U.S. To seek death penalty for Guantanamo prisoners with 9-11 ties

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by deltaboy
Let me ask you this guys, is Osama Bin Laden a guerrilla fighter or a civilian criminal?

Are we going to put trials for every fighter that we have capture in wars?

Ronald Reagan publicly called bin Laden and his crew freedom fighters helping the US. What do you think when considering that? Who was telling the truth and who was lying? One cannot be a freedom fighter for the state and enemy of the state at the same time, can one?

Ho Chi Minh, among others were US allies at one point in time, and US enemies at another. Why is the concept that once they start fighting against us vs. with us, they become an enemy, such a difficult one to grasp?

Originally posted by deltaboy

No, Ronald Reagan was calling the Mujahadeen fighting against the Soviet MILITARY that was invading Afghanistan as freedom fighters. Might as well called the Taliban freedom fighters, even though they didn't exist till 94. Al Qaeda didn't exist till 88, long after the Soviet military was leaving. Osama had plans afterwards.

I get it. When the Afghans refused to give up their country's oil rights for their citizens after being called freedom fighters, they automatically became enemies of the state via big oil declaration through big oil bought and paid for politicians. The same exact action happened to Hussein via the same Reagan administration. Coincidence? I think not.

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Ho Chi Minh, among others were US allies at one point in time, and US enemies at another. Why is the concept that once they start fighting against us vs. with us, they become an enemy, such a difficult one to grasp?

Did you ever investigate why they are so obviously superficially fickle and tons of gallons blood always pour out as a result?

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by OrionStars

 

You stated that you were under the impression that I was talking about interogation techniques, that shouldn't be revealed. I corrected that assumption, through more specificity(the various means of gathering intel).
I said you were wrong, because of what you assumed I was saying.

I was referring to the post you stated you were not referring to the techiques, when I wrote I was fairly certain you were not referring to the techniques. Does that clarify it for you now?

reply to post by OrionStars


Country oil rights? I don't remember Afghanistan being an OPEC nation. Many conspiracy theorists believed it was drug production. Grasping straws here.

After the Soviets pulled out, the U.S. pulled out, and many Afghans blamed the U.S. for that. This led to civil war among the Afghans.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by percievedreality

 

By the way, just be glad that it's folks like me that are defending the country, rather than you, who presuppose that the defendants are innocent, and that the threats to you are of local origin.

Oh you true patriot, defending your country! Remember innocent until proven guility?
They have admitted to waterboarding (torture, not going to argue about that too are we) on these men. I think I would declare responsibility for things I had nothing to do with too just to make them stop! You would too....your human right...pain hurts!

You seem to "presuppose" that our own government didn't allow and welcome these terrorists to go ahead with their 9/11 plans because it offered them all the reasons to go to war and continue funding the military-industrial complex!

The threats to me, my family and to all Americans is in fact more "local" in origin than foreign at this point. Of course, the foreign threat does grow everyday as the world comes to hate us Americans even more because of the REAL "local" threat, our own government forcing its' way of life (not mine, mind you) on the entire world! So go fight...but your just a patsy fighting the wrong people if you ask me...get them terrorists, they are in those caves over there, I swear...

BTW, we wouldn't be fighting the terrorists if we hadn't armed them in the first place! So yeah the ORIGINAL threat (our own government) caused the situation you so firmly believe. Did we learn from our mistakes? No, no we are selling $20 billion in weapons to our allies in the Middle East! If we all are not dead in 5-10 years, I'll bet that comes back to bite us in the ass. But we are America right, we don't need to learn from our mistakes, because we never make any!! LOL

[edit on 12-2-2008 by percievedreality]

reply to post by OrionStars


No- When Osama was fighting our enemy, the Soviet Union, he was an ally in the war against the spread of Communism. When he decided to start attacking Americans, he became our enemy.

Originally posted by percievedreality

Oh you true patriot, defending your country! Remember innocent until proven guility?
They have admitted to waterboarding (torture, not going to argue about that too are we) on these men. I think I would declare responsibility for things I had nothing to do with too just to make them stop! You would too....your human right...pain hurts!

You seem to "presuppose" that our own government didn't allow and welcome these terrorists to go ahead with their 9/11 plans because it offered them all the reasons to go to war and continue funding the military-industrial complex!

[edit on 12-2-2008 by percievedreality]

You are right- I don't suppose our government allowed terrorists to attack us, to fund the "military industrial complex" or for any other reason.
Do you suppose that whatever information that they got out of these men through interrogation, was not corroborated against other information, to check it's veracity. Or.....do you think once they heard something they liked, they just accepted it at face value. Interrogation always involves checking stories out, so you'll know when your being fed a line of BS.

Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by OrionStars

 

Country oil rights? I don't remember Afghanistan being an OPEC nation. Many conspiracy theorists believed it was drug production.

Grasping straws here.

After the Soviets pulled out, the U.S. pulled out, and many Afghans blamed the U.S. for that. This led to civil war among the Afghans.

So, in order to have oil reserves, a country has to be a member of OPEC? Is that how you superficially assess it? Right after 9/11/2001, the media stated Al Qaeda guerrilas were burning out the oil wells and destroying US owned oil drilling equipment. I saw it reported through the media - fires and all.

As I recall, we had a spike in oil prices shortly after that. At least until OPEC could hurry up and pump out the equivalent or more of what we used to ship in from Afghanistan.

Then they slightly dropped again but not by much. It was already starting to climb to $3.00/USg of gasoline then. That was the plan all along, whether guerillas took out oil wells in Afghanistan or not. An oil shortage had to be falsely created, even if Al Qaeda guerillas once again became scapegoats, and did not do all that destruction, as seen on TV and reported in writing. Then again, perhaps it was all a ruse (fake film and all), just for a lame excuse to raise prices to fill the pockets of oil barons, including those of OPEC. More non-taxable windfall profits of the 1970s type.

Not a straw to inform people the poppy fields once again became quite plentiful, once the Taliban was overthrown by the Bush administration, and, at the same time, handed over to the warlords (Afghanistan mafia) instead. Afghanistan has long been known as a main artery of heroin being smuggled into the US and internationally.

Originally posted by BlueRaja

You are right- I don't suppose our government allowed terrorists to attack us, to fund the "military industrial complex" or for any other reason.
Do you suppose that whatever information that they got out of these men through interrogation, was not corroborated against other information, to check it's veracity. Or.....do you think once they heard something they liked, they just accepted it at face value. Interrogation always involves checking stories out, so you'll know when your being fed a line of BS.

You are of the opinion when people are tortured they automatically tell the truth? Or will they say anything they are told to say just to stop the torture? Perhaps you should reference John McCain's experiences as a POW before you answer that.

If indeed it is true, that we are going to execute Guantanamo Bay 9-11 related prisoners, then we are doing this simply to make sure these detainees will never get a chance to ‘talk’. Putting them to death is the only sure-fire way of shutting them up. For some reason, the 9-11 cabal must be worried about these guys speaking to someone, perhaps their lawyers? Perhaps someone is forcing a trial at which there might be a danger of them getting released. Who knows!

In any case, the 9-11 orchastrators will certainly have no qualms about killing a few more innocent folks, if having sacrificed a few thousand of its own citizens didn’t bother them. They must view this as a necessary evil — the deed of having to continue to make 9-11 look like a real terror event — for the sake of keeping our non-negotiable petroleum-based way of life.

What I don’t understand in all of this is, and I realize it may be a little off-topic, but it’s one of the great mysteries of life, how do these actions (killing folks) tie in with the constantly proclaimed belief of our nation in God? Is there something Jesus mentioned in the Gospels that justifies our behavior? Perhaps it’s in the footnotes somewhere and I just missed it…

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

reply to post by OrionStars


I am under the opinion that when someone is interrogated, you double check their story. Against other sources of info, to include others who have been interrogated, as well as intel gathered by other means. Once there is some corroboration established, then you can start coming to conclusions about something being accurate or not.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Do you suppose that whatever information that they got out of these men through interrogation, was not corroborated against other information, to check it's veracity. Or.....do you think once they heard something they liked, they just accepted it at face value. Interrogation always involves checking stories out, so you'll know when your being fed a line of BS.

Here I got to stop you and I will suggest you to watch this.
Part 1


Part 2


Also remember when President Bush said this: “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” That was proven later to be faulty and uncorroborated evidence and after that the entire Valerie Plame saga began which Scooter Libby was made the scapegoat for.





[edit on 12-2-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 12-2-2008 by Bunch]

reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods


I think the whole notion behind the death penalty for these folks, is because they are the 9/11 orchestrators, not because anyone's afraid of something they might say.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by OrionStars

 

I am under the opinion that when someone is interrogated, you double check their story. Against other sources of info, to include others who have been interrogated, as well as intel gathered by other means. Once there is some corroboration established, then you can start coming to conclusions about something being accurate or not.

Exactly how does one become an alleged hijacker and never boarded an alleged plane to hijack it? The "20th hijacker" indeed.

As for the rest of your opinion, what possible troop movement or military strategy information can POWs provide when they become POWs? So exactly what is the purpose of using torture? To force them to admit to something they may well have had no involvement at all? Could that be it?

There will be a six month taxpayer money wasted farce, held in secret, and then planned execution. I definitely see something wrong with that picture.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods

 

I think the whole notion behind the death penalty for these folks, is because they are the 9/11 orchestrators, not because anyone's afraid of something they might say.

So they are guilty until proved innocent as per your opinion? At least, that is the way you stated it above.

Originally posted by BlueRaja

I think the whole notion behind the death penalty for these folks, is because they are the 9/11 orchestrators, not because anyone's afraid of something they might say.

Thank you for your response BlueRaja. And no, I’m not being cynical. I really mean that I am grateful for you posting your thoughts. Because what you are saying has to be on many peoples’ minds.

There are two aspects to your viewpoint:

1. Is it still morally defensible for anyone to think that 9-11 was a real terror attack? Or is there an ethical obligation to question 9-11 just as the German people should have questioned attacking Poland or Russia in WWII. Note, the German soldiers celebrated Christmas and sang carols in the trenches on the Russian front truly thinking that they were doing Jesus’ work.

2. For those who do insist that prisoners at Guantanamo Bay had a hand in 9-11 events — shouldn’t we then put those ‘evil doers’ on the most public trial imaginable whilst interviewing them six kinds of sideways? So that all of us can ‘understand’ how 9-11 came about?

If the Guantanamo terrorist detainees are so truly guilty, then why all the secrecy? Why clandestine military trials? Why not a Nuremberg style setting where everything is shown?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by BlueRaja

You are right- I don't suppose our government allowed terrorists to attack us, to fund the "military industrial complex" or for any other reason.
Do you suppose that whatever information that they got out of these men through interrogation, was not corroborated against other information, to check it's veracity. Or.....do you think once they heard something they liked, they just accepted it at face value. Interrogation always involves checking stories out, so you'll know when your being fed a line of BS.

Yeah I know I was right. You are still one of those clinging to the beliefs that Bin Laden and his terrorists friends (like KSM) orchastrated the whole thing. You sure have a lot of faith in your government considering if your beliefs were true then they proved how grossly incompentent they are. But that is okay with you right? As long as they fund another gazillion dollars to black op programs in the guise of our defense.

Also, where is this other source of information, to corrobarate the torture-obtained information against? Are you referring to the videotape confession of Bin Laden or "Al Quidas' blackbook" the US forces found in a residence linking them to the events? Because, much to your disbelieve, such as your own government letting foriegn operatives attack us, they were fabricated. As you ended your post above....checking stories out, so you'll know when your being fed a line of BS....this doesn't appear to have worked for you. You seem to believe alot of BS... Not to single you out, as alot of people still haven't learned to not accept things at "face value". Yet another term you used but, as it seems to me, failed to understand. You seem to accept the 911 official story at true face value.

reply to post by Bunch


If I had to take a strong guess at why Curveball lied, I would say two reasons: To make himself look self-important, and most importantly for the money:

www.washingtonpost.com...

Curveball was and is still paid by the German government, not the U.S. Chalabi's organization, the Iraqi National Congress, was launched with CIA money in 1992. After the CIA decided he couldn't be trusted and pulled out in 1997, the INC received subsidies from the U.S. State Department for so-called "information collection." When State pulled out as well for alleged corruption, the Department of Defense began paying $335,000 a month to the INC. I don't know if Chalabi currently receives any direct U.S. support.

It is not exactly true the CIA was not paying it. They were simply laundering taxpayer money through Chalabi's farce of a CIA paid organization, and were the rest of the bureaucrat agencies and departments.

It puts me in mind of an ongoing Iran-Contra scandal - guns for drugs.
The last I read, Chalabi was involved in the lies put out to the US people, in order to gain the Bush administration support for illegally attacking Iran.

reply to post by OrionStars


I like to see this media report of Al Qaeda fighters were burning American oil platforms in Afghanistan. I really really like to see it.