PDA

View Full Version : Administration halts prosecution of alleged USS Cole bomber



Eric Johnson
08-27-2010, 01:13 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082606353.html?hpid=moreheadlines&sid=ST2010082700364

http://tinyurl.com/2bcob46

By Peter Finn
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 26, 2010; 8:47 PM

The Obama administration has shelved the planned prosecution of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the alleged coordinator of the Oct. 2000 suicide attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, according to a court filing.

The decision at least temporarily scuttles what was supposed to be the signature trial of a major al-Qaeda figure under a reformed system of military commissions. And it comes practically on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the attack, which killed 17 sailors and wounded dozens when a boat packed with explosives ripped a hole in the side of the warship in the port of Aden.

-more-

road kill
08-27-2010, 01:14 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082606353.html?hpid=moreheadlines&sid=ST2010082700364

http://tinyurl.com/2bcob46

By Peter Finn
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 26, 2010; 8:47 PM

The Obama administration has shelved the planned prosecution of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the alleged coordinator of the Oct. 2000 suicide attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, according to a court filing.

The decision at least temporarily scuttles what was supposed to be the signature trial of a major al-Qaeda figure under a reformed system of military commissions. And it comes practically on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the attack, which killed 17 sailors and wounded dozens when a boat packed with explosives ripped a hole in the side of the warship in the port of Aden.

-more-


Did we apologize to him as well??

I mean we did make him attack!!:rolleyes:


RK

gman0046
08-27-2010, 03:01 PM
Another example of Obongolo kissing muslim butt. Will it ever end?

YardleyLabs
08-27-2010, 03:08 PM
Another example of Obongolo kissing muslim butt. Will it ever end?
Did you read the story? Prosecution has been severely compromised by the fact that evidence was gathered using torture and that if that is excluded, all that is left is hearsay. When an egg is broken, there is ability to put it back together. Guantanamo is a story of broken eggs. From the time the first person was sent there, the government never had a strategy for where it would go next. There is no good way out of the mess that was created.

road kill
08-27-2010, 03:40 PM
Did you read the story? Prosecution has been severely compromised by the fact that evidence was gathered using torture and that if that is excluded, all that is left is hearsay. When an egg is broken, there is ability to put it back together. Guantanamo is a story of broken eggs. From the time the first person was sent there, the government never had a strategy for where it would go next. There is no good way out of the mess that was created.
So....you agree we should apologize, after all, it's OUR fault!!


RK

Clay Rogers
08-29-2010, 05:59 AM
Did you read the story? Prosecution has been severely compromised by the fact that evidence was gathered using torture and that if that is excluded, all that is left is hearsay. When an egg is broken, there is ability to put it back together. Guantanamo is a story of broken eggs. From the time the first person was sent there, the government never had a strategy for where it would go next. There is no good way out of the mess that was created.

Actually, there is an easy fix. Just line 'em all up and shoot them. Problem solved. Beats the hell out of beheading them, wouldn't you say?

YardleyLabs
08-29-2010, 07:22 AM
Actually, there is an easy fix. Just line 'em all up and shoot them. Problem solved. Beats the hell out of beheading them, wouldn't you say?
We could also change our name to the United States of Saudi Arabia. We are either a nation of laws or we are not. There is no middle ground. As soon as we begin to define our morals in reaction to the morals of our enemy, we become the enemy.

subroc
08-29-2010, 07:43 AM
We could also change our name to the United States of Saudi Arabia. We are either a nation of laws or we are not. There is no middle ground. As soon as we begin to define our morals in reaction to the morals of our enemy, we become the enemy.

Sanctimonious crap

We could just have easily used the "laws" of military tribunals. We would still, by your measure, be a nation of laws. They just wouldn't be "your laws."

Left wing politicians and the media caused this problem, no one else.

How silly

YardleyLabs
08-29-2010, 07:46 AM
Except for immigration right? There's no middle ground unless it suits you.
Go ahead and shoot them.
Walt
We have many laws. They are not enforced equally (How mny times have you driven faster than the speed limit?). Usually, when laws are not enforced, it is because of the interests involved. The force behind illegal immigration is simple. It is employers seeking cheap labor combined with people for whom the wages offered and the work required look like a good deal. Ultimately, illegal immigration won't go away until until penalties and enforcement against employers are such that employers are unwilling to employ illegals. I am not an advocate of that. I am an advocate of changing our immigration laws to make it easier for people to enter and work legally. That is not the same as advocating illegal action as you imply. In fact, I would prefer to see strict enforcement because I think that would accelerate rationalization of our laws.

YardleyLabs
08-29-2010, 07:52 AM
Sanctimonious crap

We could just have easily used the "laws" of military tribunals. We would still, by your measure, be a nation of laws. They just wouldn't be "your laws."

Left wing politicians and the media caused this problem, no one else.

How silly
No, they wouldn't be our laws. The problem the Bush administration ran into is that they sought to redefine our laws by executive action, arguing that the President's role and CiC trumped all other aspects of our system of governance. They were overturned by the courts at every level and ultimately decided to walk away from the problem by delaying any action until a new administration came in. There were two sets of laws under which the administration could have acted. Those incorporated in the Geneva Conventions, which are treaties adopted by our country and carrying the full force of law, on the Constitution. Neither allows forcefully compelled testimony to be used.

Hew
08-29-2010, 08:16 AM
Prosecution has been severely compromised by the fact that evidence was gathered using torture and that if that is excluded, all that is left is hearsay. When an egg is broken, there is ability to put it back together. Guantanamo is a story of broken eggs.
If you and the original article are correct that the case is hampered by the inability to use evidence obtained through enhanced interrogation techniques then that brings up some noteworthy/interesting points:

1) the terrorist/murderer was interrogated by the CIA before he was even sent to Gitmo, so Gitmo isn't the broken egg in this instance. If I read the article correctly, he was held somewhere else for 4 years before even being sent to Gitmo. I suppose we could have rendered him to Yemen for proper torture and let him serve his time in their wonderful penal system.

2) the law that makes the evidence obtained through enhanced interrogation techniques and making the suspects feel bad about themselves :rolleyes: was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress and signed by a Democrat President.

3) Holder already stopped the court proceedings against Nashiri once before. Then the law about evidence/enhanced interrogation passed. After the law passed, and already knowing that he couldn't use those confessions/statement as evidence, Holder announced that the military would proceed with the military prosecution of Nashiri and many more. Now Holder has once again stopped the proceedings. This makes Holder, and by extension, the Admin. look like bumbling idiots. I do believe Holder is a dunce who's in way over his head. Obama will send his arse packing if he wins a 2nd term if not before.

I don't believe that the Obama Admin. has stopped this prosecution because they're Muslim lovers or terrorist sympathizers. I think it was stopped because they don't think they can win (thanks in part, ironically enough, to that law that the Dem Congress passed and Obama signed).

The liberals can't wait for all this nasty Gitmo stuff to go away so they can sleep the peaceful sleep of the deluded...pretending that as long as we render aholes like Nashiri to third world dumps for torture and imprisonment our hands are clean.

YardleyLabs
08-29-2010, 08:34 AM
If you and the original article are correct that the case is hampered by the inability to use evidence obtained through enhanced interrogation techniques then that brings up some noteworthy/interesting points:

1) the terrorist/murderer was interrogated by the CIA before he was even sent to Gitmo, so Gitmo isn't the broken egg in this instance. If I read the article correctly, he was held somewhere else for 4 years before even being sent to Gitmo. I suppose we could have rendered him to Yemen for proper torture and let him serve his time in their wonderful penal system.

2) the law that makes the evidence obtained through enhanced interrogation techniques and making the suspects feel bad about themselves :rolleyes: was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress and signed by a Democrat President.

3) Holder already stopped the court proceedings against Nashiri once before. Then the law about evidence/enhanced interrogation passed. After the law passed, and already knowing that he couldn't use those confessions/statement as evidence, Holder announced that the military would proceed with the military prosecution of Nashiri and many more. Now Holder has once again stopped the proceedings. This makes Holder, and by extension, the Admin. look like bumbling idiots. I do believe Holder is a dunce who's in way over his head. Obama will send his arse packing if he wins a 2nd term if not before.

I don't believe that the Obama Admin. has stopped this prosecution because they're Muslim lovers or terrorist sympathizers. I think it was stopped because they don't think they can win (thanks in part, ironically enough, to that law that the Dem Congress passed and Obama signed).

The liberals can't wait for all this nasty Gitmo stuff to go away so they can sleep the peaceful sleep of the deluded...pretending that as long as we render aholes like Nashiri to third world dumps for torture and imprisonment our hands are clean.
1. In fact, we have used other countries as proxies for holding prisoners before. It's not pretty, but it is preferable to what we did by taking control of prisoners ourselves and attempting to use the subterfuge of Guantanamo. There have always been instances where agents of our government have acted in extralegal ways. The risks were real since, if caught, the individuals involved could find themselves being prosecuted as criminals. That tended to minimize how often we engaged in such behavior. What the last administration decided to do was to try to take those activities out of the closet. It was a mistake.

2. The law that prevents torture (that's what we have always called it when it was used against members of our forces) from being used to extract information that can later be used as evidence for a conviction is called the US Constitution.

3. I don't think that there is any question that stopping the prosecution again makes the administration look stupid.

subroc
08-29-2010, 08:38 AM
define torture?

road kill
08-29-2010, 09:03 AM
define torture?

OOOH....OOOH I know, I know
(waving hand wildly in the air so I get picked to answer.......truthfully!!)

Anything that would offend those who attacked us!!!!:D


RK

subroc
08-29-2010, 09:29 AM
Left wing torture: not giving a prisoner, in a timely enough manner, a tissue to blow his nose.

Clay Rogers
08-29-2010, 10:17 AM
We could also change our name to the United States of Saudi Arabia. We are either a nation of laws or we are not. There is no middle ground. As soon as we begin to define our morals in reaction to the morals of our enemy, we become the enemy.

I was referring to the way the "enemy" as you like to call them, handles prisoners they "take"(code for kidnap, in case your wondering). This is a war unlike any we have fought before. This isn't a government we are fighting, it's a way of thinking, and to win you have to change the way they think. And if we started fighting this war like they fight it(without any "laws" or ROE) it might end sooner than later. So instead of taking prisoners, just kill everyone on the battlefield, that way "you guys"(code for bleeding heart liberals) don't have to worry about how we are mistreating them down in gitmo. So I don't think a little waterboarding, couple of closed fist punches to the face and maybe even some jumper cables to the testicles is as bad a beheading on the world wide web.

By the way, have you seen how we "mistreat" these terrorists down there.:rolleyes: Kinda makes me sick.

Hew
08-29-2010, 11:05 AM
1. In fact, we have used other countries as proxies for holding prisoners before. It's not pretty, but it is preferable to what we did by taking control of prisoners ourselves and attempting to use the subterfuge of Guantanamo. There have always been instances where agents of our government have acted in extralegal ways. The risks were real since, if caught, the individuals involved could find themselves being prosecuted as criminals. That tended to minimize how often we engaged in such behavior. What the last administration decided to do was to try to take those activities out of the closet. It was a mistake.

I would reason that the sheer volume of prisoners captured in an unconventional war made rendition impractical; hence the necessity of Gitmo. It may salve your conscience that before, and now after Gitmo, that we were/are relying on proxies to try, torture and imprison our enemies, but at what cost? A trial in Oman is a farce compared to whatever trial we will ultimately provide (Holder's and Obama's statements that they'll be found guilty aside). Egypt's interrogation techniques would make our harshest CIA interrogators nauseous. Imprisonment in Gitmo is a picnic to Saudi Arabia. You seem to at least acknowledge that. The rest of the American left should be grabbed behind the neck and have their nose pushed into sausage factory door so that they can see how the sausage is made. It's a helluva lot more humane the way we make.

badbullgator
08-29-2010, 11:21 AM
We could also change our name to the United States of Saudi Arabia. We are either a nation of laws or we are not. There is no middle ground. As soon as we begin to define our morals in reaction to the morals of our enemy, we become the enemy.


So your all for this? Big fan of OJ walking (the first time)?

depittydawg
08-29-2010, 11:26 AM
I'm not implying anything. You made the bold statement that we were either a nation of laws or not. We are obviously not.
Walt

"Go ahead and shoot them."
Walt

Sounds like your implying something here Walt.

Clay Rogers
08-29-2010, 12:01 PM
"Go ahead and shoot them."
Walt

Sounds like your implying something here Walt.

Definition of IMPLY
1obsolete : enfold, entwine
2: to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement <rights imply obligations>
3: to contain potentially
4: to express indirectly <his silence implied consent

I would say he didn't "imply" anything.

depittydawg
08-29-2010, 12:08 PM
If you and the original article are correct that the case is hampered by the inability to use evidence obtained through enhanced interrogation techniques then that brings up some noteworthy/interesting points:

I don't believe that the Obama Admin. has stopped this prosecution because they're Muslim lovers or terrorist sympathizers. I think it was stopped because they don't think they can win (thanks in part, ironically enough, to that law that the Dem Congress passed and Obama signed).

.

Pretty much substantiates what most legal experts been saying all along. In as much as torturing these scum sucking bottom feeders of human feces can make us feel vindicated, it actually does more harm than good.

From the legal perspective, torture is not allowed in the US, never has been and hopefully never will be. This is established in the constitution and was upheld by the courts at every level during the 8 years it was practiced under the enhanced rules of the Unitary Executive. (remember him?). The act was a response to the court rulings that the congress and president reaffirmed it.
I see this Killer is another Saudi born and conditioned radical. These Warriors for God seem to all be Saudi's. Still can't figure out why we keep attacking the wrong countries on our "War on Terror".
Anybody remember all the high profile cases LOST during the Unitary Executives Reign? I believe it was quite a few. Yardley is absolutely correct on this issue. We are a nation of laws. First and foremost. We can win this struggle without destroying our values and our way of life in the process. Thank God for our Justice system. I hope it survives the assault of the Right Wing over the next generation.

M&K's Retrievers
08-29-2010, 12:18 PM
define torture?

DS's posts :rolleyes:

Clay Rogers
08-29-2010, 12:25 PM
Pretty much substantiates what most legal experts been saying all along. In as much as torturing these scum sucking bottom feeders of human feces can make us feel vindicated, it actually does more harm than good.

From the legal perspective, torture is not allowed in the US, never has been and hopefully never will be. This is established in the constitution and was upheld by the courts at every level during the 8 years it was practiced under the enhanced rules of the Unitary Executive. (remember him?). The act was a response to the court rulings that the congress and president reaffirmed it.
I see this Killer is another Saudi born and conditioned radical. These Warriors for God seem to all be Saudi's. Still can't figure out why we keep attacking the wrong countries on our "War on Terror".
Anybody remember all the high profile cases LOST during the Unitary Executives Reign? I believe it was quite a few. Yardley is absolutely correct on this issue. We are a nation of laws. First and foremost. We can win this struggle without destroying our values and our way of life in the process. Thank God for our Justice system. I hope it survives the assault of the Right Wing over the next generation.


Our laws are for American citizens, not scum sucking camel jockeys that believe blowing up innocent men, women and children will get them to heaven. Our laws are not for them. Look back in history and tell me when, of all the wars we have fought on foreign soil, did the enemy treat us according to any set of laws, including the geneva convention. I don't believe you can find one. Not WWI or WWII, not Korea or Vietnam, and not this war. You are correct about us being a nation of laws, but they should not extend to the battlefield in a foreign country.

And terrorists should not be tried in a court of law. They should be tried in a military court, in front of jury of men and women who fought against them and dealt with swiftly. Last time I checked, .223 ammo was really cheap.

huntinman
08-29-2010, 12:30 PM
I say just release the poor terrorist. Then, when he least expects it, have one of our drones or better yet one of our highly trained snipers send him on his way to his awaiting virgins. Case closed...many tax dollars saved.

gman0046
08-29-2010, 01:07 PM
I'm for old fashion "Carpet Bombing" militant ragheads and camel jockeys.

depittydawg
08-29-2010, 03:02 PM
Our laws are for American citizens, not scum sucking camel jockeys that believe blowing up innocent men, women and children will get them to heaven. Our laws are not for them. Look back in history and tell me when, of all the wars we have fought on foreign soil, did the enemy treat us according to any set of laws, including the geneva convention. I don't believe you can find one. Not WWI or WWII, not Korea or Vietnam, and not this war. You are correct about us being a nation of laws, but they should not extend to the battlefield in a foreign country.

And terrorists should not be tried in a court of law. They should be tried in a military court, in front of jury of men and women who fought against them and dealt with swiftly. Last time I checked, .223 ammo was really cheap.

You have a point considering how Americans have been treated as POW's. I believe even the Brits were pretty bad to the Revolutionary POW's they captured. I have no sympathy for the Killers who we so foolishly call terrorists (as if there is some distinction).

Somebody on this thread suggested sending them back to their own countries to let them deal with it. Guess we might find out if the Saudi's are actually allies. Since they all come from there, send them back for trial in their court system. I still say our military should be sitting smack in the middle of SA, not Iraq or Afghanistan. I suppose the money they pass around to the right circles in our Government and Wall Street gives them exemption.