Judge refuses 9/11 guilty plea

reply to post by jsobecky


Apparently we are bother wondering the same thing. I never said that they were innocent. I simply stated I have no reason to believe they are guilty at this point either and I find this sudden plea to be put down for the crime a tad suspicious.

The difference is that you believe they are up to something in making this sudden decision where I that these confessions and pleas to be done in are simply the result of a tactic that was used to get them to.....admit guilt.

Interesting story, however what I find most interesting is the comments in this thread. What we are seeing here is the same old tired, boring argument.

Someone who obviously believes that these terrorist deserve to rot in jail and/or hang for the crimes of 9/11 vs The people who claim that a) Maybe they were not responsible or b) You got the confession by torturing the accused thus disqualifying the actual confession.... very interesting.

Jsobecky made a very good point:

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by angel of lightangelo

 

You ask for proof. I give you a confession. The man's own words. Not good enough for you.

What would satisfy you? A video of him cutting Daniel Pearl's throat? You'd claim it was photoshopped.:shk:

So what would be good enough? Let's start with the confession. It is commonly accepted that Torture DOES NOT WORK. What you create is a situation where the person being tortured will say, do, or admit anything just to make the torture stop. We can debate that as fact all day long, which I refuse to do. Feel free to Google "Torture does not work" and choose from any of the 606,000 hits you receive and look into it yourself. From retired and currently serving Generals, FBI, CIA, etc etc. The list is extensive and they all claim that torture does not work and any information you get from a tortured prisoner is simply not reliable.

Now let's just say we should "take him at his word". Let's use that logic for just a moment, but let's do it in reverse.

As reported on 12/14/2001 by USA TODAY President Bush said no matter how long it takes, we will get Bin Laden dead or alive. I tried to find the actual video, unfortunately I was unable to do so, however the press clippings were much easier to find.

Then in March of 2002 at a White House Press Conference, Bush reversed his position and claimed:


Of course this was a talking point for John Kerry in the debates of 2004:


Obviously we can not simply take Mr Bush "at his word" and he has not been tortured to provide these answers. Yet you expect me to take the word of our government that has admitted to torturing these suspects even though I already know they will lie to me anyway if it suits the moment.

Of course, we can not be rational and think logically on this issue, I mean after all these are the "Masterminds of 9/11" or are they?

First we were told it was Bin Laden, then we were told Atta met with Saddam and that there was a connection there. Well now Saddam is dead, Atta is dead and now we have this guy in custody who now says he master minded 9/11. Now that we have this confession, it is no longer important and a priority to capture or kill Bin Laden. Where I am from that is called deflection.

So what would be proof enough?? I am not too sure, but what I can tell you is that I do not trust the word of this government or it's officials. I will not take the word of someone who was tortured. Call me what you will, but if I was being tortured, I'd tell you anything you wanted to hear if it would make the torture stop.

In closing... I think it is fair to say that for me, I cant take our "Mastermind's" word for it, I also can not take our Government's word for it, but do you know who's words I do believe?



Which also now begs the question......

If you are so willing to take this prisoner and terrorist "at his word", why could you not give that same consideration to the countless first responders and eyewitness's? Do the words or a terrorist ring more true than that of teh Average Joe who has nothing to gain?

[edit on 9-12-2008 by MrWendal]

Originally posted by corvin77
how convenient that the new alledged perpertrators want to all pleade guilty just before Bush goes out of office?

I mean... huh?

Yeah... My husband mentioned a pretty interesting conspiracy angle on this... Maybe Bush would pardon them...

reply to post by angel of lightangelo

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
Apparently we are bother wondering the same thing. I never said that they were innocent. I simply stated I have no reason to believe they are guilty at this point either and I find this sudden plea to be put down for the crime a tad suspicious.

The difference is that you believe they are up to something in making this sudden decision where I that these confessions and pleas to be done in are simply the result of a tactic that was used to get them to.....admit guilt.

They are asking for the death penalty. Death.

If your theory is correct, I'd like to know what that tactic is. It is one hell of an effective tactic!

reply to post by MrWendal


I didn't watch the entire last video, only enough to get the gust of it.

But what's to say that both scenarios aren't true? KSM helped plan 9/11 AND KSM was responsible for helping the buildings to collapse by planting some charges in the sub-basements?

As far as Bush changing his attitude on the focus on getting bin Laden, I don't see what the fuss is all about. One statement was made in the heat of the attack, the other was after months of destroying his organization had passed.

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by MrWendal

 

But what's to say that both scenarios aren't true? KSM helped plan 9/11 AND KSM was responsible for helping the buildings to collapse by planting some charges in the sub-basements?

How would he do that exactly without MASSIVE government oversight? I mean seriously. You can say what you want about the attacks and everyone has their opinion of what went down but these sudden confessions are fishy to say the least.

Originally posted by jsobecky
As far as Bush changing his attitude on the focus on getting bin Laden, I don't see what the fuss is all about. One statement was made in the heat of the attack, the other was after months of destroying his organization had passed.

Destroying his organization? Despite the fact that the CIA is directly responsible for the formation of Al Qaeda, our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan have only served to strengthen the organization.

Recently Bush started spouting about capturing OBL by the end of his term. As we get into December it looks like that isn't going to happen so he's going for the next best thing. A few of the terrorists are going to make a nice little "confession" right before he leaves office.

If you can't put it all together I feel sorry for you. Really.

If there wasn't a more clear and obvious sign that brainwashing has been used on these people...

ALL of them were THE mastermind, and individually, each person alone masterminded the whole thing?
Unless these people have figured out how to work as a telepathic networked mind, this is quite impossible.

And on top of that... they all want the death penalty for masterminding the attacks?


Whats next?
50 people who all claim they and they alone invented the light bulb?



And the CIA boys are uttering "We should have re-programmed them with DIFFERENT programs."

[edit on 9-12-2008 by johnsky]

Originally posted by Sestias
An article in the New York Times suggests this request is related to the upcoming inauguration of President Obama. Obama has condemned torture and has even talked about closing Gitmo. Maybe the defendants believe they will receive better treatment at the hands of the new administration, and so are more interested in living.

[edit on 8-12-2008 by Sestias]

yes that appears to be the case,the tribunals may be awaiting the policies and status qou set by obama before they act,for if they act in the wrong way compared to the executive it would cause conflict and embaressment.

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by MrWendal

 

I didn't watch the entire last video, only enough to get the gust of it.

But what's to say that both scenarios aren't true? KSM helped plan 9/11 AND KSM was responsible for helping the buildings to collapse by planting some charges in the sub-basements?

As far as Bush changing his attitude on the focus on getting bin Laden, I don't see what the fuss is all about. One statement was made in the heat of the attack, the other was after months of destroying his organization had passed.

To answer your first point... How did KSM plant these charges from his little cave in Afghanistan? Other than members of the Saudi Royal Family and the Bin Laden family no one else was able to get out of the country immediately after 9/11. So how did KSM manage to do all of that and still get out? That idea is simply ridiculous at best.

Now for your second point... what is all the fuss? We were told Bin Laden was the mastermind of 9/11 and the man who bankrolled the whole thing. He is the reason we went into Afghanistan. We wanted Bin Laden and the Taliban refused to hand him over, that is what we were told. Did we stop short during WW2 and simply settle for people in Hitler's inner circle? No. We kept going until Hitler was confirmed dead. So your going to tell me that capturing or killing the biggest mass murderer in recent history is not important, and we are willing to settle for his inner circle? That makes no sense at all, and in the words of Judge Judy, "If it does not make sense, it is a lie."

Originally posted by jsobecky


They are asking for the death penalty. Death.

If your theory is correct, I'd like to know what that tactic is. It is one hell of an effective tactic!

I already explained this to you over and over. It is quite simple. You go to a prison and spend 7 years being treated less than human. Now when they tell you that you have two choices, ask for death, or spend the rest of their lives being treated so badly......? Make life suck so badly that someone would prefer death and then promise they will never be free from it. How do you not get this? Do you not know how they got "witches" to confess? You know they knew the punishment for practicing witchcraft was death, yet many admitted to it. Is that because they were real witches and refused to lie about in the face of death? Or......were they just treated so badly that death was a nicer sounding option.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]

reply to post by angel of lightangelo

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
I already explained this to you over and over. It is quite simple. You go to a prison and spend 7 years being treated less than human. Now when they tell you that you have two choices, ask for death, or spend the rest of their lives being treated so badly......? Make life suck so badly that someone would prefer death and then promise they will never be free from it.

As I said, this doesn't wash. They have already won several legal battles. They have some of the best lawyers available. Your allegation that they are being treated inhumanely is unfounded. They are not being tortured. There is a chance that some of them will walk away from this on a technicality.

Simply saying the same thing over and over does not make it true. And you're actually being a little bit condescending with your attitude.

No, I don't buy your theory. Sorry.

reply to post by drwizardphd

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by MrWendal

 

But what's to say that both scenarios aren't true? KSM helped plan 9/11 AND KSM was responsible for helping the buildings to collapse by planting some charges in the sub-basements?

How would he do that exactly without MASSIVE government oversight? I mean seriously. You can say what you want about the attacks and everyone has their opinion of what went down but these sudden confessions are fishy to say the least.

Massive gov't oversight would be the LAST thing I would want, if I wanted to sabotage the WTC in September of 2001.

Originally posted by jsobecky
As far as Bush changing his attitude on the focus on getting bin Laden, I don't see what the fuss is all about. One statement was made in the heat of the attack, the other was after months of destroying his organization had passed.

Destroying his organization? Despite the fact that the CIA is directly responsible for the formation of Al Qaeda, our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan have only served to strengthen the organization.

Sorry, you're wrong. Their finance avenues have been destroyed. Their leaders have been killed as soon as new ones are appointed. They've been defeated in Iraq. If things were going so well for them, KSM wouldn't be wanting to die.

Recently Bush started spouting about capturing OBL by the end of his term. As we get into December it looks like that isn't going to happen so he's going for the next best thing. A few of the terrorists are going to make a nice little "confession" right before he leaves office.

And they are going to make those nice little confessions...why, exactly?

To make Bush's legacy stronger?

He's going to be history in a couple of weeks anyway.

What you are saying makes no sense at all.

If you can't put it all together I feel sorry for you. Really.

I think you're missing a few parts of your own puzzle.

reply to post by jsobecky


Ok, I get it. I did not realize that you were a first hand personal witness to how they have been treated. Me, I have a problem with this particular government's ability to tell the truth. Are you really saying they have been treated well? Let me put you in prison for 7 years. I will give ya foot rubs every morning and prime rib at night, I am willing to bet you will still want to be let out at some point and the prospect of NEVER might just not seem appetizing. If I seem condescending, it is because you are saying this as fact that you have no more knowledge of than anyone else. You know what they told you happened and that is all you know. Then to go on and say someone is getting nice treatment in prison is just plain silly.

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
So instead of using my tax dollars to give them a fair trial and find out if they really ever did anything, you would rather waste more of my tax dollars to keep them in prison for life and bring them in front of a judge for no good reason every month? Are you willing to cover my share because personally, I would rather see my tax dollars go toward things that either bring the standard of living in America up, or help foreign countries not want to fly planes into us so baddly.

Exactly Star for you.
Pop a bullet between their eyes and save the tax money.
Like we don't already pay enough for prisoner housing, food. etc etc etc.

Originally posted by MrWendal
Which also now begs the question......

If you are so willing to take this prisoner and terrorist "at his word", why could you not give that same consideration to the countless first responders and eyewitness's? Do the words or a terrorist ring more true than that of teh Average Joe who has nothing to gain?

Just because the people here that believe this gov, hook line and sinker seemed to completely overlook this statement, I thought I would bring it back up. It is the best point I have seen in this whole thread. What makes their "word" any more valid than other people's?