Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - The US justice system Can't Handle Al Qaeda

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

The US justice system Can't Handle Al Qaeda
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 6:26 am Post subject: Re: The US justice system Can't Handle Al Qaeda

Quote:

and so? the govt still has the ability to detain suspects indefinitely. just because Padilla is the the court system doesn't mean they all are.

any others?
[

Quote:

if they have "good cause," fine. that's not the issue here. And speculation based upon someone's political stance isn't really what I'd call "reasonable cause."

Look at counterpunch and IAC it is clear that they hate the US. Political stance isn't actions are.

Quote:

To search your credit reports, library records, medical records? No, all can be searched without a warrant.

only w/the permission of a court.

Quote:

they were still calls from within the US, and maybe by US citizens. And no warrant. When a warrant could have been attained, even with pre-PA laws.

phone calls outside the US. and by the time a warrent is obtained the phone call could be over.

Quote:

Fine, you can say that Americans have to give up some of their rights in this day and age. But call a spade a spade, and admit that there are rights that are being taken from them. And again, the issue isn't with the rights of terrorists, but the rights of everyone else. Is everyone assumed guilty until proven innocent?

like Bin Laden? who the govt had to let go.

Quote:

I'll give them some benefit of the doubt. But that doesn't mean that they are entitled to a blank check or that they should be free of criticism. The PA was a quickly crafted response in a dire time. It's being used as a political tool, to make the administration look effective. Meanwhile, they ignore major holes in our national security (e.g. border security and public transportation, to name two). It's not an either/or issue, we can have national security without trampling on the rights of the people. Just because I opposed the PA, doesn't mean I oppose national security.

what do you have in mind. I too am concerned about weakness in the US security system. they ought to be fixed , but I would say the PA is a seperate issue.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 7:35 am Post subject: Re: The US justice system Can't Handle Al Qaeda

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Quote:

and so? the govt still has the ability to detain suspects indefinitely. just because Padilla is the the court system doesn't mean they all are.

any others?

yes.
http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/patriot%20act%20flyer.pdf

Quote:

Thousands of men, mostly of Arab and South Asian origin,
have been held in secretive federal custody for weeks and
months, sometimes without any charges filed against them.
The government has refused to publish their names and
whereabouts, even when ordered to do so by the courts.

Quote:

if they have "good cause," fine. that's not the issue here. And speculation based upon someone's political stance isn't really what I'd call "reasonable cause."

Look at counterpunch and IAC it is clear that they hate the US. Political stance isn't actions are.

http://www.counterpunch.org/aboutus.html

Quote:

CounterPunch is the bi-weekly muckraking newsletter edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair. Twice a month we bring our readers the stories that the corporate press never prints. We aren't side-line journalists here at CounterPunch. Ours is muckraking with a radical attitude and nothing makes us happier than when CounterPunch readers write in to say how useful they've found our newsletter in their battles against the war machine, big business and the rapers of nature.

http://www.iacenter.org/

Quote:

Information, Activism, and Resistance to U.S. Militarism, War, and Corporate Greed, Linking with Struggles Against Racism and Oppression within the United States

I don't see anything about "hating the US" in there. Don't see any terrorist activities. Please, enlighten me.

Quote:

To search your credit reports, library records, medical records? No, all can be searched without a warrant.

only w/the permission of a court.

incorrect. sects 126, 128, and 129 of PA2.

Quote:

they were still calls from within the US, and maybe by US citizens. And no warrant. When a warrant could have been attained, even with pre-PA laws.

phone calls outside the US. and by the time a warrent is obtained the phone call could be over.

1. One end of the calls was in the US. 2. your argument is invalid.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/12/nsa_and_bushs_i.html

Quote:

The FISC issued about 500 FISA warrants per year from 1979 through 1995, and has slowly increased subsequently -- 1,758 were issued in 2004. The process is designed for speed and even has provisions where the Justice Department can wiretap first and ask for permission later. In all that time, only four warrant requests were ever rejected: all in 2003. (We don't know any details, of course, as the court proceedings are secret.)

3. This is pre-PA law. ergo, your argument is invalid. please stop repeating this "excuse" as a reason for the PA. It's invalid.

Quote:

like Bin Laden? who the govt had to let go.

explain.

Quote:

what do you have in mind. I too am concerned about weakness in the US security system. they ought to be fixed , but I would say the PA is a seperate issue.

No, they both deal with national security. What good does an overly intrusive PA do, when anyone who is able to walk across the desert, or swim across a river, is allowed in the country. The PA is merely political grandstanding on the part of the Prez.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 6:33 pm Post subject: Re: The US justice system Can't Handle Al Qaeda

[quote="huffdaddy"]

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Quote:

and so? the govt still has the ability to detain suspects indefinitely. just because Padilla is the the court system doesn't mean they all are.

any others?

yes.
http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/patriot%20act%20flyer.pdf

Quote:

were they from outside the US? Were they in the US legally? ARe they still being held?

http://www.counterpunch.org/aboutus.html

Quote:

CounterPunch is the bi-weekly muckraking newsletter edited by Alexander *beep* and Jeffrey St. Clair. Twice a month we bring our readers the stories that the corporate press never prints. We aren't side-line journalists here at CounterPunch. Ours is muckraking with a radical attitude and nothing makes us happier than when CounterPunch readers write in to say how useful they've found our newsletter in their battles against the war machine, big business and the rapers of nature.

counterpunch supports the insurgents

http://www.iacenter.org/

Quote:

Information, Activism, and Resistance to U.S. Militarism, War, and Corporate Greed, Linking with Struggles Against Racism and Oppression within the United States

Quote:

I don't see anything about "hating the US" in there. Don't see any terrorist activities. Please, enlighten me.

the International action center supports the regime in North Korea, the Tieamen square crackdown, the insurgents , the Soviet INvasion of Afghanistan and the regime of Saddam Hussein.

See what David Corn (editor of the nation -) has writen about them

incorrect. sects 126, 128, and 129 of PA2.

Quote:

washingtonpost.com
In Defense Of the Patriot Act

By Heather Mac Donald

Sunday, August 24, 2003; Page B07

The recent indictment of a would-be arms merchant connected to al Qaeda is only the latest reminder that the threat of terrorism is as urgent as ever. Yet many among the political and opinion elites act as if America is more at risk from the Bush administration's efforts to thwart future terror attacks than from the attackers themselves. Hardly a day passes without a well-publicized denunciation of the government's alleged assault on civil liberties. Cities and counties across the country are declaring themselves "civil liberties safe zones," and a barrage of bills in Congress seeks to repeal sections of the USA Patriot Act, the anti-terrorism law passed after 9/11, on the ground that it violates constitutional rights.

The American Civil Liberties Union recently filed a lawsuit in a Michigan federal court against the most frequent target of civil libertarian ire -- the Patriot Act's business records provision. The rhetoric surrounding this provision, also known as Section 215, has been alarmist, to say the least. In an editorial applauding the ACLU's action, The Cleveland Plain Dealer, for example, called the measure the "seedstock of a police state."

Section 215 allows the FBI to obtain documents in third-party hands if they are relevant to a terrorism investigation. According to the ACLU, this power allows the FBI to "spy on a person because they don't like the books she reads, or because . . . she wrote a letter to the editor that criticized government policy."

The charge is baseless. To begin with, it ignores the fact that the FBI can do nothing under Section 215 without the approval of a federal court. Let's say the FBI has received a tip that al Qaeda sympathizers have taken scuba lessons in preparation for an attack on Navy destroyers off the California coast. Under 215, the bureau could seek a court order for local dive school records to see if any terror suspects had recently enrolled.

The key phrase here is "seek a court order." It is inconceivable that the court that oversees espionage and counterterrorism investigations will approve a records request made because the FBI doesn't "like the books" someone reads, or "because she wrote a letter to the editor that criticized government policy," as the ACLU claims.
The ACLU also argues that Section 215 violates the Fourth Amendment right to privacy. But like it or not, once you've disclosed information to someone else, the Constitution no longer protects it. This diffuse-it-and-lose-it rule applies to library borrowing and Web surfing as well, however much librarians may claim otherwise. By publicly borrowing library books, patrons forfeit any constitutional protections they may have had in their reading habits.

Another ACLU attack on 215 uses the tactic of ignoring legal precedent. Grand juries investigating a crime have always been able to subpoena the very items covered by 215 -- including library records and Internet logs -- without seeking a warrant or indeed any judicial approval at all. Section 215 merely gives anti-terror investigators the same access to such records as criminal grand juries, with the added protection of judicial oversight.

The administration's opponents reply that grand-jury subpoenas are preferable, because they can be contested in court and are not always confidential, as are 215 orders. But these differences are fully justified by the distinction between preempting terrorism and prosecuting crime. Speed and secrecy are essential to uncovering a terror plot before it climaxes. The perils of unnecessary delay were made clear in the Zacarias Moussaoui case, when Justice Department bureaucrats, virtually mummified by red tape, forbade Minneapolis FBI agents from searching the al Qaeda operative's computer in the weeks before 9/11.

Critics of the administration also decry the Patriot Act's provision for delaying notice of a search -- the so-called "sneak-and-peak" rule -- as an outrageous power grab by the government. The Patriot Act naysayers don't tell you that there is nothing new about this power at all: Judges have long allowed the government to delay notice of a search if notifying the target would risk witness intimidation, destruction of evidence or flight from prosecution. The Patriot Act merely codifies existing case law into one national standard.

In introducing a bill last month to amend Section 215, Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) alleged that Americans had become "afraid to read books, terrified into silence." Were that ever the case, it would be thanks to the misinformation spread by advocates and politicians, not because of any real threat posed by the Bush administration's war on terror.

The writer is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34482-2003Aug22?language=printer

Quote:

1. One end of the calls was in the US. 2. your argument is invalid.

depends who is doing the phone call , and if the phone call was to someone outsdie the US then it is fair game.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/12/nsa_and_bushs_i.html

Quote:

That still might not be fast enough.

Quote:

3. This is pre-PA law. ergo, your argument is invalid. please stop repeating this "excuse" as a reason for the PA. It's invalid.

why is it invalid?

[

Quote:

explain.

Bin Laden could not be convicted in a US court was the opinion of the Clinton administration. So they let him go to the Sudan.

Please see above.

So the US had trouble w/ Bin Laden and they are having trouble dealing with Mousaui , if US laws are adaquate then why is the US having so much trouble. There are 700 in Gitmo , and 70,000 were trained by AQ . It is highly probable that many of them would get free of the US legal system under the old system.

Quote:

They two are seprate issues , one is laws one is protection and one to give the govt the same power to go after terrorists the way they already can do against the mob.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 8:24 pm Post subject: Re: The US justice system Can't Handle Al Qaeda

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/patriot%20act%20flyer.pdf

Quote:

were they from outside the US? Were they in the US legally? ARe they still being held?

hard to know these things when the govt doesn't disclose any info. Maybe they deserve to be held in custody. WHO KNOWS? The government isn't telling us anything. Therin lies the problem with the PA.

Quote:

counterpunch supports the insurgents

cite please. primary source.

Quote:

the International action center supports the regime in North Korea, the Tieamen square crackdown, the insurgents , the Soviet INvasion of Afghanistan and the regime of Saddam Hussein.

cite please. primary source.
I'm not prone to relying on secondary interpretations.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34482-2003Aug22?language=printer
In Defense Of the Patriot Act

By Heather Mac Donald

The charge is baseless. To begin with, it ignores the fact that the FBI can do nothing under Section 215 without the approval of a federal court. Let's say the FBI has received a tip that al Qaeda sympathizers have taken scuba lessons in preparation for an attack on Navy destroyers off the California coast. Under 215, the bureau could seek a court order for local dive school records to see if any terror suspects had recently enrolled.

Quote:

http://www.slate.com/id/2087984/
The difference they don't acknowledge is that investigators may now do so secretly, and these orders cannot be contested in court.

Quote:

1. One end of the calls was in the US. 2. your argument is invalid.

depends who is doing the phone call , and if the phone call was to someone outsdie the US then it is fair game.

without a warrant? I don't think so.

Quote:

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/12/nsa_and_bushs_i.html

Quote:

That still might not be fast enough.

What part of "wiretap first and ask for permission later" do you not understand? What delay is created by asking for permission later. None.

Quote:

Bin Laden could not be convicted in a US court was the opinion of the Clinton administration. So they let him go to the Sudan.

please give a cite that says bin Laden was in US custody.

Quote:

So the US had trouble w/ Bin Laden and they are having trouble dealing with Mousaui , if US laws are adaquate then why is the US having so much trouble. There are 700 in Gitmo , and 70,000 were trained by AQ . It is highly probable that many of them would get free of the US legal system under the old system.

Moussauio is in prison. Ressam is in prison. No troubles there.

And why would they go free? Because there is no evidence against them? Should we lock up everyone in the world who might think about committing a crime?

Quote:

No, they both deal with national security. What good does an overly intrusive PA do, when anyone who is able to walk across the desert, or swim across a river, is allowed in the country? The PA is merely political grandstanding on the part of the Prez.

They two are seprate issues , one is laws one is protection and one to give the govt the same power to go after terrorists the way they already can do against the mob.

No, both are about national security, and what is the best way to combat terrorism. PA far exceeds RICO (which has been subject to abuse) in scope. Don't even pretend that it's merely catching us up. Please answer the above question.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 8:30 pm Post subject: Re: The US justice system Can't Handle Al Qaeda

Quote:

hard to know these things when the govt doesn't disclose any info. Maybe they deserve to be held in custody. WHO KNOWS? The government isn't telling us anything. Therin lies the problem with the PA.

so neither one of us knows all the details, but I will give the benefit of the doubt to the government when they are at war.

Quote:

counterpunch supports the insurgents

cite please. primary source.

Quote:

http://www.slate.com/id/2087984/
The difference they don't acknowledge is that investigators may now do so secretly, and these orders cannot be contested in court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

Quote:

In special cases covered by FISA (amended by the USA PATRIOT Act), the warrants may come from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) instead of a common Federal or State Court. FISC warrants are not public record and therefore are not required to be released. Other warrants must be released, especially to the person under investigation.

A second complaint against Sneak-and-Peek searches is that the owner of the property (or person identified in business/library records) does not have to be told about the search. There is a special clause that allows the Director of the FBI to request phone records for a person without ever notifying the person. For all other searches, the person must be notified, but not necessarily before the search. The judge providing the warrant may allow a delay in notification when there is risk of:

endangering the life or physical safety of an individual;
flight from prosecution;
destruction of or tampering with evidence;
intimidation of potential witnesses; or
otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial.
The delays are on average 7 days, but have been as long as 90 days. [3] Section 213, which federal agencies report they have used 155 times since 2001, does not expire later this year like other Patriot Act provisions.

The American Civil Liberties Union argues that the term "serious jeopardy" is too broad "and must be narrowly curtailed."[4]

However, "sneak and peak" searches have been in use for a long time in criminal cases. Title II of the PATRIOT Act was intended to bring the monitoring of foreign powers and the agents of foreign powers into line with such criminal legislation. The main difference between criminal and FISA delayed notification on search warrants is that FISA warrants use a different legal standard when approving such orders (they use reasonable cause, not probable cause).

Quote:

without a warrant? I don't think so.

Most of the time those who are searched need to be notified.

You mean the US ought not to listen to phone calls to places where Al Qaida Lurks?

It is tough as hell to get infor about Al Qaida . give the govt the benefit of the doubt

Quote:

Moussauio is in prison. Ressam is in prison. No troubles there.

The US is having trouble with Mousani and Bin Laden got away. Big problem.

Quote:

And why would they go free? Because there is no evidence against them? Should we lock up everyone in the world who might think about committing a crime?

'

Bin Laden got away cause the US could not handle him.
[

Quote:

so they are alike in one way and differnet in other ways.

They are both ways to combat terror and one does not preclude the other.

Source one about ANSWER

Quote:

fighting words
Anti-War, My Foot
The phony peaceniks who protested in Washington.
By Christopher Hitchens
Updated Monday, Sept. 26, 2005, at 2:19 PM ET

Saturday's demonstration in Washington, in favor of immediate withdrawal of coalition forces from Iraq, was the product of an opportunistic alliance between two other very disparate "coalitions." Here is how the New York Times (after a front-page and an inside headline, one of them reading "Speaking Up Against War" and one of them reading "Antiwar Rallies Staged in Washington and Other Cities") described the two constituenciess of the event:

The protests were largely sponsored by two groups, the Answer Coalition, which embodies a wide range of progressive political objectives, and United for Peace and Justice, which has a more narrow, antiwar focus.

The name of the reporter on this story was Michael Janofsky. I suppose that it is possible that he has never before come across "International ANSWER," the group run by the "Worker's World" party and fronted by Ramsey Clark, which openly supports Kim Jong-il, Fidel Castro, Slobodan Milosevic, and the "resistance" in Afghanistan and Iraq, with Clark himself finding extra time to volunteer as attorney for the génocidaires in Rwanda. Quite a "wide range of progressive political objectives" indeed, if that's the sort of thing you like. However, a dip into any database could have furnished Janofsky with well-researched and well-written articles by David Corn and Marc Cooper—to mention only two radical left journalists—who have exposed "International ANSWER" as a front for (depending on the day of the week) fascism, Stalinism, and jihadism.
The group self-lovingly calling itself "United for Peace and Justice" is by no means "narrow" in its "antiwar focus" but rather represents a very extended alliance between the Old and the New Left, some of it honorable and some of it redolent of the World Youth Congresses that used to bring credulous priests and fellow-traveling hacks together to discuss "peace" in East Berlin or Bucharest. Just to give you an example, from one who knows the sectarian makeup of the Left very well, I can tell you that the Worker's World Party—Ramsey Clark's core outfit—is the product of a split within the Trotskyist movement. These were the ones who felt that the Trotskyist majority, in 1956, was wrong to denounce the Russian invasion of Hungary. The WWP is the direct, lineal product of that depraved rump. If the "United for Peace and Justice" lot want to sink their differences with such riffraff and mount a joint demonstration, then they invite some principled political criticism on their own account. And those who just tag along �� well, they just tag along.

To be against war and militarism, in the tradition of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, is one thing. But to have a record of consistent support for war and militarism, from the Red Army in Eastern Europe to the Serbian ethnic cleansers and the Taliban, is quite another. It is really a disgrace that the liberal press refers to such enemies of liberalism as "antiwar" when in reality they are straight-out pro-war, but on the other side. Was there a single placard saying, "No to Jihad"? Of course not. Or a single placard saying, "Yes to Kurdish self-determination" or "We support Afghan women's struggle"? Don't make me laugh. And this in a week when Afghans went back to the polls, and when Iraqis were preparing to do so, under a hail of fire from those who blow up mosques and U.N. buildings, behead aid workers and journalists, proclaim fatwahs against the wrong kind of Muslim, and utter hysterical diatribes against Jews and Hindus.

Some of the leading figures in this "movement," such as George Galloway and Michael Moore, are obnoxious enough to come right out and say that they support the Baathist-jihadist alliance. Others prefer to declare their sympathy in more surreptitious fashion. The easy way to tell what's going on is this: Just listen until they start to criticize such gangsters even a little, and then wait a few seconds before the speaker says that, bad as these people are, they were invented or created by the United States. That bad, huh? (You might think that such an accusation—these thugs were cloned by the American empire for God's sake—would lead to instant condemnation. But if you thought that, gentle reader, you would be wrong.)

The two preferred metaphors are, depending on the speaker, that the Bin-Ladenists are the fish that swim in the water of Muslim discontent or the mosquitoes that rise from the swamp of Muslim discontent. (Quite often, the same images are used in the same harangue.) The "fish in the water" is an old trope, borrowed from Mao's hoary theory of guerrilla warfare and possessing a certain appeal to comrades who used to pore over the Little Red Book. The mosquitoes are somehow new and hover above the water rather than slip through it. No matter. The toxic nature of the "water" or "swamp" is always the same: American support for Israel. Thus, the existence of the Taliban regime cannot be swamplike, presumably because mosquitoes are born and not made. The huge swamp that was Saddam's Iraq has only become a swamp since 2003. The organized murder of Muslims by Muslims in Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan is only a logical reaction to the summit of globalizers at Davos. The stoning and veiling of women must be a reaction to Zionism. While the attack on the World Trade Center—well, who needs reminding that chickens, or is it mosquitoes, come home to roost?

There are only two serious attempts at swamp-draining currently under way. In Afghanistan and Iraq, agonizingly difficult efforts are in train to build roads, repair hospitals, hand out ballot papers, frame constitutions, encourage newspapers and satellite dishes, and generally evolve some healthy water in which civil-society fish may swim. But in each case, from within the swamp and across the borders, the most poisonous snakes and roaches are being recruited and paid to wreck the process and plunge people back into the ooze. How nice to have a "peace" movement that is either openly on the side of the vermin, or neutral as between them and the cleanup crew, and how delightful to have a press that refers to this partisanship, or this neutrality, as "progressive."

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His most recent book is Thomas Jefferson: Author of America. His most recent collection of essays is titled Love, Poverty, and War.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2126913/

Source about Counterpunch.

Quote:

The Right to Resist Occupation
The Anti-War Movement and the Iraqi Resistance
By SHARON SMITH

.........

SUPPORT FOR the right of Iraqis to resist occupation must extend beyond an abstract principle for the U.S. antiwar movement.

While recognizing "the right of the Iraqi people to resist as a point of principle," Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies--in widely circulated notes for a speech to the steering committee of United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) on December 18--argued, "We should not call for 'supporting the resistance' because we don't know who most of them are and what they really stand for, and because of those we do know, we mostly don't support their social program beyond opposition to the occupation."

To be meaningful, however, supporting the "right to resist" must include support for that resistance once it actually emerges.

Award-winning Indian writer and global justice activist Arundhati Roy got to the heart of the issue in a San Francisco speech on August 16: "It is absurd to condemn the resistance to the U.S. occupation in Iraq, as being masterminded by terrorists," she said. "After all, if the United States were invaded and occupied, would everybody who fought to liberate it be a terrorist?"

If we are waiting for the "ideologically pure" movement--assuming the unlikely scenario that all those opposed to the war could agree on one--we could be waiting forever.

As Roy explained, "Like most resistance movements, [the Iraqis] combine a motley range of assorted factions. Former Baathists, liberals, Islamists, fed-up collaborationists, communists, etc. Of course, it is riddled with opportunism, local rivalry, demagoguery and criminality. But if we were to only support pristine movements, then no resistance will be worthy of our purity.

"Before we prescribe how a pristine Iraqi resistance must conduct their secular, feminist, democratic, nonviolent battle, we should shore up our end of the resistance by forcing the U.S. and its allied governments to withdraw from Iraq."

Focus on the Global South's Walden Bello made a similar point in June. "What western progressives forget is that national liberation movements are not asking them mainly for ideological or political support," he wrote. "What they really want from the outside is international pressure for the withdrawal of an illegitimate occupying power so that internal forces can have the space to forge a truly national government based on their unique processes. Until they give up this dream of having an ideal liberation movement tailored to their values and discourse, U.S. peace activists will, like the Democrats they often criticize, continue to be trapped within a paradigm of imposing terms for other people."

THE U.S. antiwar movement should heed this advice and expend less energy in judging the character of the Iraqi resistance and more effort on building a visible resistance to the Iraq occupation from inside the U.S.

When the U.S. invaded Falluja and the Abu Ghraib torture scandal broke in the spring of 2004, the U.S. antiwar movement--already ensconced in its misguided effort to elect prowar John Kerry--declined to mount a visible response to these and other atrocities committed by the U.S. in Iraq, effectively sparing the Bush administration from the need to account for its war crimes.

The main challenge for antiwar activists in the United States is to rebuild a visible, national antiwar movement. That means opposing the January 30 election--held under martial law, which will effectively exclude 50 percent of the population--and supporting the resistance that exposes its utter hypocrisy.

Is this strategy too ambitious--too far to the left for "mainstream" America? That is unlikely, since a majority of Americans continue to oppose the war.

U.S. troops are also divided, and we need to actively support those troops who--at great personal risk--are resisting. The latest is U.S. Army Sgt. Kevin Benderman, who refused to redeploy to Iraq earlier this month after serving there from March to September 2003.

"The people that we are fighting now are for the most part people like you and me, people who are defending themselves against a superior military force and fighting to keep that which is rightfully theirs," Benderman said. He added that the Iraqi people have the right to choose their own form of government, "just like we did in America after the revolution."

The antiwar movement must not lose sight of the fact that its main enemy is at home--and any resistance to that enemy deserves our unconditional support.

Sharon Smith writes for the Socialist Worker.

http://www.counterpunch.org/smith01212005.html

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:05 am Post subject: Re: The US justice system Can't Handle Al Qaeda

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

so neither one of us knows all the details, but I will give the benefit of the doubt to the government when they are at war.

First, GWB has already shown he can't be trusted with his powers, given the illegal wiretaps that he engaged in.

Second, as I've said before, it's a false sense of security. An unnecessary intrusion while other holes remain unplugged. If you think this is going to protect the country, you're going to be surely surprised.

Quote:

Moussauio is in prison. Ressam is in prison. No troubles there.

The US is having trouble with Mousani and Bin Laden got away. Big problem.

Right now, the only question with Moussaoui is whether he gets life in prison or the death penalty. What's the trouble?

And when did the US let bin Laden get away? You've got a cite for everything else, how about one here?

Quote:

Source one about ANSWER

Source about Counterpunch.

ok, they can be out there. But I don't see them saying that they hate the US, but rather US policies. A freedom that you'll find in the First Amendment. And I'd agree that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter (see Al Qaeda/Taliban).

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 12:14 pm Post subject: Re: The US justice system Can't Handle Al Qaeda

Quote:

First, GWB has already shown he can't be trusted with his powers, given the illegal wiretaps that he engaged in.

Better him the AQ. They are a billion times more cruel and evil .the US is at war.

Quote:

Second, as I've said before, it's a false sense of security. An unnecessary intrusion while other holes remain unplugged. If you think this is going to protect the country, you're going to be surely surprised.

Not enough but it helps

Quote:

Right now, the only question with Moussaoui is whether he gets life in prison or the death penalty. What's the trouble?

and the US is having trouble with that.

Quote:

And when did the US let bin Laden get away? You've got a cite for everything else, how about one here?

It is above. I will give it to you again.

Quote:

Barton Gellman Washington Post Service

WASHINGTON The government of Sudan, using a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency in the United States, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in custody in Saudi Arabia, according to officials and former officials in all three countries.
.
The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at hotel in Arlington, Virginia, on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later.
.
Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept Mr. bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture. .
Sudan expelled Mr. bin Laden on May 18, 1996, to Afghanistan. From there, he is thought to have planned and financed the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the near-destruction of the American destroyer Cole in Yemen last year and the devastation in New York and Washington on Sept. 11.
.
"Had we been able to roll up bin Laden then, it would have made a significant difference," said a U.S. government official with responsibilities, then and now, in counterterrorism.
.
"We probably never would have seen a Sept. 11. We would still have had networks of Sunni Islamic extremists of the sort we're dealing with here, and there would still have been terrorist attacks fomented by those folks. But there would not have been as many resources devoted to their activities, and there would not have been a single voice that so effectively articulated grievances and won support for violence."
.
Clinton administration officials maintain emphatically that they had no such option against Mr. bin Laden in 1996. In the legal, political and intelligence environment then, they said, there was no choice but to allow him to leave Sudan unmolested.
.
"In the United States, we have this thing called the Constitution, so to bring him here is to bring him into the justice system," said Samuel Berger, who was deputy national security adviser then. "I don't think that was our first choice. Our first choice was to send him some place where justice is more" - he paused a moment, then continued - "streamlined."
.
Three officials in the Clinton administration said they hoped - one described it as "a fantasy" - that the Saudi monarch, King Fahd, would order Mr. bin Laden's swift beheading, as he had done for four conspirators after a June 1995 bombing in Riyadh.
.
But Mr. Berger and Steven Simon, then director for counterterrorism for the National Security Council, said the White House considered it valuable in itself to force Mr. bin Laden out of Sudan, thus tearing him away from his extensive network of businesses, investments and training camps.
.
Conflicting policy agendas on several other fronts contributed to the missed opportunity to capture Mr. bin Laden, according to a dozen participants.
.
The Clinton administration was riven by differences on whether to engage Sudan's government or isolate it, a situation that influenced judgments about the sincerity of the offer. In the Saudi-American relationship, policymakers diverged on how much priority to give to counterterrorism over other interests, such as support for the ailing Israeli-Palestinian talks and enforcement of the no-flight zone in Iraq.
.
And there were the beginnings of debate, intensified lately, on whether the United States wanted to indict and try Mr. bin Laden or to treat him as a combatant in an underground war.
.
The Sudanese offer had its roots in a dinner at the Khartoum home of Sudan's foreign minister, Ali Othman Taha. It was Feb. 6, 1996, the last night in the country for the U.S. ambassador, Timothy Carney, before evacuating the U.S. Embassy on orders from Washington. Paul Quaglia, then the CIA station chief in Khartoum, had led a campaign to pull out all Americans after he and his staff came under aggressive surveillance and twice had to fend off attacks, one with a knife and one with claw hammers.
.
Mr. Carney and David Shinn, then chief of the State Department's East Africa desk, considered the security threat "bogus," as Mr. Shinn described it. Washington's dominant decision-makers on Sudan had lost interest in engagement, preparing plans to isolate and undermine the regime.
.
One factor in Washington's hostility was an intelligence tip that Sudan planned to assassinate President Bill Clinton's national security adviser, Anthony Lake, the most visible administration critic of Khartoum. Most U.S. analysts came to believe later that it had been a false alarm.
.
On Feb. 6, 1996, Mr. Taha, the foreign minister, asked Mr. Carney and Mr. Shinn what his country could do to dissuade Washington from the view, expressed not long before by Madeleine Albright, then the chief U.S. delegate to the United Nations, that Sudan was responsible for "continued sponsorship of international terror."
.
Mr. Carney and Mr. Shinn had a long list. Mr. bin Laden, as they both recalled, was near the top. Mr. Taha mostly listened. He raised no objection to the request for Mr. bin Laden's expulsion, though he did not agree to it that night. On March 3, 1996, Sudan's defense minister, Major General Elfatih Erwa, arrived at the Hyatt Arlington. Mr. Carney and Mr. Shinn were waiting for him, but the meeting was run by covert operatives from the CIA's Africa division. In a document dated March 8, 1996, the Americans spelled out their demands. Titled "Measures Sudan Can Take to Improve Relations with the United States," it asked for six things. Second on the list - just after an angry enumeration of attacks on the CIA station in Khartoum - was Osama bin Laden.
.
"Provide us with names, dates of arrival, departure and destination and passport data on mujahidin that Usama Bin Laden has brought into Sudan," the document demanded.
.
During the next several weeks, General Erwa raised the stakes. The Sudanese security services, he said, would happily keep close watch on Mr. bin Laden for the United States. But if that would not suffice, the government was prepared to place him in custody and hand him over, though to whom was ambiguous.
.
Susan Rice, then senior director for Africa on the National Security Council, remembers being intrigued with but deeply skeptical of the Sudanese offer. And unlike Mr. Berger and Mr. Simon, Ms. Rice argued that mere expulsion from Sudan was not enough.
.
"We wanted them to hand him over to a responsible external authority," she said. "We didn't want them to just let him disappear into the ether."
.
Mr. Lake and Secretary of State Warren Christopher were briefed, colleagues said, on efforts to persuade the Saudi government to take Mr. bin Laden.
.
The Saudi idea had some logic, since Mr. bin Laden had issued a fatwa, or religious edict, denouncing the House of Saud as corrupt. Riyadh had expelled Mr. bin Laden in 1991 and stripped him of his citizenship in 1994, but it wanted no part of jailing or executing him, apparently fearing a backlash from militant opponents of the government.
.
Some American diplomats said the White House did not press the Saudis very hard.
.
Resigned to Mr. bin Laden's departure from Sudan, some officials raised the possibility of shooting down his chartered aircraft, but the idea was never seriously pursued because Mr. bin Laden had not been linked to a dead American, and it was inconceivable that Mr. Clinton would sign the "lethal finding" necessary under the circumstances.
.
"In the end they said, 'Just ask him to leave the country. Just don't let him go to Somalia,'" General Erwa said in an interview. "We said he will go to Afghanistan, and they said, 'Let him.'" On May 15, 1996, Mr. Taha, the foreign minister, sent a fax to Mr. Carney in Nairobi, giving up on the transfer of custody. Sudan's government had asked Mr. bin Laden to leave the country, Mr. Taha wrote, and he would be free to go.
.
Mr. Carney faxed back a question: Would Mr. bin Laden retain his access and control to the millions of dollars of assets he had built up in Sudan?
.
Mr. Taha gave no reply before Mr. bin Laden chartered a plane three days later for his trip to Afghanistan.
.
Subsequent analysis by U.S. intelligence suggests that Mr. bin Laden managed to access the Sudanese assets from his new redoubt in Afghanistan.

http://miami.craigslist.org/pol/135519863.html

Quote:

ok, they can be out there. But I don't see them saying that they hate the US, but rather US policies

.

I think they hate the US. They might not say it outright but they support North Korea and the Insurgents that speaks loud enough, It is not inconcivable that some of their members or someone in a like minded group might cooperate with the enemy, or do something to hurt US efforts.

Quote:

A freedom that you'll find in the First Amendment.

don't stop letting them talk. ( It is not their protest that would be a major problem ) However some of them may be many of their members do that they might not do something to help out AQ, and / or do something to make it harder for the US.

Quote:

I And I'd agree that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter (see Al Qaeda/Taliban)

Sometimes you have consider what they fight for.

AQ is a fascist hate group like the Klan. While some red necks in the South though the Klan were freedom fighters that did not change what they really were.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:34 pm Post subject: Re: The US justice system Can't Handle Al Qaeda

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Quote:

Right now, the only question with Moussaoui is whether he gets life in prison or the death penalty. What's the trouble?

and the US is having trouble with that.

trouble with what? I don't understand? Minimum=life in prison, maximum=death. He's not going free anytime. Is the absence of the dealth penalty the trouble?

Quote:

And when did the US let bin Laden get away? You've got a cite for everything else, how about one here?

It is above. I will give it to you again. http://miami.craigslist.org/pol/135519863.html

Sorry I missed it - the craigslist cite threw me off. Anyways, this is a widely circulated misbelief. Spread by the right-wing media to pin blame on Clinton (the same media that was harassing Clinton about Monica in 1996, and certainly not interested in bin Ladin themselves.)

From the 9-11 Commission Report:

[url]
http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_5.pdf[/url]

Quote:

Usama Bin Ladin, 1996

The U.S. government was also interested in another individual with disturbing ties to terrorists, a Saudi named Usama Bin Ladin. Bin Ladin was then based in Sudan. Under the influence of the radical Islamist Hassan al Turabi, Sudan had become a safe haven for
violent Islamist extremists. By 1995, the U.S. government had connected Bin Ladin to terrorists as an important terrorist financier.

Since 1979 the Secretary of State has had the authority to name State Sponsors of Terrorism, subjecting such countries to significant economic sanctions. Sudan was so designated in 1993. In February 1996, for security reasons, U.S. diplomats left Khartoum. International pressure further increased as the regime failed to hand over three individuals involved in a 1995 attempt to assassinate Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak. The United Nations Security Council imposed sanctions on the regime.

Diplomacy had an effect. In exchanges beginning in February 1996, Sudanese officials began approaching U.S. officials, asking what they could do to ease the pressure. During the winter and spring of 1996, Sudan��s defense minister visited Washington and had a
series of meetings with representatives of the U.S. government. To test Sudan��s willingness to cooperate on terrorism the United States presented eight demands to their Sudanese contact. The one that concerned Bin Ladin was a request for intelligence information about Bin Ladin��s contacts in Sudan.

These contacts with Sudan, which went on for years, have become a source of controversy. Former Sudanese officials claim that Sudan offered to expel Bin Ladin to the United States. Clinton administration officials deny ever receiving such an offer. We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim.

Sudan did offer to expel Bin Ladin to Saudi Arabia and asked the Saudis to pardon him. U.S. officials became aware of these secret discussions, certainly by March 1996. The evidence suggests that the Saudi government wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan, but
would not agree to pardon him. The Saudis did not want Bin Ladin back in their country at all.

U.S. officials also wanted Bin Ladin expelled from Sudan. They knew the Sudanese were considering it. The U.S. government did not ask Sudan to render him into U.S. custody.

According to Samuel Berger, who was then the deputy national security adviser, the interagency Counterterrorism and Security Group (CSG) chaired by Richard Clarke had a hypothetical discussion about bringing Bin Ladin to the United States. In that discussion
a Justice Department representative reportedly said there was no basis for bringing him to the United States since there was no way to hold him here, absent an indictment. Berger adds that in 1996 he was not aware of any intelligence that said Bin Ladin was responsible for any act against an American citizen. No rendition plan targeting Bin Ladin, who was still perceived as a terrorist financier, was requested by or presented to
senior policymakers during 1996.

Yet both Berger and Clarke also said the lack of an indictment made no difference. Instead they said the idea was not worth pursuing because there was no chance that Sudan would ever turn Bin Ladin over to a hostile country. If Sudan had been serious, Clarke said, the United States would have worked something out.

However, the U.S. government did approach other countries hostile to Sudan and Bin Ladin about whether they would take Bin Ladin. One was apparently interested. Nohandover took place.

Under pressure to leave, Bin Ladin worked with the Sudanese government to procure safe passage and possibly funding for his departure. In May 1996, Bin Ladin and his associates leased an Ariana Airlines jet and traveled to Afghanistan, stopping to refuel in the United Arab Emirates. Approximately two days after his departure, the Sudanese
informed the U.S. government that Bin Ladin had left. It is unclear whether any U.S. officials considered whether or how to intercept Bin Ladin.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:26 pm Post subject: Re: The US justice system Can't Handle Al Qaeda

Quote:

trouble with what? I don't understand? Minimum=life in prison, maximum=death. He's not going free anytime. Is the absence of the dealth penalty the trouble?

It shoudl be open and shut b with that F18k and their are potentially 70,000 of those creeps out there .

The fact that there is any troube with a guy that they got so much on makes it likely that there is going to be far more trouble with others where they don't have so much on.

Quote:

I voted for Clinton 2x . I think he was a good president. But Clinton thought that Bin Laden could not be convicted so he let him go to Sudan. From your source the 9-11 report:

Did you read what Sandy Burger said:

.

Quote:

According to Samuel Berger, who was then the deputy national security adviser, the interagency Counterterrorism and Security Group (CSG) chaired by Richard Clarke had a hypothetical discussion about bringing Bin Ladin to the United States. In that discussion
a Justice Department representative reportedly said there was no basis for bringing him to the United States since there was no way to hold him here, absent an indictment. Berger adds that in 1996 he was not aware of any intelligence that said Bin Ladin was responsible for any act against an American citizen. No rendition plan targeting Bin Ladin, who was still perceived as a terrorist financier, was requested by or presented to
senior policymakers during 1996.
Yet both Berger and Clarke also said the lack of an indictment made no difference. Instead they said the idea was not worth pursuing because there was no chance that Sudan would ever turn Bin Ladin over to a hostile country. If Sudan had been serious, Clarke said, the United States would have worked something out.

This is Richard Clarke who says that Bin Laden had no connection to Iraq yet he is the same guy who supported Clintons airstrike against Sudan where there was a factory that they said was run for Saddam with Bin Laden connections.

Anyway is the Washington Post a right wing source? Was Sandy Burger misquoted?

See below:

Quote:

Clinton administration officials maintain emphatically that they had no such option against Mr. bin Laden in 1996. In the legal, political and intelligence environment then, they said, there was no choice but to allow him to leave Sudan unmolested.
.
"In the United States, we have this thing called the Constitution, so to bring him here is to bring him into the justice system," said Samuel Berger, who was deputy national security adviser then. "I don't think that was our first choice. Our first choice was to send him some place where justice is more" - he paused a moment, then continued - "streamlined

Furthermore they would have had to "work something out" - what do you think that means ?

I am not attacking Clinton ( think he was overalll a good president) , I am pointing out that either the US would have had to let Bin Laden go or he would have had to work something out- either go outside the law.

Why cause what the US has in place isn't up to dealing with Al Qaeda.

700 at Gitmo and as in theory as much as 70,000 Al Qaeda cases. That would overwhelm the US legal system. and it is probable that many of these terrorists would go free and then what would they do?

If the legal system of the US was really up to dealing with Al Qaeda before 9-11 then nothing would need to be "worked out" to get Bin Laden.

Let me also point out that one of the provisions of the Patriot act is to let the CIA and FBI talk to each other. That was not allowed before 9-11. That might have made a difference.

Clinton to his credit would have worked something out. But that would have probably been against the US law. Would he have violated the law -yes. Would he have done the right thing? Yep.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:36 am Post subject: Re: The US justice system Can't Handle Al Qaeda

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Quote:

trouble with what? I don't understand? Minimum=life in prison, maximum=death. He's not going free anytime. Is the absence of the dealth penalty the trouble?

It shoudl be open and shut b with that F18k and their are potentially 70,000 of those creeps out there .

Blame it on the prosecuters for seeking death and then screwing up. Defence has offered life. That sounds pretty open-shut. Heck, even misdemeanors in the US can take months to work out.

Quote:

Did you read what Sandy Burger said:

yes, did you. let's see that one more time:

Quote:

Yet both Berger and Clarke also said the lack of an indictment made no difference. Instead they said the idea was not worth pursuing because there was no chance that Sudan would ever turn Bin Ladin over to a hostile country. If Sudan had been serious, Clarke said, the United States would have worked something out.

The case (or lack of thereof) against him is moot. Sudan was not going to turn over bin Laden. Clinton did not let him go. Outside of invading Sudan, what was he to do?

Quote:

Anyway is the Washington Post a right wing source? Was Sandy Burger misquoted?

It's out of context, so yes, it is a misquote. The discussion of what to do with bin Laden is moot, since the US was never in the situation to deal with it.

Quote:

I am not attacking Clinton ( think he was overalll a good president) , I am pointing out that either the US would have had to let Bin Laden go or he would have had to work something out- either go outside the law.

moot! moot! moot! You said Clinton let him go. That is what I'm responding to, and what is shown to be counterfactual to what the 9/11 Comm. said. "would have" does not mean did.

Quote:

Why cause what the US has in place isn't up to dealing with Al Qaeda.

700 at Gitmo and as in theory as much as 70,000 Al Qaeda cases. That would overwhelm the US legal system. and it is probable that many of these terrorists would go free and then what would they do?

And how's the PA going to solve this? There are still (by your estimates) 69,300 left to capture. Heck, we can't even catch bin Laden, with or without the PA. Do you seriously think that having the PA in place in 1986 would have made Sudan hand him over? The PA may make identification easier, and may make detention easier. But we've still got to catch them.

And I agree, if we try to try 70,000 people it'll be a mad house. A trial a day will take, ummm, 200 years. I guess if we give all 70,000 an hour a piece to "prove their innocence" we'd finish in my lifetime.

Quote:

Clinton to his credit would have worked something out. But that would have probably been against the US law. Would he have violated the law -yes. Would he have done the right thing? Yep.

In hindsight, sure. In retrospect look at what people where saying about the missle attack that almost nailed bin Laden (Oct. 20, 1998):

Dan Coats (R-Ind)

Quote:

Coats added, "I just hope and pray the decision that was made was made on the basis of sound judgment and made for the right reasons, and not made because it was necessary to save the president's job."

Quote:

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., was only slightly softer in questioning Clinton's air strikes in Afghanistan and the Sudan, insisting: "I'm not going to suggest ulterior motives," but adding, "I especially want to know the reason for doing it now. I want to know what the evidence was."

both from http://www.samsloan.com/osamasur.htm

(just a little reminder of the perceived threat of bin Laden in the 90's)

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 6:02 am Post subject: Re: The US justice system Can't Handle Al Qaeda

Quote:

Blame it on the prosecuters for seeking death and then screwing up. Defence has offered life. That sounds pretty open-shut. Heck, even misdemeanors in the US can take months to work out.

I do blame tham but also the system is more difficult for them

Quote:

Did you read what Sandy Burger said:

yes, did you. let's see that one more time:

Quote:

First of all could they be spining. It is different than what the Wash Post said.

Second of all - they needed to work something out.

Quote:

The case (or lack of thereof) against him is moot. Sudan was not going to turn over bin Laden. Clinton did not let him go. Outside of invading Sudan, what was he to do?

I don't blame Clinton. The system wasn't up to taking down Bin Laden. Or fighting AlQaida

Quote:

It's out of context, so yes, it is a misquote. The discussion of what to do with bin Laden is moot, since the US was never in the situation to deal with it.

A misquote - Sandy Burger wanted Bin Laden to be in a place where justice was more streamlined. Doesn't seem like a misquote.

Quote:

moot! moot! moot! You said Clinton let him go. That is what I'm responding to, and what is shown to be counterfactual to what the 9/11 Comm. said. "would have" does not mean did.

either Clinton let him go or he would have had to work something out. If something needed to be worked out and Sandy Burger says the US wanted more streamlined justice well then it seems that the system as it was wasn't up to dealing with Al Qaida

Quote:

It makes it easer for the US govt to win in court . It lets the US govt obtain evidence more easily and use it more easily.

Quote:

And I agree, if we try to try 70,000 people it'll be a mad house. A trial a day will take, ummm, 200 years. I guess if we give all 70,000 an hour a piece to "prove their innocence" we'd finish in my lifetime.

well the US is in a tough situation and Al Qaida will never show mercy.

Quote:

In hindsight, sure. In retrospect look at what people where saying about the missle attack that almost nailed bin Laden (Oct. 20, 1998):

Just remember work something out.

Dan Coats (R-Ind)

Quote:

both from http://www.samsloan.com/osamasur.htm

(just a little reminder of the perceived threat of bin Laden in the 90's)[/quote]

I was not with the Republicans at that time. I don't defend Clinton hatred or their nonsense. You got no argument from me there.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:03 pm Post subject: Re: The US justice system Can't Handle Al Qaeda

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Quote:

Blame it on the prosecuters for seeking death and then screwing up. Defence has offered life. That sounds pretty open-shut. Heck, even misdemeanors in the US can take months to work out.

I do blame tham but also the system is more difficult for them

More difficult then what? All US prosecuters have to deal with the same rules of evidence and comportment. Is it any worse then when some two-bit gang-banging dope-dealing killer gets off due to police or prosecution error? Should we suspend the rules of law for them?

Quote:

First of all could they be spining. It is different than what the Wash Post said.

The 9-11 Commision agreed and said that there was "no reliable evidence" to suggest that Sudan would have handed over bin Laden.

Quote:

well the US is in a tough situation and Al Qaida will never show mercy.

tough situtation, sure. Tougher then the Cold War? WW II? The Founding Fathers saw the problems caused by unrestrained power, which is why they created the seperation of powers. If it was good enough for them (in the wake of the American Revolution) it's good enough for us.

I'm off tomorrow morning on my visa run, so that's my final say on the topic (for now).

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:16 pm Post subject: Re: The US justice system Can't Handle Al Qaeda

[

Quote:

Those are bad but Al Qaida is a war.

This ought to be slam dunk . In fact he ought to be dead now.

[

Quote:

The 9-11 Commision agreed and said that there was "no reliable evidence" to suggest that Sudan would have handed over bin Laden.

OK but we have Sandy Burger wishing for streamlined justice. anyway it could not be that Clark and Burger not lying but spinning

Quote:

The cold war had a semi rational enemy. Yes very tough. Better that the government go a little too far than Al Qaeda get away.

Quote:

I'm off tomorrow morning on my visa run, so that's my final say on the topic (for now)

Have a nice trip.

Tiger Beer

Joined: 07 Feb 2003

Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 8:12 pm Post subject:

Looks like Obama is thinking of starting a judicial system solely for this purpose. Certainly makes sense.

ersatzredux

Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Location: Same as it ever was, same as it ever was

Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:39 pm Post subject:

What's so surreal about this thread (despite looking virtually identical to ones years ago) is that Joo has been around long enough and followed Counterpunch closely enough to know better. As far as the main writers and lines taken, Counterpunch has been almost always right. Is trying to discover the truth and then writing about it anti-American? If so, it explains Mark Twain's old dictum that the 100% American is 99% an idiot.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 3 of 4

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe