View Full Version : Administration halts prosecution of USS Cole bomber
WTH :confused: :mad:
Administration halts prosecution of alleged USS Cole bomber
snip...The Obama administration has shelved the planned prosecution of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the alleged coordinator of the Oct. 2000 suicide attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, according to a court filing...
...In a filing this week in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the Justice Department said that "no charges are either pending or contemplated with respect to al-Nashiri in the near future."
..."It's politics at this point," said one military official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss policy. He said he thinks the administration does not want to proceed against a high-value detainee without some prospect of civilian trials for other major figures at Guantanamo Bay.
Read the rest here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082606353.html
Why play politics with National Security...:mad:
Why play politics with National Security...:mad:When have American politicians and statesmen not played politics with national security?
Right now, Samuel Eliot Morison is rolling in his grave! His corpse is crying out: '"The" should always precede the name of a ship.':cool:
dr. mabuse
08-28-2010, 00:06
More foolishness from Washington.
Obama and company remind me of an old latin saying, " A carpenter is known by his chips."
Too true.
The Defense Department issued a statement Thursday saying the case is not stalled. "Prosecutors in the Office of Military Commissions are actively investigating the case against Mr. al-Nashiri and are developing charges against him," the statement said.
Perhaps they weren't quite ready to go to trial - maybe they had new evidence they needed to develop, or maybe they had evidence they either needed to further develop or redevelop because of how it was obtained, or maybe the reformed system of military commissions wasn't quite ready...or whatever.
When have American politicians and statesmen not played politics with national security?
Might not be just about the current administration - was this particular case a 2004 and 2008 election year political issue, too? Seems to me as if this one could turn into a real 'tar baby' kind of case. From June 2008:
Captured in November 2002, Nashiri was held in secret custody by the CIA before his transfer to Guantanamo Bay in September 2006. It is unclear whether he and his lawyers will be able to question the CIA interrogators who conducted his harsh questioning and whether information elicited by that treatment will be admissible in the untested military commissions.
"The evidentiary issues will be resolved in the courtroom," he said. "The judge will make a final decision as to the validity of any piece of evidence."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/30/AR2008063000807.html
And then there is this:
Example Set by First Military Tribunal Case Has U.S. Wary
After working for a year to redeem the international reputation of military commissions, Obama administration officials are alarmed by the first case to go to trial under revamped rules: the prosecution of a former child soldier whom an American interrogator implicitly threatened with gang rape.
The defendant, Omar Khadr, was 15 when he was captured in Afghanistan and accused of throwing a grenade that killed an American soldier. Senior officials say his trial is undermining their broader effort to showcase reforms that they say have made military commissions fair and just.
“Optically, this has been a terrible case to begin the commissions with,” said Matthew Waxman, who was the Pentagon’s top detainee affairs official during the Bush administration. “There is a great deal of international skepticism and hostility toward military commissions, and this is a very tough case with which to push back against that skepticism and hostility.”
Senior officials at the White House, the Justice Department and the Pentagon have agreed privately that it would be better to reach a plea bargain in the Khadr case so that a less problematic one would be the inaugural trial, according to interviews with more than a dozen current and former officials. But the administration has not pushed to do so because officials fear, for legal and political reasons, that it would be seen as improper interference.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/28/us/28gitmo.html
The wheels of Justice and so forth...but delay doesn't mean can't or won't.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
WTH :confused: :mad:
Why play politics with National Security...:mad:
This move will free up additional resources for the Administration to pursue the persecution of the National Security threats on the Southern Border....most notably The State of Arizona, Gov. Brewer and Sheriff Joe.
This move will free up additional resources for the Administration to pursue the persecution of the National Security threats on the Southern Border....most notably The State of Arizona, Gov. Brewer and Sheriff Joe.
Well, they've already taken it to the UN Human rights Council…wonder if Rashad Hussain will take it to the OIC...
This move will free up additional resources for the Administration to pursue the persecution of the National Security threats on the Southern Border....most notably The State of Arizona, Gov. Brewer and Sheriff Joe.
:eek:
Well, they've already taken it to the UN Human rights Council…
They who? Your statement implies the US Government. :confused:
Richard :munchin
They who? Your statement implies the US Government.
> http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/146379.pdf
A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.
Source > http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/08/loony-obama-hauls-arizona-in-front-of-sham-un-human-rights-council/
ETA
Brewer condemns report to UN mentioning Ariz. law
> http://www.wtop.com/?nid=104&sid=2038512
Not surprising :rolleyes:
Nothing those loons do ,surprises me .:mad:
The president’s first-ever report on U.S. human rights to the UN Human Rights Council contains a rich vein of offensive material. So far, one aspect has not been reported: our petty president used the situation to bash Arizona’s immigration law — and possibly transfer jurisdiction over the law from Arizona to the UN.
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/08/loony-obama-hauls-arizona-in-front-of-sham-un-human-rights-council/
(_?_) What an astounding manure pile of malarkey that bit of reasoning is. :eek:
Mentioning the issue of AZ SB 1070 to point out the on-going national character of the immigration debate within the US - all within the larger context off a broad-brush information report on US Human Rights matters to the UN - is not "taking it to the UN" for any sort of approval or action on their or anybody else's part as implied in post #6 and stated in the referenced blog and post #8.
Report of the United States of America
Submitted to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights
In Conjunction with the Universal Periodic Review
<snip>
V.2 Values and Immigration
92. That immigrants have been consistently drawn to our shores throughout our history is both a testament to and a source of the strength and appeal of our vibrant democracy. As he left office, President Reagan remarked that the United States is “still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.” Over the last 50 years, the U.S. has accepted several million refugees fleeing persecution from all corners of the globe as well as many millions of immigrants seeking a better life or joining family. Today, the United States and other countries to which a significant number of people seek to emigrate face challenges in developing and enforcing immigration laws and policies that reflect economic, social, and national security realities. In addressing these issues we seek to build a system of immigration enforcement that is both effective and fair.
93. In 2009, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began a major overhaul of the U.S. immigration detention system in an effort to improve detention center management and prioritize health, safety, and uniformity among immigration detention facilities, while ensuring security and efficiency. As part of this effort, in conjunction with ongoing consultations with non-governmental organizations and outside experts, DHS issued revised parole guidelines, effective January 2010, for arriving aliens in expedited removal found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture. The new guidelines firmly establish that it is not in the public interest to detain those arriving aliens found to have a credible fear who establish their identities, and that they pose neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community.
94. Under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, DHS may delegate authority to state and local officers to enforce federal immigration law. DHS has made improvements to the 287(g) program, including implementing a new, standardized Memorandum of Agreement with state and local partners that strengthens program oversight and provides uniform guidelines for DHS supervision of state and local agency officer operations; information reporting and tracking; complaint procedures; and implementation measures. DHS continues to evaluate the program, incorporating additional safeguards as necessary to aid in the prevention of racial profiling and civil rights violations and improve accountability for protecting human rights.
95. A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.
96. President Obama remains firmly committed to fixing our broken immigration system, because he recognizes that our ability to innovate, our ties to the world, and our economic prosperity depend on our capacity to welcome and assimilate immigrants. The Administration will continue its efforts to work with the U.S. Congress and affected communities toward this end.
<snip>
pp.23 - 24 http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/146379.pdf
Context is important. NXI = (Fr + Hr) - (O + R + Ts)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Context is important.
It is... 2 + 2 = bannana
What impression does it leave when Attorney General Eric Holder has sued the State of Arizona for passing a law that he criticized without reading, and one which merely upholds federal law?
To me it appears the Obama Administration is turning this into a skirmish with Jan Brewer from a states rights dispute into an international human rights cause - not to mention the political football of enhanced interrogation techniques - why take it to the UN Human rights Council when the council is controlled by a bloc of Islamic and African states backed by China, Cuba, and Russia, who protect one another from criticism?
YMMV
:munchin
Dozer523
08-28-2010, 07:48
It is... 2 + 2 = bannana
T . . . you think it's a government conspiracy that's preventing you from seeing the "Infidel of the Week" on the thread you started.:D
You think you're being "sensored":eek:. (remotely?):p
What is the difference between you and the character Mel Gibson played in Conspiracy Theory?
Except that Jerry Fletcher was right?
It’s not a conspiracy theory when the Human Rights Council elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women :D
:D > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4RmlyCR1zM
Viva Neda !!
It is... 2 + 2 = bannana
I have no idea what a 'bannana' is or to what that equation refers.
What impression does it leave when Attorney General Eric Holder has sued the State of Arizona for passing a law that he criticized without reading, and one which merely upholds federal law?
I think your timeline is a bit flawed as his remarks to the House Judiciary Committee session where the AG had, admittedly thus far, only done a cursory reading of the law (had not 'read' it in a lawerly sense), that it was then under review by a group within the DOJ who had discussed some of the points of concern with him, and that he had not made up his mind on the matter and was awaiting the results of the review and recommendations from the review before doing so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rH1FEcbi4A&feature=related
The suit came as a result of the review and - I am certain - a 'reading' (a thorough reading and discussion) by the AG, the DOJ, the DHS, and others.
As to whether or not it "merely upholds federal law" is, I think, the crux of the matter and why parts of it have since been challenged in court.
So much for political theater.
To me it appears the Obama Administration is turning this into a skirmish with Jan Brewer from a states rights dispute into an international human rights cause - not to mention the political football of enhanced interrogation techniques - why take it to the UN Human rights Council when the council is controlled by a bloc of Islamic and African states backed by China, Cuba, and Russia, who protect one another from criticism?
On August 20, the United States submitted to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights a report on the U.S. human rights record, in accordance with the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process.
The report’s submission is one step in the UPR process. The next step will be a formal presentation by the U.S. government to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva in November. The report stands as just one element of the U.S. effort to engage broadly and constructively with the UN and other international organizations.
The review, which has featured an unprecedented level of consultation and engagement with civil society across the country, provides an opportunity to reflect on our human rights record and we hope will serve as an example for other countries on how to conduct a thorough, transparent, and credible UPR presentation. It involved support and assistance from the Department of Justice as well as over ten other federal departments and other offices, and the White House.
The United States is proud of its record on human rights and the role our country has played in advancing human rights and fundamental freedoms around the world.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/08/146233.htm
The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) was established by the UN General Assembly in 2006 as a process through which the human rights records of the United Nations’ 192 Member States could be reviewed and assessed. This review, conducted through the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), is based upon human rights obligations and commitments expressed in the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights instruments to which the State is party, etc. The United States is a strong supporter of the UPR process, which provides a unique avenue for the global community to discuss human rights around the world.
Individual countries are slated for review every four years, with the United States scheduled for its review in 2010-2011. UPR sessions take place at the HRC in Geneva, and are framed by reports submitted by national governments.The United States submitted its report to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on August 20. The report, which reflects input collected during an extensive program of consultations with the American public, can be found here.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/upr/index.htm
Submitting a report on human rights in America to the UN (or any other such organization) which offers background information and outlines our national position on the subject (including mentioning an on-going point of internal contention such as AZ SB 1070) is not 'taking it to the UN' in the way you and the referenced blog seem to fear.
It’s not a conspiracy theory when the Human Rights Council elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women.
:confused:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/membership.htm
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cedaw/index.htm
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cedaw/membership.htm
I should have bought stock in Alcoa.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Submitting a report on human rights in America to the UN (or any other such organization) which offers background information and outlines our national position on the subject (including mentioning an on-going point of internal contention such as AZ SB 1070) is not 'taking it to the UN' in the way you and the referenced blog seem to fear.
:munchin
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer demanded Friday that a reference to the state's controversial immigration law be removed from a State Department report to the United Nations' human rights commissioner.
The U.S. included its legal challenge to the law on a list of ways the federal government is protecting human rights.
In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Brewer says it is "downright offensive" that a state law would be included in the report, which was drafted as part of a UN review of human rights in all member nations every four years.
"The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to 'review' by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional," Brewer wrote.
Source > http://www.wtop.com/?nid=104&sid=2038512
ETA
Jan Brewer's letter to Hillary Clinton: http://www.azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_082710_LetterSecretaryClinton.pdf
I should have bought stock in Alcoa.
http://www.tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=218579
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/03/AR2010050303950.html
http://www.voanews.com/policy/editorials/Iran-Secures-Seat-On-CSW-93802899.html
http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100501/FOREIGN/704309844/1002
http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/iran_wins_membership_to_the_un_commission_on_the_s tatus_of_women
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/30/stayed-mum-iran-vote-womens-commission/
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/shame-on-all-who-stood-silent-iran-voted-in-as-member-of-un-womens-rights-commission/
And even more political theater...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
It’s not a conspiracy theory when the Human Rights Council elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women.
My confusion - it is not the HRC as stated - but Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) under the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/index.html
"The idea of our own American government submitting the duly enacted laws of a state of the United States to 'review' by the United Nations is internationalism run amok and unconstitutional," Brewer wrote.
More political theater and hype which plays well with the tin hat and anyone who dislikes the current administration crowd...
Brewer, a Republican, is running for election in November. Her popularity in Arizona and her national profile have soared since she signed the immigration measure in April.
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=104&sid=2038512
And the political theater goes on and on...
Richard
My confusion - it is not the HRC as stated - but Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) under the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).
My apologies Sir, I caused the confusion by not being very clear :( :D
My apologies Sir,...
Not necessary - I think it was a good exercise for all of us. ;)
I might even make a mistake one day... :rolleyes: :D
Richard :munchin
maybe the lawyers that they had working on this case have been retasked so they can sue Arizona
...gotta have priorities
…and assured them that the terror suspects will be prosecuted and brought “to a swift and certain justice.”
Source > http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/obama-meets-with-family-members-of-uss-cole-911-victims/
Kirk Lippold, former Commander of The USS Cole weighs in and doesn’t seem to happy about the situation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUyLk3b5A08
:munchin
Kirk Lippold, former Commander of The USS Cole weighs in and doesn’t seem to happy about the situation.
What a surprise.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/04/world/senators-question-handling-of-cole-case.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/yemen/1374316/Bombed-US-warship-was-defended-by-sailors-with-unloaded-guns.html
http://www.lvrj.com/news/breaking_news/Former-commander-of-USS-Cole-mulls-run-against-Reid-83573462.html
http://www.leadingauthorities.com/Speaker/Kirk-Lippold.aspx
And so it goes...:(
Richard :munchin
What a surprise.
It may not have been if the warnings had made their way to the intended recipient :munchin
Able Danger also Identified a Threat to the USS Cole
Two weeks prior to the USS Cole bombing in Aden, Yemen in 2000, the DIA data mining group, Able Danger, tried to issue a warning. And again just a few days prior.
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/204235.php
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/04/exclusive-witnesses-defense-department-report-suggest-cover-findings/
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/189744.php