused 9/11, etc etc…
Shrub will be an endless source and example of how to mangle the English language.
“Noun, verb, ACORN caused 9/11, etc etc…”
I like the revision.
Better ACORN than US Supreme Court.
I am soooo over the before I was against it I was for it argument…from both sides.
I wish SBJ and others were on a flight where the navigator said..well I’ve already punched in the course…can’t be concerned if the wind has picked up and we are now off course…
WTF ever happened to flexibility and the ability to adjust?
If Sarah Palin came out on her book tour as having an epiphany and realizing the immorality of a country as wealthy as ours not providing health coverage for all when EVERY OTHER industrialized Western nation DOES was now for the HCR bill…if she said…ya know after reading the experts I realize single payer IS the most cost efficient way of accomplishing this goal…I would immediately forgive her for her “death panel” remarks and simply rejoice in the fact that she had found her way….not pull an SBJ on her and dig up everything I could to show how she used to feel.
Remember Einstein’s definitions of insantity…doing the same thing over and over hoping for a different outcome…..given the record of one great depresssion brought on by conservative economic principles and damn near a second…brought on by conservative economic principles…two unfinished unpaid for wars brought on by neocon chickenhawk foreign policy…I posit that embracing any of the dogma of conservative morons like QB is by definition INSANE!!!
rukidding,
I wouldn’t ding conservatives if they were being pragmatic by changing their minds due to changing realities. My beef is that they try to pretend that they have always held these beliefs when it can be demonstrably established that their positions have been very inconsistent over time.
Changing one’s mind can be a sign of intelligence and maturity. I have yet to see those traits displayed by our roster of conservatives. They can’t even be bothered enough to know the history of their own movement, yet they seem to feel that conservatism represents this rock of constancy.
It seems that the only consistent trait of conservatism is its detachment from reality.
“not pull an SBJ on her”
One might rephrase that: “not pull a Greg Sargent on her”
“realizing the immorality of a country as wealthy as ours not providing health coverage for all”
Too bad that neither the House or Senate bill does this, eh RUK? Guess that makes Pelosi and Reid and Obama immoral…
sbj
It’s my understanding they are using both the Federal Courts and Military Tribunals. From what I understood from the little bit of testimony I heard yesterday, the decision seems to be at least partially based upon the value of the evidence. I don’t have a preference one way or the other personally as long as they get the job done and I don’t get the controversey.
Also sbj
I’d say between the two bills we’re covering 94%-96% of Americans, that’s pretty darn close to Universal, without doing Medicare for all.
It’s just the old double standard bugaboo, lmsinca. The “right” gets lambasted here for flip flopping while the left is applauded for intelligently changing their minds.
@lmsinca: Pretty darn close for you is millions to me.
@SBJ…”Too bad that neither the House or Senate bill does this, eh RUK? Guess that makes Pelosi and Reid and Obama immoral…”
No again SBJ…it makes them realists. When LBJ managed Medicare he did so over the absurd objections of Ronald Reagan who claimed among other things that government takeover (incredibley hyperbolic to begin with….single payers is NOT the same as socialism although I’d be my right..helll both testicles that a MINORITY of teabaggers realize that) would lead us down the path of the government eventually telling us where we could work. How’d that work out for Ronnie? Really prescient ehhh..
Someone has already posted the link to the Kristoff column but SBJ you really should read it to see just how far on the wrong side of history most of your points exist.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/opinion/19kristof.html?adxnnl=1&ref=opinion&adxnnlx=1258621276-kB5Sennq+npBQ7AJVSUB0Q
@Gasman…”I wouldn’t ding conservatives if they were being pragmatic by changing their minds due to changing realities.”
Point well taken…I agree..the change has to be sincere and pragmatic. The real problem for QB and the right wing in general is that they have reduced themselves to “knee jerk” reactionaries…if it comes from Obama…by their definition it is bad…evil..socialistic…regardless of policy or merits. NOBODY…not even shrub was 100% wrong on EVERYTHING!!!!
“Pretty darn close for you is millions to me.”
Then you must be for single payer, single provider, right?
@Andy: My point is that it is fairly silly (my opinion) to crow about how many more people are going to be covered when we are left with not only millions of Americans not covered, but many millions more non-citizens. Their lack of coverage will continue to impact the cost of healthcare for the rest of us who are insured – so the long term problem of reducing the cost of healthcare is not solved at all. My own personal opinion is that we should work hard to bring the cost of health care down so that more can afford it. I would prioritize lowering costs over increased coverage. If this plan is a so-called down payment then we should honestly be acknowledging that the real fix is yet to come and will cost still more. But we aren’t being very honest about that.
OK. That ACORN thing blows me away. These are the same people that think Palin is presidential material.
According to PEW 27% of those surveyed identify as Republicans. This means that around 13% of the population lives in a cave.
The hyper ventilators whom insist that trying 9/11 suspects in the U.S. is capitulating to terrorists, or dangerous, or the end of democracy as we know it are becoming isolated even within the wingnut parallel universe.
We have the evidence above that their formerly great leader, Bush the lesser, backed that very plan, even if their memories did not record that fact.
We also have Bob Barr, David Keene, and Grover Norquist advocating trying them in the U.S. These three are hardly bleeding heart liberals. These three are about as conservative as you can be, yet they don’t appear to be wetting their beds the way other conservatives are.
This issue is shamefully being co-opted by some conservatives for transient partisan gain, just as the entire “War on Terrorism” has been from the start. They are less concerned about actually trying these criminals than they are about using the terrorists as cudgels to try and gain political advantage when they have been unable to do so via the ballot box.
This is nothing more than fear mongering and disdain for the Constitution.
“The Republicans have amnesia when it comes to recalling” anything that reflects badly on them.
Republican authorization of criminal torture?
Republicans can’t recall.
Republican authorization of illegal spying on American citizens?
Republicans can’t recall.
The fact that Republican Presidents increase the US debt while Democratic Presidents pay down the US debt?
Republicans can’t recall.
Right wingers have such convenient memories.
This is a fake. The link you provide isn’t what the whitehouse website looked like… one only has to go to wayback machine to see this & here is link to that week..
http://web.archive.org/web/20060614032703/http://www.whitehouse.gov/index.html
The only people hyperventilating in hyperpartisan mode are you liberal quackers who blindly endorse whatever the One does. If he belched at a dinner party you would applaud it as the new etiquitte.
None of youveven take these issues seriously. That is clear because none of you care to address the objections made to this terrible decision rather your usual straw men and namecalling about bedwetting and the like.
Eric Holder couldn’t even give a rational explanation for it. He couldn’t even answer the basic questions whether a foreign combatant has ever been tried in civilian court (no) or whethher given this decision OBL would need to be mirandized if captured tomorrow. He stammered and said it depends. He looked as though he has never considered either question in his supposed months of thorough study. It was the most incompetent and incredible performance of any AG ever.
Greg’s attempt to show an inconsistency based on that comment by Bush is silly. If you want to see a flip flop look at Obama, who halted the military prosecution of ksm and now has admitted Republicans were right about them after all, but for political reasons he still wants ksm in civilian court where he has full constitutional rights of a citizen and the federal rules of evidence to protect him. Think about the fact that it is likely that no evidence obtained from ksm will be admissible because he was not mirandized or given a lawyer. You forget about “torture.” everything he ever said in custody is likely to be excluded if the law is followed.
But to you Obamatons he is infallible and all criticism is unAmerican, bedwetting cowardice blah blah blah. Grow up and deal with the issues for once. Yesterday you all claimed military tribunals were not an option. Now 24 hours after I demolished that absurd claim you are just blindly saying Obama is right because he is always right.
That was supposed to be you can forget about “torture.”
Ruk, only liberal fantasyland is a single payer system not socialist or a government take over. Monopoly on payment and purchase is functionally the same as nationalzation. Besides, most of you folks advocate socialism anyway.
Gitmo is the US. And a US military court is a US court. at least in Bush’s eyes.
Hey, recently found this blog but I have to admit that it looks awesome. I fully agree with your post. Have a good day, keep up the great work and I’ll definitely keep checking your blog.I just got in to the Battlefield Bad Company 2 PC Beta for free, check out this youtube video for instructions on how you can do it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeEGe5fIAXo
Hey, just found this blog but I have to say that it looks nice. I fully agree with your post. Have a nice day, keep up the great work and I’ll definitely follow it.I just got in to the BF BC2 PC