Skip to comments.Obama hoped to put bin Laden on trial if he surrendered, new book says
Posted on 10/03/2012 1:22:31 PM PDT by maggief
In "The Finish," journalist Mark Bowden quotes the president as saying he thought he would be in a strong political position to argue in favor of giving bin Laden the full rights of a criminal defendant if bin Laden went on trial for masterminding the Sept. 11 attacks.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Happily, Seal Team 6 deep-sixed that idea...literally. Maybe that’s why BO outed them and gave out the name of the guy in charge. Unbelievable.
U.S. officials have said the Navy team was ordered to capture bin Laden if he surrendered or kill him if he threatened them. Bowden asserts that the SEALs could have taken bin Laden alive, but had no intention of doing so.
Have you read “No Easy Day”?
Nothing was as it seemed.
[God bless the SEALs and FUBO!]
I wouldn't put it past him.
Bin Laden wouldn't have been the center of attraction, HE would.
Barack Hussein Obama is a very dangerous man. Reading the linked article shows how he was going to bend over giving bin Laden every right known to man....many more rights than some of our brave heroes languishing in brigs here and there for defending their men or their buddies in complicated fighting situations.
A public trial for Bin Laden? Obama really is that stupid??
Well yes. Yes he is........
I don’t doubt that for a minute. Obama would then have been the real center of attention taking credit for his capture at every opportunity.
Didn’t anyone in that regime realize they were angering muslims who would then want revenge?
She me pictures of a dead Bin Laden, with the body identified by one of his wives, then show me DNA proving they got him.
Until that happens they got a double as far I’m concerned. Why would anyone with a brain believe one word from Obamagabe?
And that includes the killing of Bin Laden. The Special Forces got their man, but he was a double till proven otherwise. How many doubles you think he had, 10 or 15, maybe 20.
Remember when they were going to have a public trial in NYC for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? They decided that it was too big a security risk--calculable costs were estimated at $150 mm, and unknowable costs--like the snarling of Manhattan that the security would entail, plus the making of the courthouse a Muzzie prime target--finally convinced Holder to keep the trial in a military venue.
Obama's show trial would have made Khalid Sheik M's look like a two-bit sideshow. And, it would have been a "show trial" in every sense of the word.
Show trials are emblammatic of out of control, propagandistic regimes, sad to say. Remember "Darkness at Noon?"
From “No Easy Day”:
Everyone knew that for the officers, like Jay, if the raid was successful it would be a career maker. It would most likely mean Jay would make admiral some day.
For the enlisted guys, it really didnt mean anything; to us it was just another job.
And well get Obama reelected for sure, Walt said.
I can see him now, talking about how he killed Bin Laden.
We had seen it before when he took credit for the Captain Phillips rescue.
Although we applauded the decision-making in this case, there was no doubt in anybodys mind that he would take all the political credit for this too.
We all knew this was bigger than us and bigger than politics.
Maybe the officers and politicians would benefit, but that didnt make us want to do it any less.
That was always how things went.
Our reward was doing the job, and we wouldnt have it any other way.
The SEALs knew he’d exploit it.
Obama’s the only one who surrenders.
I agree with you completely; killing Bin Laden is Obama’s one “foreign policy accomplishment” and the public has been given no real proof that they even got the right guy. Supposedly they have DNA evidence but if it actually came up negative would we have been told by this by the Obama administration? If you think that they would have fessed up... Get real!
It wouldn’t have happened, the courts would have freed him because the SEALs didn’t have a search warrant approved by a judge to go into bin Laden’s compound.
If I remember correctly the courts did that to the CIA several years ago after they captured someone in another country.
Obama wouldn’t have put Bin Laden on trial because he could implicate too many prominent Saudis who helped finance al Qaeda.
Obama and Holder putting KSM on trial in Manhattan would have been the best political gift to the Republicans ever.
Obama is so stewed in, and blinded by, his ideology, he can’t think straight.
I’m sure he did.
A nice decades long trial with full constitutional protections, the very best defense lawyer team that taxpayers can afford and unlimited Discovery of every detail, no matter how minor or unrelated, of US intel procedures, techniques, staff and the names, phone numbers and addresses of anyone anywhere on earth who may have told any American agent anything ever.
What’s not for him to like?
"Keeping up with Kahlidashian."
I smell ratings!!
It’s all about the ratings.
I think the men knew they weren’t going to allow that to happen before they went in. Following orders is sometimes not workable, or even right.
Barack Hussein Obama still has not tried Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (who was captured on Bush’s watch), has not tried Nadil Hasan who rampaged at Ft. Hood and killed a pregnant woman and child, and celebrated the murder of a POW named Momar Gaddafi.
Obama did NOT want the hassle of a trial for OBL. The muslim world is angry enough that he spikes the football and Barry did as much as he could to spare them the images of a DEAD OBL.
Trial for Osama? My butt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.