The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Gun Dog Broker
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: Administration halts prosecution of alleged USS Cole bomber

  1. #11
    Senior Member Hew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    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 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.
    I'll take the river down to still water and ride a pack of dogs.

  2. #12
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hew View Post
    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 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.

  3. #13
    Senior Member subroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dover, New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    define torture?
    subroc

    Article [I.]
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    Article [II.]
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

  4. #14
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by subroc View Post
    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!!!!


    RK
    Stan b & Elvis

  5. #15
    Senior Member subroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dover, New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    Left wing torture: not giving a prisoner, in a timely enough manner, a tissue to blow his nose.
    subroc

    Article [I.]
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    Article [II.]
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

  6. #16
    Senior Member Clay Rogers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Leggett, NC
    Posts
    372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    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. Kinda makes me sick.
    RIP SGT. David Blake Williams KIA 22 Mar 2008 Iraq


    Every day should be Veteran's day.


    "They say War is Hell, but I have to disagree. War is easy. It's the living afterwards thats hell." Author Unknown

  7. #17
    Senior Member Hew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    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.
    I'll take the river down to still water and ride a pack of dogs.

  8. #18
    Senior Member badbullgator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    somewhere between Boca Grande and Nova Scotia
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    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)?
    Views and opinions expressed herein by Badbullgator do not necessarily represent the policies or position of RTF. RTF and all of it's subsidiaries can not be held liable for the off centered humor and politically incorrect comments of the author.
    Corey Burke

  9. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by walt8@cox.net View Post
    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.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Clay Rogers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Leggett, NC
    Posts
    372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by depittydawg View Post
    "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.
    RIP SGT. David Blake Williams KIA 22 Mar 2008 Iraq


    Every day should be Veteran's day.


    "They say War is Hell, but I have to disagree. War is easy. It's the living afterwards thats hell." Author Unknown

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •