Man Charged in Alleged Plot to Kill Bush

Discussion in 'Politics' started by -Cp, Feb 22, 2005.

  1. -Cp
    Offline

    -Cp Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,911
    Thanks Received:
    360
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Earth
    Ratings:
    +363
    ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A former Virginia high school valedictorian who had been detained in Saudi Arabia (search) as a suspected terrorist was charged Tuesday with conspiring to assassinate President Bush and with supporting the Al Qaeda terrorist network.

    Ahmed Omar Abu Ali (search), 23, a U.S. citizen, made an initial appearance Tuesday in U.S. District Court but did not enter a plea. He claimed that he was tortured while detained in Saudi Arabia since June of 2003 and offered through his lawyer to show the judge his scars.

    The federal indictment said that in 2002 and 2003 Abu Ali and an unidentified co-conspirator discussed plans for Abu Ali to assassinate Bush. They discussed two scenarios, the indictment said, one in which Abu Ali "would get close enough to the president to shoot him on the street" and, alternatively, "an operation in which Abu Ali would detonate a car bomb."

    According to the indictment, Abu Ali obtained a religious blessing from another unidentified co-conspirator to assassinate the president.

    More than 100 supporters of Abu Ali crowded the courtroom and laughed when the charge was read aloud alleging that he conspired to assassinate Bush.

    When Abu Ali asked to speak, U.S. Magistrate Liam O'Grady (search) suggested he consult with his attorney, Ashraf Nubani.

    "He was tortured," Nubani told the court. "He has the evidence on his back. He was whipped. He was handcuffed for days at a time."

    When Nubani offered to show the judge his back, O'Grady said that Abu Ali might be able to enter that as evidence on Thursday at a detention hearing.

    "I can assure you you will not suffer any torture or humiliation while in the (U.S.) marshals' custody," O'Grady said.

    Abu Ali is charged with six counts and would face a maximum of 80 years in prison if convicted.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148338,00.html
     
  2. Avatar4321
    Online

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,576
    Thanks Received:
    8,171
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,219
    so the libs think trying to kill the President is a laughing matter eh?

    As for alledged torture. how exactly does he expect to prove that it was the US not Al Queda or some other group that tortured him. Maybe his friends afflicted the wounds to try to blame it on Americans if they got captured.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Johnney
    Offline

    Johnney Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2003
    Messages:
    4,330
    Thanks Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    IOWA
    Ratings:
    +141
    just someone else crying wolf.
     
  4. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    It's my understanding that terrorists-in-training are taught to claim they were tortured if captured. It's as automatic as "name, rank, and serial number".
     
  5. Adam's Apple
    Offline

    Adam's Apple Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,092
    Thanks Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +447
    [The Abu Ali Case and] Balancing Liberties, Security
    by Daniel Pipes, The New York Sun
    March 1, 2005

    Excerpted article:

    For a free people in the age of terrorism, what is the proper balance between civil liberties and national security?

    This debate wracks every Western country. Looking at America, the "united we stand" solidarity that followed September 11, 2001, lasted just some months, after which a much deeper divide emerged as conservatives proved far more profoundly affected by the atrocities than did liberals. The result has been the growing political acrimony of the past three years.

    Conservatives focus on the hair-raising news that an Al Qaeda affiliate had plans to kill the president of the United States. Liberals hardly note this development, focusing instead on the question of whether, while in Saudi custody, Mr. Abu Ali was tortured (Justice Department officials call this an "utter fabrication"). Note the editorials in four northeastern newspapers:

    The New York Times: This case is "another demonstration of what has gone wrong in the federal war on terror. In an undisciplined attempt to wring statements out of any conceivable suspect, American officials have worked with countries like Saudi Arabia."

    The Washington Post: "the courts need to ensure that no evidence obtained by torture - with or without the connivance of the U.S. government - is used to convict people in U.S. courts."

    The Baltimore Sun writes (dripping with sarcasm) that, "By unsealing a federal indictment against Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, the U.S. government garnered headlines about an alleged terrorist plot, instead of the unexplained imprisonment of an American citizen in Saudi Arabia. It portrayed Mr. Abu Ali has [sic] someone other than a victim of torture. The government may think its secret is safe. But it isn't."

    Newsday's editorial is titled "Shame on Bush for rights violation."

    These liberal analysts evince no concern that an American citizen trained by the Saudi government in Virginia will stand trial for plotting to assassinate the president. They decline to explore the implications of this stunning piece of news. They offer no praise to law enforcement for having broken a terrorism case. Instead, they focus exclusively on evidentiary procedures. They know only civil liberties; national security does not register. But, as Prime Minister Blair correctly writes, "there is no greater civil liberty than to live free from terrorist attack."

    To strike a proper balance, Westerners must ask themselves what happens in case of error about the Islamist threat. Mistakes enhancing national security leave innocents spending time in jail. Mistakes enhancing civil liberties produce mass murder and perhaps a Taliban-like state (with its near absence of civil liberties).

    Which emphasis, dear reader, do you choose?

    From www.danielpipes.org
     

Share This Page