Crazy Assed DUmpmonkiez swear confessed detainees didn't do 9/11...

[dutch508]

seemslikeadream  (1000+ posts)        Wed Mar-11-09 11:22 AM
Original message
Gitmo authorities would have you believe that five 9/11 detainees charged with 9/11 
 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x236684

Edited on Wed Mar-11-09 11:23 AM by seemslikeadream

The authorities at Gitmo would have you believe that the five 9/11 detainees charged with 9/11 wrote this on March 1, got it translated into English and typed up and hand-classified Top Secret/SCI, then was given to the judge on March 5. And the judge reviewed it, reviewed its classification and deemed it unclassified, and then released it all by March 10.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

"Troubling"-Detainees Newly Released Confession-"Typed-In English-NO Signatures"
Edited on Wed Mar-11-09 10:18 AM by kpete
The Latest Prop from Gitmo
By: emptywheel Wednesday March 11, 2009 7:54 am
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/03/11/the-latest ... /

........... What proof is there that all five detainees have signed this document, Adam al-Hawsawi's attorney asked, when all we've got is a typed English document.


"There is no evidence that Mr. al Hawsawi knew about, read or signed this document ," Maj. Jon Jackson said in an email. "It is a typed message in English with no signature. I object to this highly irregular document release." Maj. Jackson said he was unaware of the statement until the military judge ordered copies sent to attorneys Monday.


And how is it that this document has been published so quickly, other defense attorneys ask, when their own filings still haven't been released?


Defense attorneys and civil liberties groups said that the speed with which Judge Stephen R. Henley, an Army colonel, released the statement after reviewing it March 5 was troubling. They pointed to an e-mail from the clerk of court for the military commissions to counsel on the issue, which said, "I have been asked by our . . . folks to release the documents ASAP."


The authorities at Gitmo would have you believe that the five 9/11 detainees charged with 9/11 wrote this on March 1, got it translated into English and typed up and hand-classified Top Secret/SCI, then was given to the judge on March 5. And the judge reviewed it, reviewed its classification and deemed it unclassified, and then released it all by March 10.

Amoung the crazy mother-****ers at DU, SLAD is towards the top of the scumy pond...

seemslikeadream  (1000+ posts)        Wed Mar-11-09 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I rest my case
 Edited on Wed Mar-11-09 02:18 PM by seemslikeadream
too bad you do not believe in the Bill of Rights? Or maybe forgot?


The first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution. Called the "Bill of Rights", these amendments were ratified on December 15, 1791.


Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition

Right to keep and bear arms

Conditions for quarters of soldiers

Right of search and seizure regulated

Provisons concerning prosecution

Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.


In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Right to a trial by jury

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Excessive bail, cruel punishment

Rule of construction of Constitution

Rights of the States under Constitution

 
too bad they are prisoners of war and not subject to US rights...yet. see the attached DU thread...

Tuesday_Morning  (1000+ posts)      Tue Mar-10-09 05:01 PM
Original message
Larisa Alexandrovna: We are being spoon-fed stupid again.
 Advertisements [?]Larisa calls bullshit and I agree.

http://www.atlargely.com/2009/03/we-are-being-spoonfed-...

March 10, 2009

We are being spoon-fed stupid again...

Can someone explain to me how 5 suspected members of Al Qaeda (although there is no question regarding KSM) suddenly got their own PR machine from inside Gitmo and at the hands of a military judge, not to mention getting a world stage through which to frighten Americans some more? And the media? Well, they are too well versed is stupid to ask any sensible questions:

<snip>

5 alleged Al Qaeda members issue a statement of guilt, an incendiary statement rejoicing at the lost American lives of those attacks 7 years back, through a filing with the court. This filing is accepted by the court despite some of the attorneys not being made aware that this was going to be filed or what was going to be declared on behalf of their clients. Moreover, defying President Obama's ruling putting a halt on all Gitmo military commissions, the judge on the case not only accepted this filing, but also released it to the public.

Does anyone else find this just all a bit too well timed, not to mention idiotic? Seriously, what purpose could this serve in helping the American cause or in keeping the nation safe?

<snip>

more at link

http://www.atlargely.com/2009/03/we-are-being-spoonfed-...

 

conscious evolution (1000+ posts)      Tue Mar-10-09 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. So our military is refusing orders
 from the Commander-in Chief?
Great.
We are so ****ed.

[Texacon]

conscious evolution (1000+ posts)      Tue Mar-10-09 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. So our military is refusing orders
 from the Commander-in Chief?
Great.
We are so ****ed.

Yup, this is what happens when you hire a communist to run a constitutional republic.

suck it DUmmie.

KC

[DumbAss Tanker]

What's so hard to believe about them writing it in English?  Haven't those DUmmies ever called tech support or taken a cab?

 

[LC EFA]

Amoung the crazy mother-****ers at DU, SLAD is towards the top of the scumy pond...

SLAD is the feculant pustule bobbing on the surface of the sewer.

If that thread was disturbing... check this one out from their dungeon.

NNN0LHI  Donating Member  (1000+ posts)    Sun Mar-08-09 05:53 PM
Original message
FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11” - Are they lying?
   
http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

June 6, 2006 – This past weekend, a thought provoking e-mail circulated through Internet news groups, and was sent to the Muckraker Report by Mr. Paul V. Sheridan (Winner of the 2005 Civil Justice Foundation Award), bringing attention to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist web page for Usama Bin Laden.<1> (See bottom of this web page for Most Wanted page) In the e-mail, the question is asked, “Why doesn’t Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11, 2001?” The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people. The FBI concludes its reason for “wanting” Bin Laden by saying, “In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.”

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

It shouldn’t take long before the full meaning of these FBI statements start to prick your brain and raise your blood pressure. If you think the way I think, in quick order you will be wrestling with a barrage of very powerful questions that must be answered. First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to “smoke him out of his cave?” The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x236484

They're so mentally deficient, that they honest-to-God believe that the FBI is trying to give a secret little wink wink nudge nudge tip-off that it was really MIHOP.