Bush official admits innocent at Gitmo

[DiveCon]

I don't want them released here. I think they should be treated like any other non-citizen who is caught doing a crime here........throw 'em in jail, give 'em a trial, punish them, and send 'em home.

However.............

YouTube - ABC Cheney Admits Torture Guilt!!

Dick Cheney charged over abuse in private prisons
US vice president Dick Cheney has been charged with "organised criminal activity" over allegations about abuse in privately-run prisons.


By Tom Leonard in New York
Last Updated: 10:35PM GMT 19 Nov 2008
Dick Cheney Alberto Gonzales - Dick Cheney charged over jail 'abuses'
Dick Cheney and former attorney general Alberto Gonzales have been indicted by a Texas jury Photo: AFP/GETTY IMAGES

A grand jury in south Texas indicted Mr Cheney and Alberto Gonzales, the former Attorney General, on state charges that they blocked an investigation into the mistreatment of prisoners.

The indictment cites a "money trail" relating to Mr Cheney's financial stake in prison-related businesses, including the Vanguard Group, which has an interest in privately-run federal jails in the region.

According to a grand jury in Willacy County, Mr Cheney is "is "profiteering from depriving human beings of their liberty".

It also accuses him of a conflict of interest and of "at least misdemeanour assaults" on inmates because of his links to the prison companies.

Mr Gonzales is accused of using his position to "stop the investigations as to the wrong doings" in county prisons.

The grand jury wrote that it made its decision "with great sadness" but said it had no other choice but to indict the pair "because we love our country".

The indictment – which is being overseen by Juan Guerra, the local district attorney – has not been seen by a judge, who could dismiss it.

Juan Guerra has a history of launching eccentric court and political battles, and critics accused him of trying to settle old scores in his final weeks in office.

However, he insisted the decision to bring charges was made by the grand jury not by him.

Dick Cheney charged over abuse in private prisons - Telegraph

Your witness Gunny........

which was thrown out of court by the judge you moron

 

[KittenKoder]

Torture is stupid because it doesn't get anything done except waste time, Cheney ... well ... he's just a jackass, nothing more. Gitmo ... who gives a fuck what happens to any prisoner as long as they are guilty, though we do need to be more careful in making sure they are guilty and not wrongly imprisoned.

The sad thing is that this shit does happen, but not just because of politicians being idiots, jackasses, or morons, because people are too busy whining about who did what and pointing fingers to find out who is really guilty of what they are suppose to be guilty of. Here's a hint for anyone who is blindly following whoever they are following, don't take ANYTHING on faith, absolutely nothing, it's blind faith that has ruined our country lately and blind faith will continue to ruin us. It's blind faith that makes the liberals whine about some criminal being tortured while blind faith pushes conservatives into jumping to the guilty conclusion before even looking at evidence.

We need on law, strictly enforced in this country to stop stupid shit like this:

No blind faith, anyone caught following anything blindly without questioning their authorities and leaders should be jailed.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Torture is stupid because it doesn't get anything done except waste time...

Well I suppose we'd need you to define torture... because the word is so commonly abused that it truly means anything the speaker wants it to mean, thus in effect it means nothing.

I've debated leftists who sat there and DEMANDED that sleep deprivation is torture... Not feeding the prisoner a 'culturally sensitive diet' is torture... and so on...

Now you may disagree, but until you define the word, as you're using it, we'll have no way to know WHAT you mean by it.

There are many very effective ways of debriefing prisoners through the use of stress... where reward and punishment provide an unambiguous pathway for the individual to follow which will result in a reduction of the stress...

Now in ALL of this, there are circumstances which preclude the use of many highly effective, time tested 'less-stressful procedures which produce wonderful results, because they TAKE TIME, often a LOT of time; days, weeks...

There are times, albeit, the stark minority of times, that an individual is captured and their individual status determines it reasonable to believe that they are in possession of certain TIME CRITICAL FACTS, which are desperately needed to save innocent life... or other just as critical moral imperatives. In these circumstances, there are few alternatives but to impart upon these rare individuals, extreme stress... stress which sets before them the very real and very unpleasant dilemma that their own personal fate rests within their own decision to come clean with the information being sought or seal their certain and excruciating demise.

In such cases, we are talking about individuals, who are not the common foot soldier, but central planners; high officials who are indisputably guilty of organizing, equipping and executing plans which were designed for no other purpose than the murder innocent people. There is no doubt of their guilt, there is no moral dilemma of 'is this the right guy, positive identification of an individual KNOWN to be plotting such, is sitting right in front of you and he has the keys to the next operation which you know is presently being executed and the result of that operation is good men will be killed for no other reason than this low-rent POS will not give you the information which is locked in his mind, that will enable you to stop that fruitless mayhem.

He has forfeited his rights to life, through his own disregard for the lives, thus the rights of innocent people... such people are not protected from the awesome power of government by the social contract of civil rights or the inalienable rights endowed by their creator... as they have overtly, knowingly, willfully violated the civil and inalienable rights of others... and what's more... they've done so through the unretractable guise of WAR. A status which is wholly distinct from criminality... or simple wrongheaded violation of criminal code. They have sought to destroy the culture of a given society, declared themselves hostile to that culture, it's people and their government and proven their determination to strike that culture, without compromise of human decency, mercy, or, as stated above, without consideration for the rights of those who can present NO CONTEST to their subversive and unjustifiable destructive means...

So it's beyond absurd to conclude that 'torture' is never an effective means of communication... that it never serves a moral imperative and that it is not PERFECTLY justified in it's application; when "TORTURE" is defined as a method of coercive interrogation which imparts serious physical and mental discomfort, which will likely result in sustained physical injury for the overt and stated purpose of obtaining time critical information from an individual which has been captured and is known to be a high-level enemy operator; one who is reasonably believed to be in possession of critical, time sensitive information regarding the plans of the enemy to impart morally reprehensible, wholly unjusitifiable mayhem upon the innocent; information which once provided can and will be used to prevent the death or serious injury of the innocent."

Just blurting out 'torture' isn't enough... just declaring it, un-useful, is absurd... as when implemented properly, there are many extremely effective methods of coercive interrogation and the attempt to preclude this highly effective tool from use against such individuals as noted above, in circumstances such as that noted above is complicity in the murders of the lives lost, DUE TO THE PRECLUDING OF THE PROCEDURES WHICH COULD HAVE READILY PREVENTED THOSE UNJUSTIFABLE DEATHS.


Now what's more, is your use of the phrase: Blind faith.

This phrase is often used to discredit the necessary function of letting people that we've assigned to perform certian tasks... PERFORM THOSE TASKS to the best of their ability, given the circumstances to which WE HAVE SUBJECTED THEM...

There is an unmitigated trust which comes with such positions... and it is imperative that this trust be observed; recognized, so as not to destroy the very means of these individuals and their critical function to be EFFECTIVE in the purposes to which they've been assigned.

When we undermine that trust through the second guessing of their reasonable means of permorning their tasks and remnder those means impotent. In effect waging war through endless committes which are comprised of oppossing points of view... and that is the fast track to lossing a war.

You can disagree with the methods used in executing a war; but given that the ONLY morally viable, culturally sustainable goal of war is to WIN THAT WAR, as soon as is humanly possible, then the debating of every possible move used in the execution of that war is incontrovertibly counter-productive to the goal... thus not a worthy alternative for a viable, sustainable culture.

Win the war... then debate the strategy and tactics used in doing so. Where the culture has establised valid moral codes for those who've you've assigned to execute that war to follow, with clear and unambiguous lines drawn; then post action investigations can draw conclusions from the actions employed by those individuals. But war is unbridled mayhem... and anything which can be said to draw that mayhem out, is itself a crime which can only serve to broaden the hardships, deepen the pain and expand the death and injury to the individuals and the summed collectives of BOTH SIDES.

 

[KittenKoder]

Enter the air head ... bah ... torture is causing suffering, period. Our doctors torture us all the time to get what they want, psychopaths torture living things for thrills, many workers torture themselves with sleep deprivation for bigger paychecks. Thing is, none of it really works to benefit any of them which is why they can never stop, same is true for any form of torture for information, it simply doesn't work. A 10% success rate is nothing to write home about, and that's the highest it's gotten for prisoners. In the mean time the world keeps turning while the torturer wastes their time, thus why the success rate is so low.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Enter the air head ... bah ... torture is causing suffering, period. Our doctors torture us all the time to get what they want, psychopaths torture living things for thrills, many workers torture themselves with sleep deprivation for bigger paychecks. Thing is, none of it really works to benefit any of them which is why they can never stop, same is true for any form of torture for information, it simply doesn't work. A 10% success rate is nothing to write home about, and that's the highest it's gotten for prisoners. In the mean time the world keeps turning while the torturer wastes their time, thus why the success rate is so low.

Oh, as I suspected... so you're saying that we should preclude the use of the same level of discomfort which medical practitioners routinely apply in the saving of our very lives, against those who are trying to destroy our lives...

BRILLIANT!

She claims that subjecting one’s self to discomfort "NEVER WORKS"... But is this true? Let’s take a moment to consider that assertion.

When my arm was broken in two places, in a compound fracture, where the elbow was dislocated and the fractured bone was sticking out of the top of my arm... the doc had to set the fractured bone back into place... To do this he had to subject me to some 'fairly significant discomfort...' a procedure which came at no small degree of risk, as the other part of the fractured bone, which remained inside my arm was pushing against the artery which lead directly from my heart...

Now had the focus of the doctor been my comfort and not my survival and long term health… he would have left the fractured bone pushing against my artery and not risked 'hurting me' by yanking on my grotesquely swollen and disfigured arm (Oh it was bent around backwards below the elbow with the hand facing the wrong way, blood pouring out ... where the bone had cut through the skin in the top of the arm, above the elbow... it was a freakin' mess...) causing me what I like to refer to as 'unspeakable pain' (pain which was worse than the time I was tortured by having to walk 12 or 13 miles on feet , the bottom of which had no skin... although it didn't last as long...) it's unknown HOW long I might have lived...

But I guess the doc felt like it was MORE IMPORTANT to implement his best judgment within his specialized field, where his knowledge of the circumstances served what he believed at the time to be in the best interests of those for which he advocated... Me and the American people whom I served.

Whereupon I blindly followed... suffering 'substantial discomfort' which was necessary, if quite unpleasant... but was inevitably to my benefit.

Just as were the times when I've had to work, going without sleep which I would otherwise have preferred, in order to meet deadlines, which were thresholds I had to cross to GET PAID... had I chosen to sleep... my body would have been well rested, but suffered substantial anxiety from my inability to PAY MY BILLS... thus the temporary lack of sleep was offset by the peace of mind that my financial status had been greatly improved by my having offset my desire for comfort to promote the satisafaction of my many NEEDS.


So, fellow board members, do you see why it is so damn important to understand what people are saying when they define their terms? It is absolutely CRITICAL when dealing with the self described "Centrist"... as their thinking typically operates at the depth of a shadow...

Their misuse of the words typically is designed to represent something distinct from that which the word actually means and when they're challenged to define it, you'll typically find, in the unlikely event that they actually DO comply, that they will demand that the word means something else entirely... thus exposing them to the reality that they're dead wrong, or otherwise full of shit.

This imbecile has no evidence to substantiate a '10% efficacy of Coercive Interrogation.'

Yet there she is advancing it as FACT. Her position rests purely within the defining traits of ’torture’ which SHE DESCRIBED... her position is preposterous; she has stated quite clearly that human beings are subjected, often by their own decisions, to the same highly effective and necessary stresses which coercive interrogation applies... yet she declares that such is ineffective and shouldn't be applied.

But let's consider for a moment, for the sake of argument; her conclusion that a 10% success rate is insufficient to make such techniques viable... Isn't it true that this 10% is a 10% that would not be realized if such practices had not been utilized? So in effect she's advocating for the reduction in success... and all for the sake of some misguided notion of fairness... the addle-minded idea that it's just not right to subject these poor people, whose only crime is that they murder as many innocent people as is within their means... to physical discomfort, because 'AS EVERYONE KNOWS,' physical discomfort has never gotten anyone, anywhere...

ROFL... Leftists...

 

[ABikerSailor]

People lie more under extreme stress Infinite Puberty. You as a former Marine should understand that better than most.

You get the best and most accurate information out of people when they feel comfortable and safe.

Ever watch "The General's Daughter"? John Travolta showed how interrogation should be done WITHOUT torture.

Torture would have just made them keep their mouths shut more.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

People lie more under extreme stress Infinite Puberty. You as a former Marine should understand that better than most.

You get the best and most accurate information out of people when they feel comfortable and safe.

Ever watch "The General's Daughter"? John Travolta showed how interrogation should be done WITHOUT torture.

Torture would have just made them keep their mouths shut more.

Ahhh... LIES! DAMN! I wonder if anyone's ever thought about an enemy combatant... particularly an ILLEGAL ENEMY COMBATANT... lying?

LOL...

Yeah... that's true Rust-picker... but their entire ideology is a lie; their basis for going to war is a lie... so that's a given.

the subject isn't questioned and released... He is questioned and he is held accountable for the veracity of his statements... suffice it to say that there is a very real and very unpleasant price to be paid for lying and the botton line is their safety is not paramount, their lond term health, not a consideration and where they're found to be lying, and those lies result in the injury and death of innocents, they will have once again proven conclusively that they have forfeited their rights through their overt disregard for the rights and lives of others; thus they've forfeited any reason why their handlers would continue to hold a concern for their life.

In short their veracity measures the viability of their life.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You're a fucking Bush supporting stupid fucking Repugnican neo-conservative asshole ain't ya?

 

[DiveCon]

You're a fucking Bush supporting stupid fucking Repugnican neo-conservative asshole ain't ya?

wow, didnt you have your weaties this morning?
or did someone piss in ypour cherios?
you are doing more deflection than usual

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

People lie more under extreme stress Infinite Puberty. You as a former Marine should understand that better than most.

You get the best and most accurate information out of people when they feel comfortable and safe.

Ever watch "The General's Daughter"? John Travolta showed how interrogation should be done WITHOUT torture.

Torture would have just made them keep their mouths shut more.

Ahhh... LIES! DAMN! I wonder if anyone's ever thought about an enemy combatant... particularly an ILLEGAL ENEMY COMBATANT... lying?

LOL...

Yeah... that's true Rust-picker... but their entire ideology is a lie; their basis for going to war is a lie... so that's a given.

the subject isn't questioned and released... He is questioned and he is held accountable for the veracity of his statements... suffice it to say that there is a very real and very unpleasant price to be paid for lying and the botton line is their safety is not paramount, their lond term health, not a consideration and where they're found to be lying, and those lies result in the injury and death of innocents, they will have once again proven conclusively that they have forfeited their rights through their overt disregard for the rights and lives of others; thus they've forfeited any reason why their handlers would continue to hold a concern for their life.

In short their veracity measures the viability of their life.

You're a fucking Bush supporting stupid fucking Repugnican neo-conservative asshole ain't ya?

Yet another example of why it is imperative that we establish an minimum intelligence threshold which citizens must cross before they can vote.

Well done Rustpicker... if I asserted that such arguments were being advanced by fellow members of their yellow ideological stripe, they'd DEMAND PROOF!

You can't make this stuff up kids... her response is the perfect illustration of the intellectual depth of "The Audacity to HOPE!" Brace yourselves, we haven't even begun to realize the effects which tolerating these idiots will realize.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I suppose that you think McStupid would be better than Obama?

McStupid was a Bush Jr. clone..........

 

[DiveCon]

I suppose that you think McStupid would be better than Obama?

McStupid was a Bush Jr. clone..........

yet Obama seems more and more like BUsh every day
LOL

btw, i prefer McLame

 

[ABikerSailor]

So, in other words......

You'd prefer to be broke and wish this country to fail?

 

[DiveCon]

So, in other words......

You'd prefer to be broke and wish this country to fail?

I didnt vote for Obama


and by "prefer" i mean the name

 

[Cecilie1200]

People lie more under extreme stress Infinite Puberty. You as a former Marine should understand that better than most.

You get the best and most accurate information out of people when they feel comfortable and safe.

Ever watch "The General's Daughter"? John Travolta showed how interrogation should be done WITHOUT torture.

Torture would have just made them keep their mouths shut more.

Ahhh... LIES! DAMN! I wonder if anyone's ever thought about an enemy combatant... particularly an ILLEGAL ENEMY COMBATANT... lying?

LOL...

Yeah... that's true Rust-picker... but their entire ideology is a lie; their basis for going to war is a lie... so that's a given.

the subject isn't questioned and released... He is questioned and he is held accountable for the veracity of his statements... suffice it to say that there is a very real and very unpleasant price to be paid for lying and the botton line is their safety is not paramount, their lond term health, not a consideration and where they're found to be lying, and those lies result in the injury and death of innocents, they will have once again proven conclusively that they have forfeited their rights through their overt disregard for the rights and lives of others; thus they've forfeited any reason why their handlers would continue to hold a concern for their life.

In short their veracity measures the viability of their life.

Tell me Biker didn't REALLY just suggest that we look to a MOVIE for how to conduct an interrogation. Let me be the first to say it:

OF COURSE Travolta's interrogation worked brilliantly! It was IN THE FUCKING SCRIPT!! It works less well when there's not a screenwriter in the background saying, "And now you give in and tell him what he wants to know."

Piss-poor excuse for an opposable thumb -bearing primate ::mutter::

 

[DiveCon]

People lie more under extreme stress Infinite Puberty. You as a former Marine should understand that better than most.

You get the best and most accurate information out of people when they feel comfortable and safe.

Ever watch "The General's Daughter"? John Travolta showed how interrogation should be done WITHOUT torture.

Torture would have just made them keep their mouths shut more.

Ahhh... LIES! DAMN! I wonder if anyone's ever thought about an enemy combatant... particularly an ILLEGAL ENEMY COMBATANT... lying?

LOL...

Yeah... that's true Rust-picker... but their entire ideology is a lie; their basis for going to war is a lie... so that's a given.

the subject isn't questioned and released... He is questioned and he is held accountable for the veracity of his statements... suffice it to say that there is a very real and very unpleasant price to be paid for lying and the botton line is their safety is not paramount, their lond term health, not a consideration and where they're found to be lying, and those lies result in the injury and death of innocents, they will have once again proven conclusively that they have forfeited their rights through their overt disregard for the rights and lives of others; thus they've forfeited any reason why their handlers would continue to hold a concern for their life.

In short their veracity measures the viability of their life.

Tell me Biker didn't REALLY just suggest that we look to a MOVIE for how to conduct an interrogation. Let me be the first to say it:

OF COURSE Travolta's interrogation worked brilliantly! It was IN THE FUCKING SCRIPT!! It works less well when there's not a screenwriter in the background saying, "And now you give in and tell him what he wants to know."

Piss-poor excuse for an opposable thumb -bearing primate ::mutter::

ROFLMAO
really
ABS seems to be off his meds today

 

[ABikerSailor]

Use of torture

"Recent times" in the context of this article is from 10 December 1948, when the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

[edit] Torture in the past
The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.
A variety of torture instruments including, at right, the Iron Maiden of Nuremberg

The Romans used torture for interrogation. Until the second century AD, torture was used only on slaves (with a few exceptions). After this point it began to be extended to all members of the lower classes. A slave's testimony was admissible only if extracted by torture, on the assumption that slaves could not be trusted to reveal the truth voluntarily.[40] Crucifixion was not regarded as torture, though it was a deliberately horrible way to execute people as an example to frighten others. Prior to crucifixion, victims were often savagely whipped with barbed metal lashes, also to frighten others. Over time the conceptual definition of torture has been expanded and remains a major question for ethics, philosophy, and law, but clearly includes the practices of many subsequent cultures.

Modern scholars find the concept of torture to be compatible with society's concept of Justice during the time of Jesus Christ. Romans, Jews, Egyptians and many others cultures during that time included torture as part of their justice system. Romans had crucifixion, Jews had stoning and Egyptians had desert sun death.[citation needed] All these acts of torture were considered necessary (as to deter others) or good (as to punish the immoral).[41]

Medieval and early modern European courts used torture, depending on the accused's crime and social status. Torture was deemed a legitimate means to extract confessions or to obtain the names of accomplices or other information about a crime. Often, defendants already sentenced to death would be tortured to force them to disclose the names of accomplices. Torture in the Medieval Inquisition began in 1252 and ended in 1816 when a papal bull forbade its use.

While secular courts often treated suspects ferociously, Will and Ariel Durant argued in The Age of Faith that many of the most vicious procedures were inflicted upon pious heretics by even more pious friars. The Dominicans gained a reputation as some of the most fearsomely innovative torturers in medieval Spain.[citation needed]

Torture was usually conducted in secret, in underground dungeons. By contrast, torturous executions were typically public, and woodcuts of English prisoners being hanged, drawn and quartered show large crowds of spectators, as do paintings of Spanish auto-da-fé executions, in which heretics were burned at the stake.

In 1613 Anton Praetorius described the situation of the prisoners in the dungeons in his book Gründlicher Bericht Von Zauberey und Zauberern (Thorough Report about Sorcery and Sorcerers). He was one of the first to protest against all means of torture.

In Colonial America women were sentenced to the stocks with wooden clips on their tongues or subjected to the "dunking stool" for the gender-specific crime of talking too much.[42]

While in Egypt in 1798, Napoleon Bonaparte wrote to Major-General Berthier that the

barbarous custom of whipping men suspected of having important secrets to reveal must be abolished. It has always been recognized that this method of interrogation, by putting men to the torture, is useless. The wretches say whatever comes into their heads and whatever they think one wants to believe. Consequently, the Commander-in-Chief forbids the use of a method which is contrary to reason and humanity.[43]

Johann Graefe in 1624 published Tribunal Reformation, a case against torture. Cesare Beccaria, and Italian lawyer, published in 1764 "An Essay on Crimes and Punishments", in which he argued that torture unjustly punished the innocent and should be unnecessary in proving guilt

Torture was abolished by Frederick the Great in Prussia in 1740. Italy followed suit in 1786, followed by France in 1789 and Russia in 1801.

[edit] Torture in recent times
Main article: Uses of torture in recent times

Modern sensibilities have been shaped by a profound reaction to the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the Axis Powers in the Second World War, which have led to a sweeping international rejection of most if not all aspects of the practice.[44] Even so, many states engage in torture; however, few wish to be described as doing so, either to their own citizens or to international bodies. A variety of devices bridge this gap, including state denial, "secret police", "need to know", denial that given treatments are torturous in nature, appeal to various laws (national or international), use of jurisdictional argument, claim of "overriding need", and so on. Many states throughout history, and many states today, have engaged in torture (unofficially). Despite worldwide condemnation and the existence of treaty provisions that forbid it, torture still occurs in two thirds of the world's nations.

Torture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Torture as a vehicle for interrogation has only recently become acceptable by this government.

Hopefully, this administration will fix the fuck ups of the past.

 

[wihosa]

We were paying $10,000 for every person turned over to us in Afganistan.

No doubt there are innocent people at Gitmo.

But without trials, how can we know?

They can't be put on trial. Any judge would throw the cases out. Illegal aliens cost us 20k a head.

Last I checked, they've had military hearings, which has been the accepted procedure since forever. That would be why so many who WERE detained there have been released, and quite a few re-captured when they went right back to being terrorists.

If those released "went back to being terrorists" as you say, why were they released in the first place? Why weren't they tried, convicted and sentenced as they should have been if they were terrorists?

Was it because they were tortured and so anything they said was not admissable in court? To bad the Bush Admin became through their illegal actions an enemy of American justice.

 

[DiveCon]

They can't be put on trial. Any judge would throw the cases out. Illegal aliens cost us 20k a head.

Last I checked, they've had military hearings, which has been the accepted procedure since forever. That would be why so many who WERE detained there have been released, and quite a few re-captured when they went right back to being terrorists.

If those released "went back to being terrorists" as you say, why were they released in the first place? Why weren't they tried, convicted and sentenced as they should have been if they were terrorists?

Was it because they were tortured and so anything they said was not admissable in court? To bad the Bush Admin became through their illegal actions an enemy of American justice.

why wasnt Bill Ayers convicted?

 

[wihosa]

Last I checked, they've had military hearings, which has been the accepted procedure since forever. That would be why so many who WERE detained there have been released, and quite a few re-captured when they went right back to being terrorists.

If those released "went back to being terrorists" as you say, why were they released in the first place? Why weren't they tried, convicted and sentenced as they should have been if they were terrorists?

Was it because they were tortured and so anything they said was not admissable in court? To bad the Bush Admin became through their illegal actions an enemy of American justice.

why wasnt Bill Ayers convicted?

Irrelevant.

The question is still 'why didn't Bush try and convict these suppossed terrorists?'.

Probably because they became torturers, and as such were unable to pursue crimes without exposing their own criminal behavior.

Everlasting shame on the traitors to the American justice system, the Bush Amin.