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

Originally posted by deltaboy
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.

Since I did not tape it, I suppose that would not be possible. However, if was in MSM newspapers, if you were reading them as I was at the time, you should have seen it as well.

Are you doubting the Afghanistan has natural gas and oil reserves to burn in retaliation of being attacked by the US? If so, please read at the link referenced below:

www.matrixmasters.com...

reply to post by OrionStars


I agree with you but I will go a step further and said that why Curveball lied is irrelevant.

The main issue here is that the U.S. Intelligence agencies dont always corroborate their evidence and if they did not corroborate this evidence presented by this fraud, and also relied on intelligence of other frauds like Ayad Allawi and Ahmed Chalabi how can we trust that they really have the goods on these guys?

To say that this administration can be trusted when iy comes to intelligence issues or any issue for that matter is an insult to anyones intelligence.

Edit to add:

And please dont forget that these lies have brought pain and suffering to more than almost 4,000 families of military personnel that have dies while serving this War in Iraq.



[edit on 12-2-2008 by Bunch]

reply to post by Bunch


Bunch, I do believe it is relevant, in order to establish motive of perpetrators forcing through lying.

Other than that, I fully agree with what you stated, particularly on the horrifying needless loss of life all revolving around 9/11/2001. It has to be stopped before more people needlessly lose their lives, based on nothing but lies for greedy self-serving reasons.

reply to post by OrionStars


If it was big news, then it should be in the articles. If you are talking about the attack in Afghanistan during 9/11, that was by the Northern Alliance. Had nothing to do with Al Qaeda attacking any American owned platforms. Which they don't. The U.S. has refused to get involved since the Soviets left Afghanistan and there was a civil war. Your link just makes a suggestion, a reason why Afghanistan was invaded which says CASPIAN SEA!!!! CASPIAN SEA is not owned by Afghanistan.

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Bunch

 

Bunch, I do believe it is relevant, in order to establish motive of perpetrators forcing through lying.

To that I agree 100%. And if they lied once for something so important like going to war, I dont know how ppeople think they wont do it again.

Why the death penalty? Why should these prisoners be executed? It will make them martyrs. Executing them will not be a deterrent by any stretch of the imagination.

Even if they are not found guilty of anything, they can still be held indefinately. So why even bother having a trial?

Why were they even being held without due process? Their defense attorneys have trouble getting by red tape to see their clients. If the bureaucrats have nothing to hide, why are they denying human beings their rights to due process fair trial? So far no proof has been given they are guilty of doing anything wrong. Their defense attorneys cannot access any proof either.

The following law article, concerning the detainees, is exactly how I view it as well. It should not be happening the way it is being done:

writ.news.findlaw.com...

GUANTANAMO AND THE RULE OF LAW:
Why We Should Not Use Guantanamo Bay To Avoid The Constitution
By ANUPAM CHANDER
----
Thursday, Mar. 07, 2002

What are we fighting for? In the process of liberating Afghanistan from its lawless oppressors, we may be undermining our own position as the champions of the rule of law.

In a case last month here in California - Coalition of Clergy v. Bush - the Administration argued that the Constitution does not bind the United States in our actions against the Guantanamo detainees. The issue is also raised by another case--Rasul v. Bush--pending in federal court in the District of Columbia. The Administration's argument is a mistake, for both principled and practical reasons.

It is wrong for us to deny basic constitutional protections to those who are in our custody. Moreover, doing so will ensure that someday our citizens, when imprisoned abroad, will be denied similar protections by a foreign government, as well. The treatment of the Guantanamo prisoners could also provide a wedge for our own government to erode the civil liberties of citizens, permanent resident aliens, or visaholders - claiming that the Constitution applies in fewer and fewer circumstances, and to fewer and fewer persons.

If we are silent about our own treatment of the Guantanamo prisoners now, we will have little to say about these future abuses when they inevitably occur. As Thomas Paine wrote, "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

Sage man Thomas Paine. What held true, in his time, never ceased to hold true throughout history.

Originally posted by OrionStars
Why were they even being held without due process? Their defense attorneys have trouble getting by red tape to see their clients. If the bureaucrats have nothing to hide, why are they denying human beings their rights to due process fair trial? So far no proof has been given they are guilty of doing anything wrong. Their defense attorneys cannot access any proof either.

They aren't US citizens, so they don't get the rights/priveleges that a US citizen would first of all. Secondly, this isn't just a criminal trial- this is military tribunal for enemy combatants/terrorists- there are significantly different procedures, and expectations than in a normal trial. The fact that you haven't seen proof doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, or that the lawyers haven't looked at it. If you've read anything I've written earlier, there may be things that they don't want being compromised, as they may hinder future operations, if methods are disclosed.

reply to post by BlueRaja


BlueRaja:

And what makes us different from any thug nation in time?

The Führer himself (Hitler), Dschinghis Khan, Julius Gaius Caesar et altera did stuff like this routinely — execute people randomly who did nothing other than be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Sure, putting these people on public trials — Nuremberg style — would hinder future operations. OURS that is!

Also, I wouldn’t get too hung up about laws and procedures, we make those as we go along. ‘Justice’ Anton Scalia recently stated — right before he went to church — that Guantanamo prisoners didn’t have any rights either.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods


These folks aren't being charged with being at the wrong place at the wrong time, nor are they US citizens and entitled to Constitutional protections, and costing US taxpayers money to defend them, or tying up the US legal system. It is not improper to try combatants by military tribunal. There is no precendent for what you're suggesting in recorded history.

First and foremost, there are people being detained, for over 5 years, based on nothing but WH reports on 9/11/2001, which the Bush administration has never proved to be true. In fact, all the inconsistancies is why this forum exists.

Second, they were dragged to Cuba from other countries, and alleged to be involved based on reports never proved to be true. There are seven falsely accused "dead hijackers" proved to be alive. Why should anyone believe the Bush administration is telling the truth about the detainees?

Some people see nothing wrong with any of that?

Originally posted by BlueRaja

They aren't US citizens, so they don't get the rights/priveleges that a US citizen would first of all. Secondly, this isn't just a criminal trial- this is military tribunal for enemy combatants/terrorists- there are significantly different procedures, and expectations than in a normal trial. The fact that you haven't seen proof doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, or that the lawyers haven't looked at it. If you've read anything I've written earlier, there may be things that they don't want being compromised, as they may hinder future operations, if methods are disclosed.

Yes, they are entitled to argue they are. They have never been given the opportunity to do so. Did you read the article I referenced in one of my posts? It pertains exactly to what you erroneously stated.

Since they are being held with no proof 9/11/2001 took place the way the Bush administration said it did, it makes it worse yet on denial of human rights and civil liberties by anyone agreeing with the Bush administration.

reply to post by OrionStars


I invite you to show me anywhere in US law, where non-US citizen, enemy combatants, are entitled to the same treatment as a US citizen. I also invite you to show me one instance where any other country has had enemy combatants use its legal system and tax payer money to defend themselves. Your whole argument is based on the fact that you believe that Bush was responsible for 9/11, so these folks must be innocent.
With regards to 7 living hijackers- were these folks supposed to have been among the 19 on board the planes? If so, can you provide your source?

reply to post by BlueRaja


Did you not read the article which I linked, and from which I used an excerpt in my post? Because you should not have invited me to do what you did, without first reading the article.

As I stated in a recent prior post, the Bush administration has never proved anything in the "official" reports. Therefore, neither Afghanistan or Iraq were legally invaded by the US. Inconsistencies become falsehoods by default.

Isn't it amazing when the Afghans were fighting imperialist oppressor USSR, they were fighting for their freeedom, with billions of dollars from the US taxpayers, including the cost of CIA and military special forces training in guerrilla warfare and weapons.

The US put the Taliban into power. Osama bin Laden was aligned with the Taliban of Afghanistan. When the Afghans fight against another imperialist oppressor name USA, they are become "enemies of the state"? Yet, the Bush administration has never been forced to present proof. We know they lie because it has been proved they lied us into war against Iraq.

Detainees are being illegally held and refused due process. I just read in the newspaper, that CIA Michael Hayden acknowledged to Congress, three of them were tortured by waterboarding. The Bush administration claims that is not torture, and that is another Bush administration lie. If it were done to them, I would bet my last dollar they would be screaming torture.

Ex-POW (Vietnam) John McCain agrees waterboarding is torture. The UN agrees it is torture. Amnesty International agrees it is torture. Every other human rights and civil liberties organizations agrees it is torture. The ABA agrees it is torture. I agree it is torture. Tortured confessions are legally inadmissable in any courts of law or military tribunals.

reply to post by OrionStars


Have you read anything I've said? They didn't bring these folks to Guantanemo, torture them into confessing that they participated in 9/11, and then charge them. The evidence that they have against them isn't solely based upon confessions. You have a completely confused understanding of what goes on during an interrogation, or what interrogations are used for based upon your continued assertions. It sounds like you believe that the US rounds up people, tortures them into confessions, and then charges them. When the US rounds folks up on the battlefield, it is A- because they were participating in attacking US forces B- were at a site US forces were attacking C- were identified by others.
After they were captured, depending on the circumstances, they were checked for anything of intel value, checked against known combatants/terrorists. Also anything found on site of intel value was taken(i.e. computers/storage devices/training manuals/maps/plans/equipment) and photographs were taken of anything noteworthy. The individuals are separated so they can't coordinate stories, or tell what they were asked. The interrogators have info based upon any of the intel specific finds at the site, so they have a baseline to compare stories against. They'll compare info gathered from among the various detainees with each other, and the intel gathered. If it is determined that they are a HVT(high value target), or were culpable in some heinous activity, they'll be taken for further questioning, or detainment to prevent further hostilities. These individuals in the story have been vetted against a number of things(interrogations, what they were doing/had in their possession, previously known intel, corroborations from other, etc...) They most assuredly weren't just some poor schmos at the wrong place and time.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by OrionStars

 

Have you read anything I've said? They didn't bring these folks to Guantanemo, torture them into confessing that they participated in 9/11, and then charge them.

Obviously, I did read what you wrote, or could not have presented validated counter argument against what you wrote. You obviously ignored what I wrote, when I stated that CIA spokesperson Michael Hayden admitted to Congress at least 3 of the detainees, being run through a kangeroo court, were tortured with waterboarding. It is on the Congressional Record as such.

Is Michael Hayden lying to Congress according to you?

You know nothing about the detainees, and how they got to Cuba. They were transferred there, from across the Atlantic Ocean by the Bush administration. They were not in the USA. All we have is allegations and no proof of anything concerning the detainees. Neither do their defense attorneys. The Bush administration said they do not have to give that to the defense attorneys. Legally, yes they do.

www.nytimes.com...

Ever since President Bush announced in 2006 that he had transferred 14 “high value” detainees to Guantánamo from a secret C.I.A. detention program, it has been expected that the Pentagon would eventually lodge charges involving several of the numerous terror plots to which officials say several of those men were tied.

Officials have said detainees now held at Guantánamo are responsible for attacks that killed thousands of people, including the United States Embassy bombings in East Africa in 1998, the attack on the destroyer Cole in 2000, and the Bali nightclub bombing in 2002.

But it has always been clear that a case involving the Sept. 11 plot would be the centerpiece of the military commissions system and its most stringent test. After the Supreme Court struck down the Bush administration’s first system for military commission trials in 2006, Congress enacted a new law.

I am surprised they have not been falsely blamed dating all the way back to the Pearl Harbor attack. That is how ludicrous for lying this has become. Something like plotting it and fund raising in Afghanistan to help the Japanese carry it out type of ludicrous lie.

reply to post by OrionStars


So you're going to ignore what I said, change the subject, AND make assumptions as to what I do or don't know about. You're wrapped around the axle on the waterboarding, and ignoring everything else relevant to the case. You're also under the assumption that the waterboarding was used to get confessions of guilt, and that there is no other evidence corroborating the information, or showing guilt. Additionally, since you've eliminated any other possibility for the cause of 9/11, other than Bush being responsible, your objectivity is nil.

On waterborading. The US executed Imperial Japanese personnel for torture in the form of waterboarding.

On due process. Just because these prisoners are enemy combatants does not validate the argument that the prisoners are not entitled to be held accountable to the highest standards of law. Even if it costs the taxpayers a token amount. As far as tieing up the legal system, I can think of no case more important today to be heard.

And as far as entitlement goes, think about this. Why do illegal immigrants still get treated at hospitals, at a huge expense to the taxpayer?

Anyone who argues that there is a shred of evidence to justify holding these prisoners, much less executing them, is operating under assumptions, wether or not those assumptions are accurate.

Originally posted by jackinthebox

Anyone who argues that there is a shred of evidence to justify holding these prisoners, much less executing them, is operating under assumptions, wether or not those assumptions are accurate.

My assumptions are based much closer to reality than some of the assumptions that get posted here. The blind hatred of anything Bush has caused a total lack of objectivity, that is painfully obvious to those with any other view points. It's an institutional myopia. You all don't know the first thing about what evidence exists, yet have the gall to try to speak with some authority on the subject, speaking in absolute terms.