WH responds to Cheney

[PatekPhilippe]

I have yet to see even ONE of Obama's foot soldiers give us a REAL reason why a military venue for trying foreign enemy combatants would be inappropriate or illegal.

Because justice served in secret is not justice.

Alvin, Alvin, Alvin....you just love spreading mistruths and outright bullshit don't you....

Military tribunals ARE NOT held in secret and in fact the accused has MORE RIGHTS than if he/she were tried under a Federal Judge.

Get your act together.

 

[Murf76]

<snip> I have yet to see even ONE of Obama's foot soldiers give us a REAL reason why a military venue for trying foreign enemy combatants would be inappropriate or illegal.

They don't have to give you a reason, Murf, because it is this administration's call.

You don't like it, then, tough beans. We lost, remember?

Obama is not a King, even though his supporters seem to think differently.

'We The People' are sovereign. Obama works for US, not the other way around. And while it's true that we can't MAKE this guy live up to his promises or even speak the truth... that's a temporary state of affairs.

The Big Chair isn't his to keep, and we'll put his ass out of it in 2012 if he doesn't mend his arrogant ways. If you're counting on the rest of the voters in this country to be as slavishly devoted as you apparently are... I think you're liable to be surprised.

 

[CMike]

"I'm very disappointed in the vice president's comments," declared John Brennan, assistant to the President for homeland security and counterterrorism, on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"Either the vice president is willfully mischaracterizing this president's position -- both in terms of language he uses, and the actions he's taken -- or he's ignorant of the fact," he said. "In either case, it doesn't speak well of what the vice president's doing."

Hmmmm.

Let me get this straight. You are quoting one of Obama's henchmen response to Cheney's comments as it has some sort of merit or that it proves anything?

One of Obama's henchmen??? What?? Do you even know who John Brennan is, you dipstick??? He is Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. He was interim director of the National Counterterrorism Center immediately after its creation in 2004 through 2005.

John Brennan stated on MTP that he's worked for the past five presidential administrations, and he's neither a Democrat nor a Republican. Don't you ever get tired of looking ridiculous???

Once again, who is responsible for his paycheck?

 

[CMike]

Are you aware that Sudan offered to arrest and hand over Osama bin Laden and Bill Clinton declined??

Aide: Clinton Unleashed bin Laden

Mansoor Ijaz, who negotiated with Sudan on behalf of Clinton from 1996 to 1998, paints a portrait of a White House plagued by incompetence, focused on appearances rather than action, and heedless of profound threats to national security.

Ijaz also claims Clinton passed on an opportunity to have Osama bin Laden arrested.

Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, hoping to have terrorism sanctions lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of bin Laden and "detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas,” Ijaz writes in today’s edition of the liberal Los Angeles Times.

These networks included the two hijackers who piloted jetliners into the World Trade Center.

But Clinton and National Security Adviser Samuel "Sandy” Berger failed to act.

”I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities,” Ijaz writes.
”The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening."

Thank Clinton for 'Hydra-like Monster'

”As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster,” says Ijaz, chairman of a New York investment company and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

 

[CMike]

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize

latimes

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize
Sudan offered up the terrorist and data on his network. The then-president and his advisors didn't respond.


By MANSOOR IJAZ
President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.

I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.

From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.

Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.

The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.

As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.

Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.

The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates.

But Saudi officials didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.

In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.

Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.

Some of these men are now among the FBI's 22 most-wanted terrorists.

The two men who allegedly piloted the planes into the twin towers, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, prayed in the same Hamburg mosque as did Salim and Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian trader who managed Salim's bank accounts and whose assets are frozen.

Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.

But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan's religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.

Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan's data during a three-hour meeting in Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data available. They said they'd get back to me. They never did. Neither did they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never had any intention to engage Muslim countries--ally or not. Radical Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.

And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.

The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.

 

[CMike]

I have yet to see even ONE of Obama's foot soldiers give us a REAL reason why a military venue for trying foreign enemy combatants would be inappropriate or illegal.

Because justice served in secret is not justice.

Alvin, Alvin, Alvin....you just love spreading mistruths and outright bullshit don't you....

Military tribunals ARE NOT held in secret and in fact the accused has MORE RIGHTS than if he/she were tried under a Federal Judge.

Get your act together.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmGisBeEIqQ[/ame]

 

[Alvin]

Alvin, Alvin, Alvin....you just love spreading mistruths and outright bullshit don't you....

Military tribunals ARE NOT held in secret and in fact the accused has MORE RIGHTS than if he/she were tried under a Federal Judge.

Get your act together.

The rules for evidence in a military tribunal are less strict than those in a civil court for example the defence may not have access to the evidence or even knowldege of it, they also allow hearsay evidence.
BBC NEWS | Americas | Q&A: Guantanamo detentions

-snip-
What drawbacks are there for the defendant?

There are some serious differences between the commissions and normal US law.

The decision to convict is by two-thirds vote, not unanimity as in a US jury trial. The commission itself, in effect the jury, is made up of military officers not members of the public.

A key difference is that any evidence, including hearsay (in which a witness says he/she was told or heard something from someone else), and some obtained by coercion, is allowed, "if the military judge determines that the evidence would have probative value to a reasonable person".

Evidence that contains classified information will be summarised to protect its sources, so the accused will not have a complete picture of the case against him.

What about evidence obtained by torture or coercion?

Evidence obtained under torture is not permitted, but evidence obtained by coercion can be.

The interrogation technique of "waterboarding" was not classified as torture by the Bush administration. However, the Obama administration seems set to take the opposite view. Eric Holder has said categorically that "waterboarding is torture".

 

[CMike]

Alvin, Alvin, Alvin....you just love spreading mistruths and outright bullshit don't you....

Military tribunals ARE NOT held in secret and in fact the accused has MORE RIGHTS than if he/she were tried under a Federal Judge.

Get your act together.

The rules for evidence in a military tribunal are less strict than those in a civil court for example the defence may not have access to the evidence or even knowldege of it, they also allow hearsay evidence.
BBC NEWS | Americas | Q&A: Guantanamo detentions

-snip-
What drawbacks are there for the defendant?

There are some serious differences between the commissions and normal US law.

The decision to convict is by two-thirds vote, not unanimity as in a US jury trial. The commission itself, in effect the jury, is made up of military officers not members of the public.

A key difference is that any evidence, including hearsay (in which a witness says he/she was told or heard something from someone else), and some obtained by coercion, is allowed, "if the military judge determines that the evidence would have probative value to a reasonable person".

Evidence that contains classified information will be summarised to protect its sources, so the accused will not have a complete picture of the case against him.

What about evidence obtained by torture or coercion?

Evidence obtained under torture is not permitted, but evidence obtained by coercion can be.

The interrogation technique of "waterboarding" was not classified as torture by the Bush administration. However, the Obama administration seems set to take the opposite view. Eric Holder has said categorically that "waterboarding is torture".

So in other words military tribunals would keep the terrorists and their lawyers from getting critical intelligence that would help stop terrorist attacks, unless of course that information and its sources were just given to the terrorists.

 

[Alvin]

So in other words military tribunals would keep the terrorists and their lawyers from getting critical intelligence that would help stop terrorist attacks, unless of course that information and its sources were just given to the terrorists.

Again the basic tennet of presumption of innocence gets in the way doesn't it. It's a bitch when freedom an liberty and all of that bumpersticker crap gets in the way.

Showes me that you don't value them as highly as you think you do.

 

[L.K.Eder]

So in other words military tribunals would keep the terrorists and their lawyers from getting critical intelligence that would help stop terrorist attacks, unless of course that information and its sources were just given to the terrorists.

Again the basic tennet of presumption of innocence gets in the way doesn't it. It's a bitch when freedom an liberty and all of that bumpersticker crap gets in the way.

Showes me that you don't value them as highly as you think you do.

but but but but he has the US flag as an avatar! surely that must count for something.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Alvin, Alvin, Alvin....you just love spreading mistruths and outright bullshit don't you....

Military tribunals ARE NOT held in secret and in fact the accused has MORE RIGHTS than if he/she were tried under a Federal Judge.

Get your act together.

The rules for evidence in a military tribunal are less strict than those in a civil court for example the defence may not have access to the evidence or even knowldege of it, they also allow hearsay evidence.
BBC NEWS | Americas | Q&A: Guantanamo detentions

-snip-
What drawbacks are there for the defendant?

There are some serious differences between the commissions and normal US law.

The decision to convict is by two-thirds vote, not unanimity as in a US jury trial. The commission itself, in effect the jury, is made up of military officers not members of the public.

A key difference is that any evidence, including hearsay (in which a witness says he/she was told or heard something from someone else), and some obtained by coercion, is allowed, "if the military judge determines that the evidence would have probative value to a reasonable person".

Evidence that contains classified information will be summarised to protect its sources, so the accused will not have a complete picture of the case against him.

What about evidence obtained by torture or coercion?

Evidence obtained under torture is not permitted, but evidence obtained by coercion can be.

The interrogation technique of "waterboarding" was not classified as torture by the Bush administration. However, the Obama administration seems set to take the opposite view. Eric Holder has said categorically that "waterboarding is torture".

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha h aha ha ha ha ha
When you use the BBC as a source for facts dealing with the U.S. Military Justice System YOU MAKE YOURSELF LOOK LIKE AN IMBECILE .

Now...why don't you do some research and get back to us with actual facts instead of left wing bumper sticker slogans.

Have a great day.

 

[Alvin]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha h aha ha ha ha ha
When you use the BBC as a source for facts dealing with the U.S. Military Justice System YOU MAKE YOURSELF LOOK LIKE AN IMBECILE .

Now...why don't you do some research and get back to us with actual facts instead of left wing bumper sticker slogans.

Have a great day.

Oh, I got it;
You can't dispute the rebuttal presented so you attempt to demean the source (good luck with that) then follow it up with a partizan comment (ignoring the fact that not being American, I can't actually be partizan in that respect) and you accuse me of looking like an imbecile?

 

[CMike]

So in other words military tribunals would keep the terrorists and their lawyers from getting critical intelligence that would help stop terrorist attacks, unless of course that information and its sources were just given to the terrorists.

Again the basic tennet of presumption of innocence gets in the way doesn't it. It's a bitch when freedom an liberty and all of that bumpersticker crap gets in the way.

Showes me that you don't value them as highly as you think you do.

but but but but he has the US flag as an avatar! surely that must count for something.

Yeah...that he is more interested in stopping terrorist attacks against it, then in giving terrorists information that help them attack it.

 

[Rinata]

Now the NYT is an acceptable source?

You are confused grasshopper.

The source isn't the NYT. The source is CIA Director Tenets testimony before the hearing.

A transcript happened to be in the NYT.

You can't be that stupid!!!!

 

[Rinata]

Not a lame come back at all. I filed your response, and should you smack somebody for using the NYT as a source for merely carry a "transcript" of something. I will remind you.

This response is an attempt to cover that you have no idea how to respond. But it doesn't work. You're just making a fool of yourself.

 

[Meister]

Now the NYT is an acceptable source?

You are confused grasshopper.

The source isn't the NYT. The source is CIA Director Tenets testimony before the hearing.

A transcript happened to be in the NYT.

You can't be that stupid!!!!

 

[CMike]

Not a lame come back at all. I filed your response, and should you smack somebody for using the NYT as a source for merely carry a "transcript" of something. I will remind you.

This response is an attempt to cover that you have no idea how to respond. But it doesn't work. You're just making a fool of yourself.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Here this will help give you a vocabulary to express your inner cmike: OPINION: 'Learn To Speak Tea Bag' : NPR

 

[Meister]

Here this will help give you a vocabulary to express your inner cmike: OPINION: 'Learn To Speak Tea Bag' : NPR

All I can say is...Wow, you got him good, jackie. Your such a good troll, why don't you have your boyfriend sillybooboo tea bag you?

 

[Rinata]

Let me get this straight. You are quoting one of Obama's henchmen response to Cheney's comments as it has some sort of merit or that it proves anything?

One of Obama's henchmen??? What?? Do you even know who John Brennan is, you dipstick??? He is Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. He was interim director of the National Counterterrorism Center immediately after its creation in 2004 through 2005.

John Brennan stated on MTP that he's worked for the past five presidential administrations, and he's neither a Democrat nor a Republican. Don't you ever get tired of looking ridiculous???

Your right, Rinata, henchman was uncalled for. When it was one of obama's goons.

Oh, you're so witty.