Oops! Bush In 2006: Terrorists Should Be “Tried In Courts Here In The U.S.”

[babylonsister]

Spin that, rethugs.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/terrorism/bush-in-2006-terrorists-should-be-tried-in-courts-here-in-the-u-s/

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.

[snagglepuss]

1. K & R

[G_j]

2. K&R

[Echo In Light]

3. It's a bit tougher to keep unfavorable facts safely disappeared down the Memory Hole these days

[Orsino]

4. There is no inconsistency here.

When Bush said it, the right-wingers knew it was a lie.

[MidwestRick]

5. Great point...

but what if they retort with, "he was wrong too"? Personally, I disagree with any president no matter what party they belong to or even if I voted for them. Trying them in the US court system is the wrong move.

[LisaM]

7. Even so, where were the protests then?

Giuliani, for example. If he's so outraged now, where was he three years ago?

[MidwestRick]

9. To be honest...

I don't know, nor care about Giuliani. To me, it is different since * only said it but didn't follow through. Holder has pretty much determined this is what Justice is going to do, and the President unfortunately agrees.

[CJCRANE]

11. Giuliani is relevant because the OP is about Republican hypocrisy.

At the time Bush made this announcement it was taken at face value.

[blm]

13. You SHOULD care what Rudy says then and now because the issue is the disingenuousness of GOP

spokespeople over this decision - spokespeople like Guiliani.

If it was safe to try the terror suspects in US courts in 2006, it is safe to try them in US courts in 2010.

[JonQ]

12. People tend to get more upset

over actions than proposals.

Also he was trying to push for military tribunals and trying them here was put forth as an alternative to simply letting them go (if the tribunals were shut down by the SC).

You tend to get as much flak for your backup plan as you would for your primary plan.

[blm]

14. Then Rudy and his pals now flapping their gums would've protested then, too, eh?

.

[reflection]

6. I was just eating lunch with a right-wing coworker

who was freaking out about this. I used your link set him straight. (Although I'm sure that, given enough time, he will formulate some twisted "logic" to try to point out that it is still Obama's fault.)

Thank you very much for this link.

[babylonsister]

16. Great! I'm glad it was put to such good use! nt

[SIMPLYB1980]

8. But. but. but.

:rofl:

[krispos42]

10. File, print

NAILED!!!

[wiggs]

15. Asking: A military tribunal is or is not a "US Court?" There

are plenty of good reasons to try them in federal court and most objections are patently overblown. The republicans outrage is in-credible on its face. They would have been just as outraged if KSM was tried in a military tribunal

My question is: after 3 years of republicans objecting to everything that moves, using weak or illogical argument, why is anyone listening to them?

[berni_mccoy]

17. Big K&R