Obama Would Have Sent Bin Laden to Civilian Court
Supporters of Jamiat Ulema Islam-Nazaryati shout slogans against killing of Osama Bin Laden, during protest rally on Monday, May 02, 2011, in Quetta, Pakistan (Shutterstock).
We have a clueless ideologue, or, more likely, a hopelessly dishonest ideologue, as commander-in-chief. There can’t be any other explanation.
The Hill reports that President Obama has said he would have had Osama bin Laden sent to a civilian U.S. court for a criminal trial if the Navy SEALs had captured him, as opposed to killing him. The report is based on a Vanity Fair article derived from Mark Bowden’s new book, The Finish. Using the constitutional term “Article III” as lawyers often do in referring to the civilian federal courts, the report quotes Obama as explaining,
We worked through the legal and political issues that would have been involved, and Congress and the desire to send him to Guantánamo, and to not try him, and Article III…. I mean, we had worked through a whole bunch of those scenarios. But, frankly, my belief was if we had captured him, that I would be in a pretty strong position, politically, here, to argue that displaying due process and rule of law would be our best weapon against al-Qaeda, in preventing him from appearing as a martyr.
It is hard to know where to begin with anything this foolish. Let’s start with dishonesty. Thanks to the train wreck Obama’s demagoguery against Bush counterterrorism has made out of terrorist detention, our forces have killed in several situations — including the bin Laden raid — when it might well have been possible to capture terrorists. A president who actually believed the fantasy that Muslim populations are swayed by how much “due process and rule of law” we give to jihadist terrorists would never have adopted a kill-over-capture preference. For all his agitation against Bush’s war-paradigm for confronting our terrorist enemies, Obama has made liberal use of it in killing terrorists without any judicial warrants or trials. As he well knows, the law of war is the rule of law in wartime, and he has obviously not wasted much time fretting over due process.
Give me a break. Osama bin Laden was never, ever, going to be taken alive. Even if the guy was naked, had his hands up, and was pleading for mercy like a little girl, he still would have been executed. There was never going to be a trial. All Obama wanted was proof that the real bin Laden was dead. As with all the drone strikes, Obama is not interested in taking prisoners. He’s just interested in a body count, no matter how much intel we lose with every explosion.
Exit question: If bin Laden WAS taken alive, would Eric Holder and Obama have allowed the guy to be waterboarded? After all, think of all the intel bin Laden had access to. If he didn’t want to talk and we knew he was working on more terrorist attacks, would we have used “enhanced interrogation methods” on him? Remember, Obama has also kept most (if not all) of Bush’s terror policies in tact. So why not waterboarding a guy like bin Laden? I guess we’ll never know.
Actually the article DOES NOT SAY that Obama said this.
The article says that it’s Mark Bowden’s opinion that ” in the unlikely event bin Laden was captured alive by the Navy SEAL team that raided his Abbottabad, Pakistan, compound, the Obama administration would have taken the opportunity to try and restart criminal trials for terrorists, rather than military tribunals in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.”
Obama is not quoted nor is anyone else.
There is no evidence that this is anything but speculation. Your summary and the premise of your article is wrong. Isn’t that how everything goes this election season? I am getting used to following links and finding out that the source does not support what is claimed about it.
Oops I’m wrong, I missed a paragraph
From the article it linked to
“We worked through the legal and political issues that would have been involved, and Congress and the desire to send him to Guantánamo, and to not try him, and Article III.” Obama continues: “I mean, we had worked through a whole bunch of those scenarios. But, frankly, my belief was if we had captured him, that I would be in a pretty strong position, politically, here, to argue that displaying due process and rule of law would be our best weapon against al-Qaeda, in preventing him from appearing as a martyr.”</i?
Hmm.
You know I used to think that THIS was why Palestinian terrorists blow themselves up, in order to avoid being put on trial, facing the families of their victims and humanizing their victims to the world and validating the justice and validty of the Israeli courts.
I'm not so sure anymore, nor am I so sure that Muslims would be moved by a trial. But it IS how I used to think.
I’m not sure why you’re even posting at this site. Your truculent posts and argumentative “style” don’t indicate a person with much of an open mind – though I hope I’m wrong. But you appear far more inclined to simply lob bombs, and bluster, to wit: “Your summary and the premise of your article is wrong.” I notice you then realize your stupidity, and do take a small step towards correcting your stupid blunder, but then you proceed to confide to us how utterly ludicrous your thinking is on the topic of terrorist trials and terrorist motivation. So I still remain puzzled as to your real motives. You have serially accused people at this site in a recent thread of everything from being paranoid to being extremists, and yet you seem to be aware in some dim way that your own thinking is convoluted and that YOUR premises are wrong… If you are detoxing from a long swim in the sewer of Left-think, then calm down, stop lobbing stupid bombs, sit back and try to learn something.
If you real purpose is to troll comments and create friction, then I doubt anyone here gives a crap about your posts or your muddled thinking on terrorists, trials, and the Islamic fascism which animates Jihadis.
Wow. With friends like you, who needs enemies?
You literally posted to his retraction.
Also, I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but being “open-minded” or thinking like you – neither of these are requirements for posting to PJ Media blogs. I point at the majority of commenters as proof.
Kudos on your honesty in posting a retraction. I mean that sincerely.
A question for you, sir:
Why would a Muslim be impressed by a trial?
Consider this: Every trial they have ever known of in their countries has been a sham. The conclusion is well known beforehand. It’s a pretense from start to finish, and they know this, and like it that way. They know nothing else.
Why would they be impressed by American trials? Why would they think we are any different?
All the dhimmis out there burying theit heads in the sand are in for a rude awakening.
small minority of extremists.. belch and puke
“Muslim populations care only that we are detaining him — they couldn’t care less how much due process he got or whether he is being held in a civilian prison or Gitmo. He is a hero for making war against us and Egypt — very much including its new president from the Muslim Brotherhood — is demanding his return.”
Oh, so you do agree. good to see honesty now.
In the case of Islamist radicals, double tap beats cross examination every time.
no navy seal or marine was going to take him prisoner any more than they took japanese in wwll
Actually at the first stages of the fighting in Guadalcanal Marines tried to take them prisoners or to heal their wounded. It was the Japanese blowing themselves along with the medics trying to attend them who led American servicemen to no longer bother about Japanese wounded.
My only quibble here is that in his book “No Easy Day”, author Mark Owen (Navy Seal Matt Bisonnette) says that while they were specifically instructed that this was not an “assination mission”, they expected Bin Laden and his cohort to fight back. They did not expect to take him alive and it was not realistic that he would just lay down and surrender.
The fact that he did not fight back, didn’t even pick up his weapon, was a surprise, and Owen says it only increased their disdain for the AQ leadership. They’re good at motivating others to fight to the death, just not willing to do it themselves.
(of course, poking your head out into a stairwell when you know your being assaulted by SF operators is good way to accelerate your meeting with 72 virgins)
FYI
ATTENTION JIHADISTS: Because of the uptick in suicide attacks, the stock of available virgins has been seriously depleted. Successful Jihadists are now entitled to three semi-virgins, a goat and a Chevy Volt. In these difficult times we all must make adjustments.
Nope. Not going to happen. The ACLU is going to look at that Chevy Volt and start hollering about cruel and unusual punishment.
i thought it was 72 raisins
I meant “assassination” although ‘assination’ might be more accurate in a Freudian way.
FETEKE is the only sure path to victory; Find Em, Torture Em, Kill Em.
I love FETEKE it should be used for all Islamic terrorists, even though it is not politically correct. I salute you sir. You express my feelings exactly. PC is why we are so close to being a s**t hole of a country. Can’t hurt the Muslims feelings, well why not? They certainly don’t give a rat’s behind about Christians, Jews, Gays, etc. Obozo better start churchin’ he’g going to need him some religion.
Whatever the intentions of President Obama, the final decision was always going to be made by the men who carried out the mission – who had absolutely no reason to take Bin laden alive, and every reason to make their own jobs as simple as possible. “No trial, no reports to file”
The idea of “capturing” these filthy mass murderers is just BIZARRE! You have to keep them somewhere, and there is nowhere to keep them. Any “intelligence” they might possess is worth very little, especially when you completely lack the will to kill people after you collect that “intelligence.” And “capturing” them begs the ultimate question: sooner or later, you are going to have to kill them anyway, and nobody has figured out a credible way of doing so.
If they are accidentally captured notwithstanding our efforts otherwise, they should be swiftly tortured to get any “intelligence” they might have, given a battlefield drum head summary trial to establish that they are an illegal combatant, a bullet placed behind the ear and the still quivering corpse kicked into a trench to be bulldozed over at the end of the day.
Has a single terrorist been found guilty and condemned to death in a military court during the Obama regime? I cannot think of one. Perhaps this is because as Commander in Chief Obama cannot preside over a death penalty issued to a fellow Muslim. This could be the reason civil trials and transfers to U.S. soil seem to be the chief goals so another branch of government will prosecute.
Please correct me if I’m wrong about any military death sentences.
No Sir: I do believe you are 100% correct. That is why Obozo doesn’t take Mooshelle to any Muslim country, because they are not supposed to treat their wives as equals. I don’t care how many dummy crats tell me that’s not the case. It is the case! They don’t give a rat’s behind about women, or their children for that matter, otherwise they wouldn’t let those nitwit mullahs take their kids and turn them into suicide bombers.
He needs to send his Secretary of state! After all we did build them, ask Hillary!
Reality Check: One on One with President Obama, Why Is The U.S. Supporting Al Qaeda In Syria? Be sure and pay close attention starting at the 50 second mark. You will not hear this anywhere but from this reporter!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrerl8EwqH0&feature=plcp
I agree that the Muslim Brotherhood is an enemy of the USA and an enemy of all non-Muslims everywhere. They support violent Jihad and other means to establish the Caliphate.
“I am now not sure whether this submit is written by him as nobody else recognize such precise about my problem”
“I appreciate you taking the time and effort to put this informative article together”
“Because of him and also to you actually I got competent to end my home work”
“I will also like to say that there may be a situation where you will apply for a loan and do not need a cosigner such as a Government Student Support Loan”