Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on December 05, 2009, 12:54:12 PM
-
Navy Seals Could Face Year in Prison Over Alleged Punching of Terrorist Suspected of Masterminding Fallujah Murders
Friday, December 04, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer
________________________ ________________________ ______
U.S. troops in Iraq (AP Photo) (CNSNews.com) – The Navy Seals facing court martial for the alleged abuse of a terror suspect arrested for killing four Americans face up to a year in military confinement, discharge for bad conduct, and forfeiture of two-thirds of their pay for a year, if convicted, according to defense attorneys.
Further, their attorneys said that the possibilty that they would not be able to cross-examine their clients' accuser would be grounds for dismissing the case.
The accuser, Ahmed Hashim Abed, is the alleged architect of the murder of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah, Iraq, in 2004. The bodies of the four Americans were burned and hanged from a bridge for display.
The three Navy Seals--Matthew McCabe, Jonathon Keefe, and Julio Huertas--will be arraigned on Monday in Norfolk, Va. They are facing a special court martial--which is equivalent to a misdemeanor charge--and have each denied the allegations of abuse and cover-up.
The trial date for McCabe, the Seal charged with the alleged assault, is tentatively set for Jan. 19, 2010, McCabe’s attorney Neal Puckett said.
Defense attorneys told CNSNews.com that they are waiting to see the evidence from military prosecutors because it is still under review to determine if it is classified. Even the charges, the only court filings in the case thus far, are still under review.
“The government has not handed over anything,” Huertas’ attorney Monica Lombardi told CNSNews.com. “They are now claiming that things are classified, but they are not saying what’s classified and what’s not classified. I filed my discovery request, and they denied it, pending a classification review.
… We have no photographs of the alleged injuries. We have no medical reports of these alleged injuries.”
U.S. troops in Iraq (AP Photo)Keefe’s attorney Greg McCormack will not speak to the media about the case, his receptionist told CNSNews.com.
Attorneys for both McCabe and Huertas said they would insist on cross-examining Abed. The Constitution grants Americans the right to face their accuser at a trial.
“If somebody was trying to claim that you assaulted them, but they refused to come into court, what prosecutor in what state would deny you your right to confrontation of the alleged victim?” Lombardi said.
When CNSNews.com asked what would happen if the military declined to bring Abed to the United States to testify for security reasons, Lombardi said, “It would be, at that point, we could ask the judge to dismiss the charges.”
McCabe, a special operations petty officer, second class, is charged with assaulting the detainee for reportedly punching him in the midsection; with dereliction of duty for failure to safeguard the detainee; and with making a false official statement on the matter.
Though news reports differ on whether it was a punch to the gut or a bloody lip, Puckett says the official charge is a punch to the mid-section.
Huertas, a special operations petty officer, first class, is charged with dereliction of duty, making a false official statement and impeding an investigation.
Keefe, a special operations petty officer, second class, is charged with dereliction of duty and making a false official statement.
Under special court-martial rules, all three defendants would face the same maximum penalty, Puckett said, even though the charges against each one deviate slightly. The maximum penalty for the charges would be one year in military confinement, reduction of two-thirds of their pay for a year and discharge from the military for bad conduct.
Lombardi said Huertas greatly appreciates the public outpouring of support since the reports first surfaced of the arrest.
“My client is extremely grateful for all the support from the American public,” Lombardi said. “He’s a career professional who’s just doing his job. It boosts your morale when you know that you go over there and are doing your job and the American public actually does care about what you’re doing. He’s really humbled by it.”
The military first sought non-judicial punishment, called a “captain’s mast.” It would have spared them any chance of imprisonment but would have severely harmed and possibly ended their military careers, Puckett said.
“There was some pressure on them to accept a lesser form of punishment,” Puckett said. “That would have meant that some commander had predetermined their guilt and would have punished them in a way that would have ended their careers. They weren’t willing to accept that and felt that it would not be a fair hearing.”
They each refused the captain’s mast and opted for a court martial, which is a military trial, to clear their names. The punishment from a court-martial conviction could be greater.
Though it was a better option than accepting guilt, Puckett said, such charges should have never been brought.
“Forget what the punishment would be, even a conviction would be a federal conviction for these guys,” Puckett said. “A federal conviction alone--even before you consider what punishment they get--is grossly disproportionate to the misconduct that’s alleged.
“If we’re talking about the detainee getting punched in the gut by Petty Officer McCabe, given the evil that guy [Abed] is alleged to have wrought on American contractors back in 2004 in Fallujah, it seems that it’s overkill to think that it’s appropriate to send these guys to court martial,” Puckett added.
Puckett suspects this was an overreaction by military brass in regards to detainee abuse.
“The most obvious speculation to me seems to be that the American military and particular Army commanders, and this was an Army commander, are overly sensitive to allegations of detainee abuse in the wake of Abu Ghraib,” Puckett said. “I think they feel a need to overly punish, overly react to these allegations to keep future ones from happening again.”
The alleged punch happened on Sept. 1 when Abed was in captivity.
Abed, after his capture, was held at Camp Baharia, a U.S. base outside of Fallujah. He was briefly handed over to Iraqi authorities and then returned to U.S. custody. Another petty officer, not a Navy Seal, reported the alleged abuse, Lombardi said. It then went up the chain of command, and the commanding general ordered the charges.
Lombardi believes if there was any abuse, it might have happened on the Iraqi side.
“He was turned over to the Iraqi police,” Lombardi said. “He is an Iraqi citizen. Eventually, he’ll go home. Wouldn’t it be a lot better to claim the Americans abused you than the Iraqi police?”
Lombardi said there is a legal defense fund for the Seals, and that she is glad the public can see the Seals were doing the right thing.
“They were capturing a terrorist that we’ve been searching for, for five years. They did it in a professional manner,” Lombardi said. “When you think you’re doing everything right and you’ve got somebody saying, ‘no, you did it wrong,’ it’s really nice to know everybody is saying, ‘you did it right. You did us a favor. Why are you being punished?’”
________________________ ________________________ __________________
And you guys wonder why I loathe this govt?
-
I wouldn't surprised if it happen in any government. Stupid shit like this goes all the time. But if Obama had any nuggets he'd put a stop to it.
-
This article is very disturbing. They defense is not even being given discovery to defend themselves!
O - this is exactly what I loathe the govt. The brave patriotic SEALS did their jobs and now face prison.
Obama/Holder/ and the upper brass care more about the terrorists than our soldiers. Sad but true.
-
This article is very disturbing. They defense is not even being given discovery to defend themselves!
O - this is exactly what I loathe the govt. The brave patriotic SEALS did their jobs and now face prison.
Obama/Holder/ and the upper brass care more about the terrorists than our soldiers. Sad but true.
i understand your frustration because I feel it too. But its incorrect to conclude that because some people are upholding certain standards differently than you would that they care more about the terrorists than our soldiers.
-
i understand your frustration because I feel it too. But its incorrect to conclude that because some people are upholding certain standards differently than you would that they care more about the terrorists than our soldiers.
Bro - I just came back from the Federal court House in NYC , 2 blocks from where 9/11 occurred.
Brian Dennehy, the actor, asked the following:
"If KSM wanted to plead guilty in front of a military tribunal, why are we providing him with the rights reserved for US Citizens and the ability to be set free on a techicality in civial court that he has already confessed to?"
Can you answer that for me?
-
Ok then answer me this:
"If you are so confident in your western culture based on human rights why can't you apply to anyone like KSM or are you a hypocrite?"
The question Brian Dennehy asked is about as relevant as that one in regards to "concluding" that because some people are upholding certain standards differently than you would that they care more about the terrorists than our soldiers.
You are spinning your own conclusion to yourself when you say they care more about the terrorists. If they cared more about the terrorist they just let them go.
-
Ok then answer me this:
"If you are so confident in your western culture based on human rights why can't you apply to anyone like KSM or are you a hypocrite?"
The question Brian Dennehy asked is about as relevant as that one in regards to "concluding" that because some people are upholding certain standards differently than you would that they care more about the terrorists than our soldiers.
You are spinning your own conclusion to yourself when you say they care more about the terrorists. If they cared more about the terrorist they just let them go.
Because Ozmo - KSM was not apprehended with the idea that he would be afforded a civialian trial. KSM was not read his miranda rights upon apprehension, gave a confesssion for what he will claim is a result of coercive measures, ect.
As such, the fact that the trial was delayed for so long, the fact that he was tortured, the factt hat discovery will reveal tons of intel, etc will make this thing a complete roll of the dice and a massive harm to the US.
O - you have no idea what is going to happen here. I am an attorney and will tell you that this thing is 50/50 at best and this asshole deserves a bullet in his head, not a trial. He wanted to plead guilty in front of a military tribunal. Why give him an intl forum to make a mockery of our country and waste what is now estimated to be at least $100 million dollars and the ability to gain intel to pass along to other terrorists?
-
Because Ozmo - KSM was not apprehended with the idea that he would be afforded a civialian trial. KSM was not read his miranda rights upon apprehension, gave a confesssion for what he will claim is a result of coercive measures, ect.
As such, the fact that the trial was delayed for so long, the fact that he was tortured, the factt hat discovery will reveal tons of intel, etc will make this thing a complete roll of the dice and a massive harm to the US.
O - you have no idea what is going to happen here. I am an attorney and will tell you that this thing is 50/50 at best and this asshole deserves a bullet in his head, not a trial. He wanted to plead guilty in front of a military tribunal. Why give him an intl forum to make a mockery of our country and waste what is now estimated to be at least $100 million dollars and the ability to gain intel to pass along to other terrorists?
I'm not trying to argue the KSM trial with you. We talked about that before. I agree with some of your points. My debate with you here is your assumption that they "care" more about terrorists than soldiers. That's propaganda regurgitated and shows that you are allowing yourself to get programed by the sites and info you are plugged into.
-
As far as KSM is concerned, he lost his right to claim human status when he started sawing heads off with knife and planned the 9/11 attacks. The biggest mistake made was letting the media know we had this fucker, he should have been interrogated, executed, and dumped in a shallow unmarket grave.
-
As far as KSM is concerned, he lost his right to claim human status when he started sawing heads off with knife and planned the 9/11 attacks. The biggest mistake made was letting the media know we had this fucker, he should have been interrogated, executed, and dumped in a shallow unmarket grave.
I agree to a certain extent.
And just think, so many threads on this would have never been born.
-
I agree to a certain extent.
And just think, so many threads on this would have never been born.
He is an illegal combatant captured in a foreign country, you know what they say when in Rome do as the Romans. Then of course he would have showed up on video getting his mellon removed.
-
Bro - I just came back from the Federal court House in NYC , 2 blocks from where 9/11 occurred.
Brian Dennehy, the actor, asked the following:
"If KSM wanted to plead guilty in front of a military tribunal, why are we providing him with the rights reserved for US Citizens and the ability to be set free on a techicality in civial court that he has already confessed to?"
Can you answer that for me?
sure - because he wants to be a martyr and thinks that will get him his 72 virgins in heaven.
If he wants to confess then what's the problem with having this confess in court
-
I'm not trying to argue the KSM trial with you. We talked about that before. I agree with some of your points. My debate with you here is your assumption that they "care" more about terrorists than soldiers. That's propaganda regurgitated and shows that you are allowing yourself to get programed by the sites and info you are plugged into.
Who do they care more about then when all they are doing is bending over backwards to accomdate terrorists and prosecute our own soldiers?
-
He is an illegal combatant captured in a foreign country, you know what they say when in Rome do as the Romans. Then of course he would have showed up on video getting his mellon removed.
It would have been uber f-ing cool if the people doing it were muslims who rejected terrorists solutions. It would have sent a great message to the rest of the muslim world.
-
sure - because he wants to be a martyr and thinks that will get him his 72 virgins in heaven.
If he wants to confess then what's the problem with having this confess in court
Straw - are you a moron or do you just play one here?
KSM is now being given a PUBLIC stage to wage 911 part 2 on our dime and get the govt to reveal all our intel on this, when he previously asked to plead guilty in a military tribunal.
This is a complete disaster.
-
Who do they care more about then when all they are doing is bending over backwards to accomdate terrorists and prosecute our own soldiers?
This is "all" they are doing? If they wanted to bend backwards and accommodate them they would release them.
Dude, can you at least see the depths of how you have allowed your self to buy into the propaganda you read every day?
If you are going to spend this much time and this much energy attacking the Obama Administration at the very minimum can you not lose your objectivity? You are starting to remind me of John Candy in Peace core.
-
This is "all" they are doing? If they wanted to bend backwards and accommodate them they would release them.
Dude, can you at least see the depths of how you have allowed your self to buy into the propaganda you read every day?
If you are going to spend this much time and this much energy attacking the Obama Administration at the very minimum can you not lose your objectivity? You are starting to remind me of John Candy in Peace core.
Hold on Ozmo. You dont get it. Seriously, you dont. Obama has been under a tremendous amount of pressure from his base to pt Cheney and Bush on trial. However, he knows he can't do it for obvious reasons. Whats the next best solution? Allow KSM to do the dirty work for him.
The lawyer for some of these bums has already said that they will make this a trial against the CIA and Bush.
They will get to rape the taxpayer of over $100 million dollars.
They will get to get all of our intel during discovery proceedings.
They will get to file motions to dismiss based upon a variety of issues, etc.
They will get a public stage to promote their filth.
Etc.
There is absolutely no justification for this shit. None. and even Holder admiotted it in the hearings with Graham.
KSM is going to be allowed to
-
why the fuck r we taking prisoners anyhow...
shoot to kill...
-
why the fuck r we taking prisoners anyhow...
shoot to kill...
That is how it should be.
Instead, our soldiers now have to learn how to give miranda warnings in iraq and afghanistan. Unreal.
-
okay, personally, i would happily smash all these terrorsts' hands with hammers.
HOWEVER...
The minute you say it's A-OKAY for one navy seal to punch one prisoner...
You say it's okay for 1 million soldiers to punch ten million prisoners in the face over the next decade. Know what i mean?
i know these guys were pissed, and I probably would have beat the shit out of the bad guys too, we probably all woudl have. But the govt can't just okay it. Because you'll have some dickhead on leave from military beating up his girlfriend... then having his ACLU lawyer argue "you let 1 guy get away with assault, so I am allowed to do it..."
If youre gonna kick the shit out of a prisoner, just don't get caught :)
-
Plus, for everyone assigning this to Obama... this happend 5 years ago and the Bush white house didn't pardon the guy or put an end to the terorist cryingg about it.
another pile of crap (like the KSM prosecution) that the last admin didn't have the 'minerals' to follow thru on. hand it to a lib so you can complain when he handles it wrong.
-
okay, personally, i would happily smash all these terrorsts' hands with hammers.
HOWEVER...
The minute you say it's A-OKAY for one navy seal to punch one prisoner...
You say it's okay for 1 million soldiers to punch ten million prisoners in the face over the next decade. Know what i mean?
i know these guys were pissed, and I probably would have beat the shit out of the bad guys too, we probably all woudl have. But the govt can't just okay it. Because you'll have some dickhead on leave from military beating up his girlfriend... then having his ACLU lawyer argue "you let 1 guy get away with assault, so I am allowed to do it..."
If youre gonna kick the shit out of a prisoner, just don't get caught :)
240 - did you read the article?
The defense counsel is not even being given discovery!
They are taking the word of the terrorist over the SEALS.
-
My point is that people are using obama's name. Look, there are a lot of shitty things he's done to attack him for. but people hating on him becuse he won't make world news and personally pardon a guy accused of beating a cuffed suspect?
I think the problem is probably below his pay grade. Of course they should have discovery dude. But this is shit he inherited, and it's given the attention it deserves to put pressure on DoJ or whatever. But "obama sucks because he won't pardon the guy", I disagree wit.
-
Defense attorneys told CNSNews.com that they are waiting to see the evidence from military prosecutors because it is still under review to determine if it is classified. Even the charges, the only court filings in the case thus far, are still under review.
“The government has not handed over anything,” Huertas’ attorney Monica Lombardi told CNSNews.com. “They are now claiming that things are classified, but they are not saying what’s classified and what’s not classified. I filed my discovery request, and they denied it, pending a classification review.
… We have no photographs of the alleged injuries. We have no medical reports of these alleged injuries.”
________________________ ________________________ __________________
Can anyone justify this?
-
My point is that people are using obama's name. Look, there are a lot of shitty things he's done to attack him for. but people hating on him becuse he won't make world news and personally pardon a guy accused of beating a cuffed suspect?
I think the problem is probably below his pay grade. Of course they should have discovery dude. But this is shit he inherited, and it's given the attention it deserves to put pressure on DoJ or whatever. But "obama sucks because he won't pardon the guy", I disagree wit.
I thought Bush sucked royally for what he put the border patrol agents through.
-
yeah, and while i agreed...
ya gotta remember those guys capped someone, and didnt' report it. Maybe they didn't deserve prison, as the dude was a smuggler.
but again, if they are allowed to cap 1 guy and get no punishment, you suddenly have 600 border agent issuing bullets to asses anytime they want, able to say "well you didn't punish those 2 guys...."
-
yeah, and while i agreed...
ya gotta remember those guys capped someone, and didnt' report it. Maybe they didn't deserve prison, as the dude was a smuggler.
but again, if they are allowed to cap 1 guy and get no punishment, you suddenly have 600 border agent issuing bullets to asses anytime they want, able to say "well you didn't punish those 2 guys...."
They thought the guy had a weapon, especially after he had a ton pot in the van. Johnny Sutton was a Bush crony and Bush was covering for his boy in Texas.
This was another Bush screw up that me me truly resent ever voting for him.
-
yeah, doesn't matter - you don't report a shooting when you took a vow to follow law in order to be able to have that power - and you lose all right to claim anything related to your positional powers.
they shot a guy and didn't call it in. thye lsoe badges, period. Prison, i could see giving them probation instead.
-
yeah, doesn't matter - you don't report a shooting when you took a vow to follow law in order to be able to have that power - and you lose all right to claim anything related to your positional powers.
they shot a guy and didn't call it in. thye lsoe badges, period. Prison, i could see giving them probation instead.
They said they told the supervisor at the scene what happened.
-
why isn't the supervisor in prison as well? what happened with that?
sounds like cover your ass CYA lol.... I can't see a supervisor risking his own career and freedom that randomly.
I CAN see that being their only possible defense tho. I tend to believe they hoped the guy would craawl away and die quietly.
-
FREE TIGER WOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Hold on Ozmo. You dont get it. Seriously, you dont. Obama has been under a tremendous amount of pressure from his base to pt Cheney and Bush on trial. However, he knows he can't do it for obvious reasons. Whats the next best solution? Allow KSM to do the dirty work for him.
The lawyer for some of these bums has already said that they will make this a trial against the CIA and Bush.
They will get to rape the taxpayer of over $100 million dollars.
They will get to get all of our intel during discovery proceedings.
They will get to file motions to dismiss based upon a variety of issues, etc.
They will get a public stage to promote their filth.
Etc.
There is absolutely no justification for this shit. None. and even Holder admiotted it in the hearings with Graham.
KSM is going to be allowed to
Again, this in no way supports your original contention that they (Obama and co.) care more about the terrorist than our soldiers.
If they cared more about the terrorist they'd supplying them and offering them safe haven.
-
Come on - Ozmo - have you not been following things for the past year?
Obama is not completely dumb. he cant do that.
Instead, he gets to use KSM as a proxy to do what he cant himself.
There is absolutely no legal, historical, or other basis for doing this.
-
Come on - Ozmo - have you not been following things for the past year?
Obama is not completely dumb. he cant do that.
Instead, he gets to use KSM as a proxy to do what he cant himself.
There is absolutely no legal, historical, or other basis for doing this.
Again.
Again, again, again....
This in no way supports your original contention that they (Obama and co.) care more about the terrorist than our soldiers.
-
Again.
Again, again, again....
This in no way supports your original contention that they (Obama and co.) care more about the terrorist than our soldiers.
I disagree completely.
1) We are giving terrorists rights that previously never were conferred upon them.
2) We are closing GITMO for really no good reason other than to please "the world community".
3) We have enacted even stricter ROE for soldiers in the field.
4) We are prosecuting SEALS for bogus reasons.
5) We are engaging in nosense on issues like Ft. Hood trying to mask what really happened.
6) We no longer call the "war on terrororism" what is it. Now its an overseas contingency or some crap like that.
7) We are coddling Iran and not supporting the freedom movement over there.
and on and on.
-
Navy SEALs are heroes, prosecution is unfair
Comments
December 5, 2009
________________________ ________________________ _______
Three Navy SEALs, one born and raised in south suburban Blue Island, are to be arraigned this week on allegations they roughed up a reputed Iraqi terrorist.
You may not recall the alleged terrorist's name -- Ahmed Hashim Abed -- but you may remember the images from the 2004 horrific crime he is suspected of planning.
Four Blackwater security contractors from our country were murdered, their mutilated bodies dragged through the streets of Fallujah, Iraq. Remains of two of the men were strung up on a bridge, as Iraqis shouted anti-American slogans -- a horrifying image that flashed across computer and television screens and newspaper front pages across the world.
It's important to remember those victims' names:
Stephen S. Helvenston, Mike R. Teague, Jerko Gerald Zovko and Wesley J.K. Batalona.
It's also important to know the names of the three Navy SEALS facing charges:
Julio Huertas, formerly of Blue Island, Jonathan Keefe and Matthew McCabe.
Those men put their lives on the line for their country when they successfully captured Abed.
They are heroes, plain and simple, and it's mind-boggling that they face charges for what amounts to little more than punching Abed and remaining loyal to one another during an investigation.
Not waterboarding him.
Not torturing him.
Not a savage beating.
But a punch that left a bloody lip, according to news reports.
During wartime.
Now, they face trial by courts-martial.
The SEALs could have gone another route and dealt with the matter through an administrative proceeding. But that would have involved their admitting guilt, and they believe they have done nothing wrong.
So they have chosen the tougher route, the one that could keep their integrity and professionalism intact if they prevail.
The SEALs are receiving assistance from members of Congress, and tens of thousands of supporters have signed up on a Facebook page to support their cause.
We add our support as well.
We know this may surprise some readers of this editorial page, especially our more conservative ones.
We've long supported the rights of defendants, even suspected terrorists, no matter how vile the crimes they've been accused of, no matter what crises faces our country.
How we treat the lowest of the low, in the worst of times, defines us as a nation -- to the world and more importantly, to ourselves.
This isn't a popular position, but an important one.
In any justice system, there's the concept of prosecutorial discretion.
Fair, just prosecutors -- or superiors administering punishment -- are supposed to consider the entirety of the case, all the facts and extenuating circumstances.
That process appears to have crumbled here. What shabby treatment for men who should be honored -- not vilified.
________________________ ________________________ _________________
Even some liberals understand the craziness of this.
-
I disagree completely.
1) We are giving terrorists rights that previously never were conferred upon them.
2) We are closing GITMO for really no good reason other than to please "the world community".
3) We have enacted even stricter ROE for soldiers in the field.
4) We are prosecuting SEALS for bogus reasons.
5) We are engaging in nosense on issues like Ft. Hood trying to mask what really happened.
6) We no longer call the "war on terrororism" what is it. Now its an overseas contingency or some crap like that.
7) We are coddling Iran and not supporting the freedom movement over there.
and on and on.
All that looks like is an attempt to promote western style justice based on equal rights.
And the #7 criticism is tragically short sighted and naive.
And you still have yet to provide one example showing how we care more about the terrorists than our soldiers.
-
All that looks like is an attempt to promote western style justice based on equal rights.
And the #7 criticism is tragically short sighted and naive.
And you still have yet to provide one example showing how we care more about the terrorists than our soldiers.
I already have. By granting KSM and the terrorists a civilian trial, we will be obligated to provide them with intel and VAST discovery that will be a public record and maybe sent overseas to other terrorists. This would not occur if we allowed him to plead guilty in the military tribunal as he wanted to do.
Does this not register with you?
-
I already have. By granting KSM and the terrorists a civilian trial, we will be obligated to provide them with intel and VAST discovery that will be a public record and maybe sent overseas to other terrorists. This would not occur if we allowed him to plead guilty in the military tribunal as he wanted to do.
Does this not register with you?
Not in the support of your argument about caring about terrorist more than soldiers. Not even close. What you are spewing (caring about terrorist) is straight up propaganda and spin. (note: I'm not saying your arguments aren't valid with in themselves.)
You are assuming that there is sensitive intel. You are assuming everything will be a public forum. Chances are certain aspects or sessions of the trial will be closed to protect classified information. Even then, what could be secret after all these years?
-
How about this article? Ask yourself again why we are doing this when the dirt bag wanted to plead guilty in a military tribunal?
________________________ ________________________ ___
The KSM Trial Will Be an Intelligence Bonanza for al Qaeda
The government will have to choose between vigorous prosecution and revealing classified sources and methods.
By JOHN YOO
'This is a prosecutorial decision as well as a national security decision," President Barack Obama said last week about the attorney general's announcement that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other al Qaeda operatives will be put on trial in New York City federal court.
No, it is not. It is a presidential decision—one about the hard, ever-present trade-off between civil liberties and national security.
Trying KSM in civilian court will be an intelligence bonanza for al Qaeda and the hostile nations that will view the U.S. intelligence methods and sources that such a trial will reveal. The proceedings will tie up judges for years on issues best left to the president and Congress.
Whether a jury ultimately convicts KSM and his fellows, or sentences them to death, is beside the point. The treatment of the 9/11 attacks as a criminal matter rather than as an act of war will cripple American efforts to fight terrorism. It is in effect a declaration that this nation is no longer at war.
KSM is the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon—and a "terrorist entrepreneur," according to the 9/11 Commission report. He was the brains behind a succession of operations against the U.S., including the 1996 "Bojinka plot" to crash jetliners into American cities. Together with Osama bin Laden, he selected the 9/11 terrorists, arranged their financing and training, and ran the whole operation from abroad.
After the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan KSM eventually became bin Laden's operations chief. American and Pakistani intelligence forces captured him on March 1, 2003, in Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
Now, however, KSM and his co-defendants will enjoy the benefits and rights that the Constitution accords to citizens and resident aliens—including the right to demand that the government produce in open court all of the information that it has on them, and how it got it.
Prosecutors will be forced to reveal U.S. intelligence on KSM, the methods and sources for acquiring its information, and his relationships to fellow al Qaeda operatives. The information will enable al Qaeda to drop plans and personnel whose cover is blown. It will enable it to detect our means of intelligence-gathering, and to push forward into areas we know nothing about.
This is not hypothetical, as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has explained. During the 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (aka the "blind Sheikh"), standard criminal trial rules required the government to turn over to the defendants a list of 200 possible co-conspirators.
In essence, this list was a sketch of American intelligence on al Qaeda. According to Mr. McCarthy, who tried the case, it was delivered to bin Laden in Sudan on a silver platter within days of its production as a court exhibit.
Bin Laden, who was on the list, could immediately see who was compromised. He also could start figuring out how American intelligence had learned its information and anticipate what our future moves were likely to be.
Even more harmful to our national security will be the effect a civilian trial of KSM will have on the future conduct of intelligence officers and military personnel. Will they have to read al Qaeda terrorists their Miranda rights? Will they have to secure the "crime scene" under battlefield conditions? Will they have to take statements from nearby "witnesses"? Will they have to gather evidence and secure its chain of custody for transport all the way back to New York? All of this while intelligence officers and soldiers operate in a war zone, trying to stay alive, and working to complete their mission and get out without casualties.
The Obama administration has rejected the tool designed to solve this tension between civilian trials and the demands of intelligence and military operations. In 2001, President George W. Bush established military commissions, which have a long history that includes World War II, the Civil War and the Revolutionary War. The lawyers in the Bush administration—I was one—understood that military commissions could guarantee a fair trial while protecting national security secrets from excessive exposure.
The Supreme Court has upheld the use of commissions for war crimes. The procedures for these commissions received the approval of Congress in 2006 and 2009.
Stranger yet, the Obama administration declared last week that it would use these military commissions to try five other al Qaeda operatives held at Guantanamo Bay, including Abu Rahim al-Nashiri, the alleged planner of the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen. It should make no difference that this second group attacked a military target overseas. If anything, the deliberate attack on purely civilian targets in New York City represents the greater war crime.
For a preview of the KSM trial, look at what happened in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker who was arrested in the U.S. just before 9/11. His trial never made it to a jury. Moussaoui's lawyers tied the court up in knots.
All they had to do was demand that the government hand over all its intelligence on him. The case became a four-year circus, giving Moussaoui a platform to air his anti-American tirades. The only reason the trial ended was because, at the last minute, Moussaoui decided to plead guilty. That plea relieved the government of the choice between allowing a fishing expedition into its intelligence files or dismissing the charges.
KSM's lawyers will not save the government from itself. Instead they will press hard to reveal intelligence secrets in open court. Our intelligence agents and soldiers will be the ones to suffer.
Mr. Yoo is a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley. He was an official in the Justice Department from 2001-03 and is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ _____
Ozmo - are you starting to get it yet? There is no reason to do this and we are giving terrorists more rights and information than they would have gotten in a military tribunal where they should be tried.
-
How about this article? Ask yourself again why we are doing this when the dirt bag wanted to plead guilty in a military tribunal?
________________________ ________________________ ___
The KSM Trial Will Be an Intelligence Bonanza for al Qaeda
The government will have to choose between vigorous prosecution and revealing classified sources and methods.
By JOHN YOO
'This is a prosecutorial decision as well as a national security decision," President Barack Obama said last week about the attorney general's announcement that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other al Qaeda operatives will be put on trial in New York City federal court.
No, it is not. It is a presidential decision—one about the hard, ever-present trade-off between civil liberties and national security.
Trying KSM in civilian court will be an intelligence bonanza for al Qaeda and the hostile nations that will view the U.S. intelligence methods and sources that such a trial will reveal. The proceedings will tie up judges for years on issues best left to the president and Congress.
Whether a jury ultimately convicts KSM and his fellows, or sentences them to death, is beside the point. The treatment of the 9/11 attacks as a criminal matter rather than as an act of war will cripple American efforts to fight terrorism. It is in effect a declaration that this nation is no longer at war.
KSM is the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon—and a "terrorist entrepreneur," according to the 9/11 Commission report. He was the brains behind a succession of operations against the U.S., including the 1996 "Bojinka plot" to crash jetliners into American cities. Together with Osama bin Laden, he selected the 9/11 terrorists, arranged their financing and training, and ran the whole operation from abroad.
After the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan KSM eventually became bin Laden's operations chief. American and Pakistani intelligence forces captured him on March 1, 2003, in Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
Now, however, KSM and his co-defendants will enjoy the benefits and rights that the Constitution accords to citizens and resident aliens—including the right to demand that the government produce in open court all of the information that it has on them, and how it got it.
Prosecutors will be forced to reveal U.S. intelligence on KSM, the methods and sources for acquiring its information, and his relationships to fellow al Qaeda operatives. The information will enable al Qaeda to drop plans and personnel whose cover is blown. It will enable it to detect our means of intelligence-gathering, and to push forward into areas we know nothing about.
This is not hypothetical, as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has explained. During the 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (aka the "blind Sheikh"), standard criminal trial rules required the government to turn over to the defendants a list of 200 possible co-conspirators.
In essence, this list was a sketch of American intelligence on al Qaeda. According to Mr. McCarthy, who tried the case, it was delivered to bin Laden in Sudan on a silver platter within days of its production as a court exhibit.
Bin Laden, who was on the list, could immediately see who was compromised. He also could start figuring out how American intelligence had learned its information and anticipate what our future moves were likely to be.
Even more harmful to our national security will be the effect a civilian trial of KSM will have on the future conduct of intelligence officers and military personnel. Will they have to read al Qaeda terrorists their Miranda rights? Will they have to secure the "crime scene" under battlefield conditions? Will they have to take statements from nearby "witnesses"? Will they have to gather evidence and secure its chain of custody for transport all the way back to New York? All of this while intelligence officers and soldiers operate in a war zone, trying to stay alive, and working to complete their mission and get out without casualties.
The Obama administration has rejected the tool designed to solve this tension between civilian trials and the demands of intelligence and military operations. In 2001, President George W. Bush established military commissions, which have a long history that includes World War II, the Civil War and the Revolutionary War. The lawyers in the Bush administration—I was one—understood that military commissions could guarantee a fair trial while protecting national security secrets from excessive exposure.
The Supreme Court has upheld the use of commissions for war crimes. The procedures for these commissions received the approval of Congress in 2006 and 2009.
Stranger yet, the Obama administration declared last week that it would use these military commissions to try five other al Qaeda operatives held at Guantanamo Bay, including Abu Rahim al-Nashiri, the alleged planner of the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen. It should make no difference that this second group attacked a military target overseas. If anything, the deliberate attack on purely civilian targets in New York City represents the greater war crime.
For a preview of the KSM trial, look at what happened in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker who was arrested in the U.S. just before 9/11. His trial never made it to a jury. Moussaoui's lawyers tied the court up in knots.
All they had to do was demand that the government hand over all its intelligence on him. The case became a four-year circus, giving Moussaoui a platform to air his anti-American tirades. The only reason the trial ended was because, at the last minute, Moussaoui decided to plead guilty. That plea relieved the government of the choice between allowing a fishing expedition into its intelligence files or dismissing the charges.
KSM's lawyers will not save the government from itself. Instead they will press hard to reveal intelligence secrets in open court. Our intelligence agents and soldiers will be the ones to suffer.
Mr. Yoo is a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley. He was an official in the Justice Department from 2001-03 and is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ _____
Ozmo - are you starting to get it yet? There is no reason to do this and we are giving terrorists more rights and information than they would have gotten in a military tribunal where they should be tried.
It's not about the KSM trial. If that's your only example you can give that supports your assertion that they care more about terrorists than soldiers you are not giving it any support at all. I already suggested other benefits of trying him in a civilian court. Also, you got to look at the other fact that BUSH NEVER did anything with KSM when he had years and the alleged power to do so.
So now i wonder if its even was possible.
-
I really dont know what more you want.
They just made a decision to give terrorists rights in civilian courts that they never had and have imposed stricter ROE on soldiers in the field and you dont see that as who they are moving towards in this equation?
Do you think Holder is going to come out and say it directly? Look at their actions, not their words.
THIS HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE!
-
I really dont know what more you want.
They just made a decision to give terrorists rights in civilian courts that they never had and have imposed stricter ROE on soldiers in the field and you dont see that as who they are moving towards in this equation?
Do you think Holder is going to come out and say it directly? Look at their actions, not their words.
THIS HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE!
What has never been done before? Strict ROE's?
So you think because they have strict ROE's that they are doing it because they care more about terrorist than soldiers?
If you really believe that 3333 you are a CT nut job. Because that's exactly how CT'ers compute things.
I strongly urge you to read Mike Shermer's book "Why people believe in weird things" It talks about how people come up with conclusions based flawed logic like that.
-
333333 you are a pretty smart guy. I am really surprised you think like that. I really believe you are letting your bias cloud your objectivity.
-
Whatever, watch the video. THIS HAVE NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE AND HOLDER ADMITTED IT!
-
333333 you are a pretty smart guy. I am really surprised you think like that. I really believe you are letting your bias cloud your objectivity.
Ozmo - did you watch the video? Holder admitted this has never been done before. Ever!
-
Whatever, watch the video. THIS HAVE NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE AND HOLDER ADMITTED IT!
Ok so what? We also have never been in this type of situation before either! And changing the ROE's might be what's needed at this time. Who knows, but that doesn't in anyway, as well as the KSM thing support the argument (which is CT like) that we care more about the terrorist than our soldiers.
-
Ozmo - did you watch the video? Holder admitted this has never been done before. Ever!
Also, we have never been in a war like this either. Still, why didn't BUSH do ti when in power?
-
Ok so what? We also have never been in this type of situation before either! And changing the ROE's might be what's needed at this time. Who knows, but that doesn't in anyway, as well as the KSM thing support the argument (which is CT like) that we care more about the terrorist than our soldiers.
Did you watch the video?
Even Holder can not give a reason why.
-
Did you watch the video?
Even Holder can not give a reason why.
So then it must be because they care about terrorists more than our soldiers? :P
-
What this is doing is setting precidence that terrorism or made made disasters or what ever you want to call it, is a law enforcement matter and not a military matter. Clinton decide to treat it as such and all that did was allow Al Queda to opperate with imputinty in their safe haven of afghanistan.
-
Did you watch the video?
Even Holder can not give a reason why.
Also there are some unanswered questions. Why didn't BUSH put KSM in front of a military tribunal? He had plenty of time.
The protocol they are establishing here, attacks on civilian targets are to be prosecuted in civilian courts and military targets to be tried in military courts doesn't seems prudent. An organized attack by members of a terrorist groups should be tried as military combatants in a military court, i agree.
Why are they doing that? What's the purpose? Does it have anything to do with why BUSH never did anything?
Still, not in anyway supporting the silly contention that we care more about the terrorist than our soldiers.
Do you think BUSH cared about our soldiers?
Using your logic I can make a sound case that he didn't, but instead cared more about the insurgents. Do you think Reagan cared about our soldiers more than the terrorists? I can make a sound case, based on your flawed logic that he didn't, but instead cared more about the terrorists.
-
Perhaps "care about" are not the right words, but at the very least, the facts of this case are suggestive that those in charge are giving more credence to the word of a shitbag terrorist than our own soldiers.
Based solely on this guys claim that the soldier(s) punched him, they were going to put paperwork in these soldiers files that would follow them for the rest of their careers. Nevermind the fact that the soldiers say it never happened. Never mind the fact that there are no witnesses and no proof. Never mind the fact that the claim only came much later when the guy wasn't even in custody...
This is just disgusting.
-
What this is doing is setting precidence that terrorism or made made disasters or what ever you want to call it, is a law enforcement matter and not a military matter. Clinton decide to treat it as such and all that did was allow Al Queda to opperate with imputinty in their safe haven of afghanistan.
The only way not to allow AQ to operate in Afghanistan without impunity was to invade it. The american people would have never gone for it at that time. It took 9/11 to do that.
-
Perhaps "care about" are not the right words, but at the very least, the facts of this case are suggestive that those in charge are giving more credence to the word of a shitbag terrorist than our own soldiers.
Based solely on this guys claim that the soldier(s) punched him, they were going to put paperwork in these soldiers files that would follow them for the rest of their careers. Nevermind the fact that the soldiers say it never happened. Never mind the fact that there are no witnesses and no proof. Never mind the fact that the claim only came much later when the guy wasn't even in custody...
This is just disgusting.
Well then the military personal file and record system and how things stay on your record whether it's base on real facts or accusation may need to change.
that may be where the problem is.
Because it would seem to me, if a fellow soldier said they were punched by another soldier then that too would stay on their record.
-
Only if the soldier who did the punching agreed to it. Otherwise, just like this case, it goes to trial (court martial).
Except in this case there is no evidence other than the terrorists claim.
-
Only if the soldier who did the punching agreed to it. Otherwise, just like this case, it goes to trial (court martial).
Except in this case there is no evidence other than the terrorists claim.
So then they are just going the judicial motions. And there hasn't been any decision. Sounds like another fear based alarmist story about something that hasn't happened yet. And based on this "hasn't happened yet story and isn't likely to happen", some people have concluded that we care more about the terrorists than our soldiers.
Makes no sense.
-
The only way not to allow AQ to operate in Afghanistan without impunity was to invade it. The american people would have never gone for it at that time. It took 9/11 to do that.
Al Queda attacked US targets over and over again the Cole, Kobar towers, US embasies in Africa, WTC 93. There are even those that believe Al Queda was involved in the Blackhawk down incident in Somailia. IMHO Clinton was more worried about getting re-elected than he was dealing with the problem. What did no retaliation accomplish? Nothing it only emboldened them, there is a reason we have a POTUS, he is supposed to be the leader and make the tuff decisions even if they are not popular.
-
Yes and no Ozmo. Nothing tangible has happened yet such as fine or reprimand. IMO, nothing likely will as I believe they will be found not guilty.
But, there are intangibles that take a very real toll. The morale of the soldiers, the fact that they even have to go through this circus, the fact that these types of allegations may affect future or current promotional eligibility, soldiers left in limbo about their leadership.
And what about the next time these guys are out in the thick of battle? Do they have to be constantly questioning every thing they're doing because who knows what kind of accusations they'll have to defend themselves against next?
-
Al Queda attacked US targets over and over again the Cole, Kobar towers, US embasies in Africa, WTC 93. There are even those that believe Al Queda was involved in the Blackhawk down incident in Somailia. IMHO Clinton was more worried about getting re-elected than he was dealing with the problem. What did no retaliation accomplish? Nothing it only emboldened them, there is a reason we have a POTUS, he is supposed to be the leader and make the tuff decisions even if they are not popular.
It's easy to say that after the fact. No president, repub or dem is going to invade a country because it has a terrorist organization operating in it without a good enough cause. Otherwise we'd always be at war and people don't go for that.
-
Yes and no Ozmo. Nothing tangible has happened yet such as fine or reprimand. IMO, nothing likely will as I believe they will be found not guilty.
But, there are intangibles that take a very real toll. The morale of the soldiers, the fact that they even have to go through this circus, the fact that these types of allegations may affect future or current promotional eligibility, soldiers left in limbo about their leadership.
And what about the next time these guys are out in the thick of battle? Do they have to be constantly questioning every thing they're doing because who knows what kind of accusations they'll have to defend themselves against next?
In this modern military they face that kind of bull crap anyway, if not from stuff like this then from stuff like slapping a soldier in basic training. But i agree, it does affect morale negatively.
-
It's easy to say that after the fact. No president, repub or dem is going to invade a country because it has a terrorist organization operating in it without legit cause. Otherwise we'd always be at war and people don't go for that.
So attacking US targets over and over and killing US service men isn't reason enough?
-
So attacking US targets over and over and killing US service men isn't reason enough?
Nope.
Like i said it's easy to say that after the fact of 9/11.
Plus he didn't "do nothing".
-
Nope.
Like i said it's easy to say that after the fact of 9/11.
Plus he didn't "do nothing".
What did he do? Launch a couple missles at camps that may or may not have been occupied? Blow up an aspirin factory in Iraq? The US had Bin Laden dead to rights atleast 3 times, the Sudan was going to hand him over. The CAI had him in the cross hairs of a predator, the Clinton team wouldn't give the go ahead to fire. Massoud of the Afhgan northern alliance had good intel and was ready to kill or caputer Bin Laden, the Clinton lawyers put the cabash on that. And what did Massoud get for his trouble? Killed by Al Queda. Maybe I have a different outlook on this than most, but when you keep attacked you can only turn the other cheek so many times. The case could have been made, but it wasn't.
-
Kaz you are waisting your time trying to explain common sense to a lib
-
Kaz you are waisting your time trying to explain common sense to a lib
Well your common sense would have you going to war over anything. Your common sense would have americans everywhere fighting everywhere. We've already seen what irresponsible wars do to for us in Iraq. Not a dam thing but cost.
Your only retort to BUSH's initial failings as president is to blame Clinton for it. Pretty pathetic along with the knee jerk reaction to anyone who would question anything non neo-con or conservative as being a big bad "lib."
It's easy to say after the fact that we should have invaded Afghanistan. What was happening wasn't a good enough reason to invade Afghanistan. Period. If America commits itself to war, it has to have it's people behind it. Especially in a place like Afghanistan where every foreign army has lost and by the looks of it we aren't doing to well after 8 years. thank you idiot leader BUSH for his ignorant "decider" decisions. Fortunately, for war mongering idiots, AQ gave the USA the motivation it needed on 9/11.
And look now, AQ still exists, and we've been there 8 years.
-
What did he do? Launch a couple missles at camps that may or may not have been occupied? Blow up an aspirin factory in Iraq? The US had Bin Laden dead to rights atleast 3 times, the Sudan was going to hand him over. The CAI had him in the cross hairs of a predator, the Clinton team wouldn't give the go ahead to fire. Massoud of the Afhgan northern alliance had good intel and was ready to kill or caputer Bin Laden, the Clinton lawyers put the cabash on that. And what did Massoud get for his trouble? Killed by Al Queda. Maybe I have a different outlook on this than most, but when you keep attacked you can only turn the other cheek so many times. The case could have been made, but it wasn't.
You said he did nothing. I said that wasn't true. You listed some things he did do.
As i said in the other post. You can't go to war in a place like Afghanistan without the American people behind it.
-
you just showed your lack of common sense by assuming i supported but and the rep party lol but once again i am not surprised i dont support some of what bush did, but obama has fucked more shit up than bush could have ever done in 8 years
-
i never said i supported 8 years of war, or bushes findings of no wmds dip shit but just go on ahead and assume away since you are obviously the one with all the common sense
-
you just showed your lack of common sense by assuming i supported but and the rep party lol but once again i am not surprised i dont support some of what bush did, but obama has fucked more shit up than bush could have ever done in 8 years
Well we will see in 8 years. So far, in 1 year, Obama is dealing with the mess BUSH left office with.
Don't mis-understand me, I am not an Obama supporter.
-
What did he do? Launch a couple missles at camps that may or may not have been occupied? Blow up an aspirin factory in Iraq? The US had Bin Laden dead to rights atleast 3 times, the Sudan was going to hand him over. The CAI had him in the cross hairs of a predator, the Clinton team wouldn't give the go ahead to fire. Massoud of the Afhgan northern alliance had good intel and was ready to kill or caputer Bin Laden, the Clinton lawyers put the cabash on that. And what did Massoud get for his trouble? Killed by Al Queda. Maybe I have a different outlook on this than most, but when you keep attacked you can only turn the other cheek so many times. The case could have been made, but it wasn't.
Occasionally people bring up that Sudan thing. Here's something from Factcheck.org
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_bill_clinton_pass_up_a_chance_1.html (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_bill_clinton_pass_up_a_chance_1.html)
Q:
Did Bill Clinton pass up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden?
Was Bill Clinton offered bin Laden on "a silver platter"? Did he refuse? Was there cause at the time?
A:
Probably not, and it would not have mattered anyway as there was no evidence at the time that bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens.
Let’s start with what everyone agrees on: In April 1996, Osama bin Laden was an official guest of the radical Islamic government of Sudan – a government that had been implicated in the attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993. By 1996, with the international community treating Sudan as a pariah, the Sudanese government attempted to patch its relations with the United States. At a secret meeting in a Rosslyn, Va., hotel, the Sudanese minister of state for defense, Maj. Gen. Elfatih Erwa, met with CIA operatives, where, among other things, they discussed Osama bin Laden.
It is here that things get murky. Erwa claims that he offered to hand bin Laden over to the United States. Key American players – President Bill Clinton, then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Director of Counterterrorism Richard Clarke among them – have testified there were no "credible offers" to hand over bin Laden. The 9/11 Commission found "no credible evidence" that Erwa had ever made such an offer. On the other hand, Lawrence Wright, in his Pulitzer Prize-winning "The Looming Tower," flatly states that Sudan did make such an offer. Wright bases his judgment on an interview with Erwa and notes that those who most prominently deny Erwa's claims were not in fact present for the meeting.
Wright and the 9/11 Commission do agree that the Clinton administration encouraged Sudan to deport bin Laden back to Saudi Arabia and spent 10 weeks trying to convince the Saudi government to accept him. One Clinton security official told The Washington Post that they had "a fantasy" that the Saudi government would quietly execute bin Laden. When the Saudis refused bin Laden’s return, Clinton officials convinced the Sudanese simply to expel him, hoping that the move would at least disrupt bin Laden’s activities.
Much of the controversy stems from claims that President Clinton made in a February 2002 speech and then retracted in his 2004 testimony to the 9/11 Commission. In the 2002 speech Clinton seems to admit that the Sudanese government offered to turn over bin Laden:
Clinton: So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [al Qaeda]. We got – well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan.
Clinton later claimed to have misspoken and stated that there had never been an offer to turn over bin Laden. It is clear, however, that Berger, at least, did consider the possibility of bringing bin Laden to the U.S., but, as he told The Washington Post in 2001, "The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time, and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States." According to NewsMax.com, Berger later emphasized in an interview with WABC Radio that, while administration officials had discussed whether or not they had ample evidence to indict bin Laden, that decision "was not pursuant to an offer by the Sudanese."
So on one side, we have Clinton administration officials who say that there were no credible offers on the table, and on the other, we have claims by a Sudanese government that was (and still is) listed as an official state sponsor of terrorism. It’s possible, of course, that both sides are telling the truth: It could be that Erwa did make an offer, but the offer was completely disingenuous. What is clear is that the 9/11 Commission report totally discounts the Sudanese claims. Unless further evidence arises, that has to be the final word.
Ultimately, however, it doesn’t matter. What is not in dispute at all is the fact that, in early 1996, American officials regarded Osama bin Laden as a financier of terrorism and not as a mastermind largely because, at the time, there was no real evidence that bin Laden had harmed American citizens. So even if the Sudanese government really did offer to hand bin Laden over, the U.S. would have had no grounds for detaining him. In fact, the Justice Department did not secure an indictment against bin Laden until 1998 – at which point Clinton did order a cruise missile attack on an al Qaeda camp in an attempt to kill bin Laden.
We have to be careful about engaging in what historians call "Whig history," which is the practice of assuming that historical figures value exactly the same things that we do today. It's a fancy term for those "why didn't someone just shoot Hitler in 1930?" questions that one hears in dorm-room bull sessions. The answer, of course, is that no one knew quite how bad Hitler was in 1930. The same is true of bin Laden in 1996.
Correction: We originally answered this question with a flat 'yes' early this week, based on the account in "The Looming Tower," but an alert reader pointed out to us the more tangled history laid out in the 9/11 Commission report. We said flatly that Sudan had made such an offer. We have deleted our original answer and are posting this corrected version in its place.
-
You said he did nothing. I said that wasn't true. You listed some things he did do.
As i said in the other post. You can't go to war in a place light Afghanistan without the American people behind it.
Well I'll give you this most Americans didn't take the threat of Al Queda seriuosly until after 9/11 even though that was the second attempt at the WTC. But then again my opinion differs from most on how a war should be conducted. I believe if you are going to go to war, it is total war, scorched earth.
-
Well I'll give you this most Americans didn't take the threat of Al Queda seriuosly until after 9/11 even though that was the second attempt at the WTC. But then again my opinion differs from most on how a war should be conducted. I believe if you are going to go to war, it is total war, scorched earth.
I agree. But we should be very shrewd about IF and when we go to war.
-
its been a year and he hasnt slowed down any of bushes affects on america, hell he has quadrupled the debt and def, and we wont even talk bout u.e. a year is adequate time to at least slow down the direction bush took us in, instead we are in high gear to a ( as obama said FUNDIMENTAL TRANFORMATION into a socialist country. obama even said his self ( if you want to know what i am about, just look who i surround my self with) well he has surrounded hiself with dozens or proven self proclaimed socialists, with that said as bad as bush may have been , it could never compare to creating the united socialist states of america
-
i agree war isnt war if you walk on egg shells being policaly correct
-
its been a year and he hasnt slowed down any of bushes affects on america, hell he has quadrupled the debt and def, and we wont even talk bout u.e. a year is adequate time to at least slow down the direction bush took us in, instead we are in high gear to a ( as obama said FUNDIMENTAL TRANFORMATION into a socialist country. obama even said his self ( if you want to know what i am about, just look who i surround my self with) well he has surrounded hiself with dozens or proven self proclaimed socialists, with that said as bad as bush may have been , it could never compare to creating the united socialist states of america
I agree with some of what you say. A local radio station where i live played an interview they had with Obama 2 years before the election. This guy is a extreme socialist, period, dot.
-
BUMP