Bush administration tries to silence released terrorist suspect

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Why are all you guys bending over backwards to declare this guy innocent when we do not even know what he is charged with?

Do you hate the Bush admin so much that you assume that everyone the pick up must be innocent?

And Rain...
To address this line: "put aside your fear and engage you're damn brain"

I think a few members of P&N need to do that when it comes to the Bush admin. It is nothing but fear of everything that he does.

Who do you trust more? Bush or the terrorists?

Tourtured until proven Guilty

*FIXED*

hehe, too true.

 

[MadRat]

So could this censorship be considered an act of McCarthyism?

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Re-read the article. Says he was an ex-CIA prisoner. Also says he was moved to Gitmo. Does not say any where that he was freed. Wikipedia on he guy
Have no clue what makes him high profile. Wonder what he did to make him one of only 13? Most likely the fact that he was an American. As someone who lived here he would have been a great aid in helping in any terror plot.

In fact you are more likely to be a terrorist. That guy was tortured by the freedom-lovers and spreaders of democracy like you, and yet they couldn't get anything on him. So he is almost certainly not a terrorist. But you could be. Shouldn't you report to Gitmo to have the crap beat out of you so that our country is safer?

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
You're not a radical, you're an idiot.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Bush or the terrorists?

How about NEITHER of them?

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Remember the story of the lawyer in New York sent to jail for helping terrorists? Maybe this is a case of them trying to prevent another example of that?

Call me a radical, but I trust our government more than I do terrorists that want to kill us.
In jail he wants to talk to a lawyer.
But if he was out of jail he would be working on ways to kill the lawyer.

Oh i know, how about we just don't release them at all? Innocent or not, it's a matter of national security.

I hope you're the next one in line; people like your self shouldn't be allowed to call themselves american. You, sir, have absolutely no idea what this country stands for.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Why are all you guys bending over backwards to declare this guy innocent when we do not even know what he is charged with?

Do you hate the Bush admin so much that you assume that everyone the pick up must be innocent?

And Rain...
To address this line: "put aside your fear and engage you're damn brain"

I think a few members of P&N need to do that when it comes to the Bush admin. It is nothing but fear of everything that he does.

Who do you trust more? Bush or the terrorists?

Innocent until proven Guilty

Bush or the terrorists?

Funny. In the terrorist's case, the President hides them from the courts to ensure that potential abuse isn't uncovered. In their case, we consider them guitly until proven innocent.

In Bush's case, he hides from the courts to ensure that potential abuse isn't uncovered. In Bush's case, we consider him innocent until proven guilty.

What's even funnier, is that we refuse "terrorists" trials, yet we won't even subpoena Bush or any of his cronies to get testimony about potential abuses.

Double standards only allow our enemies to highlight our weaknesses and impartiality, thus creating more terrorists and people who distrust us. Of course, you are the type of person who would cut your nose off to spite your face, so this isn't all that surprising.

 

[VooDooAddict]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Why are all you guys bending over backwards to declare this guy innocent when we do not even know what he is charged with?

This is one of the issues at hand... he's been in lockdown for how long? and we still don't know the charges?

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Who do you trust more? Bush or the terrorists?

I don't trust either. We shouldn't need to simply "trust" when it comes to government. The facts should be clear and accessable.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Remember the story of the lawyer in New York sent to jail for helping terrorists? Maybe this is a case of them trying to prevent another example of that?

Call me a radical, but I trust our government more than I do terrorists that want to kill us.
In jail he wants to talk to a lawyer.
But if he was out of jail he would be working on ways to kill the lawyer.

Oh i know, how about we just don't release them at all? Innocent or not, it's a matter of national security.

I hope you're the next one in line; people like your self shouldn't be allowed to call themselves american. You, sir, have absolutely no idea what this country stands for.

"Give me liberty or give me...safety?"

Gee, maybe I wasn't paying enough attention in civics class in high school. Although maybe THAT'S the problem, I don't remember taking civics class in high school. In fact, I'm pretty sure they haven't taught that for years...just dry, dispassionate "government" classes. Maybe we need to get back to basics, I assume embracing the real and original meaning of freedom and democracy would appeal to the conservative types...

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Why are all you guys bending over backwards to declare this guy innocent when we do not even know what he is charged with?

Do you hate the Bush admin so much that you assume that everyone the pick up must be innocent?

And Rain...
To address this line: "put aside your fear and engage you're damn brain"

I think a few members of P&N need to do that when it comes to the Bush admin. It is nothing but fear of everything that he does.

Who do you trust more? Bush or the terrorists?

You may be the dumbest American citizen in existence after that statement. The entire legal system is based on the concept of innocent until proven guilty. PROVEN! The administration is desperately trying to take that away. We all rush to declare him innocent because he is! No court system has proven him guilty, therefore until that happens he's innocent. The administration won't even give him a trial, so until that happens we can't do anything but assume he's innocent because we're good Americans and good human beings. What has happened when there are people in this country who hate America and American ideals as much as you do?

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Why are all you guys bending over backwards to declare this guy innocent when we do not even know what he is charged with?

Do you hate the Bush admin so much that you assume that everyone the pick up must be innocent?

And Rain...
To address this line: "put aside your fear and engage you're damn brain"

I think a few members of P&N need to do that when it comes to the Bush admin. It is nothing but fear of everything that he does.

Who do you trust more? Bush or the terrorists?

Terrorists may be murderers but they're more trustworthy than Bush. Most of them are pretty honest about being terrorists, but Bush won't own up to it.

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Jeff7
That's a damn scary prospect, where you can be locked up, without even being told why, and subjected to "interrogation" to get information that you don't know. Then they let you go, and you want some kind of redress, but you're not allowed to do that.

This guy is still in jail. The OP is wrong. Read the article.

President Bush acknowledged the existence of the CIA system in September and transferred Khan and 13 other prisoners designated as "terrorist leaders" to the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Under our new law this guy will be tried for his crimes, but not in a civilian court. Therefore, he will not have a civilian attorney. The only reason to talk to one would be to push these claims of torture.

This is a tough one. If he was really 'tortured' then we should know about it, but after what the attorney did in New York via sending out messages for her client I do not trust sending in a civilian lawyer. Who knows what might come out that we don't want or need out there.

BTW: Water boarding, cold rooms and loud music aren't tortue in my book... I wana see broken arms or missing fingers

I read the article. It said "ex-CIA prisoner". "Ex" means "not anymore". This would indicate that he has been released, and I haven't found a statement to the contrary.

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: Zebo
I would'nt believe any of these guys until I see it as the Al Qaeta terror handbook tell them all to claim torture inside infidel prisons.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050531-121655-7932r.htm


Jihad 101, educate yourself

Lesson Eighteen
PRISONS AND DETENTION CENTERS

IF AN INDICTMENT IS ISSUED AND THE TRIAL, BEGINS, THE BROTHER HAS TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING:

1 . At the beginning of the trial, once more the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by State Security [investigators ]before the judge.

2. Complain [to the court] of mistreatment while in prison.

3. Make arrangements for the brother ?s defense with the attorney, whether he was retained by the brother ?s family or court-appointed.

4. The brother has to do his best to know the names of the state security officers, who participated in his torture and mention their names to the judge.[These names may be obtained from brothers who had to deal with those officers in previous cases.]

5. Some brothers may tell and may be lured by the state security investigators to testify against the brothers [i.e. affirmation witness ], either by not keeping them together in the same prison during the trials, or by letting them talk to the media. In this case, they have to be treated gently, and should be offered good advice, good treatment, and pray that God may guide them.

Except the "jihadi" in question hasn't said ANYTHING yet, and we RELEASED him because he wasn't a terrorist.

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Who do you trust more? Bush or the terrorists?

Bush IS a terrorist. I'd probably trust the other terrorists more, assuming any of them are real.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Who do you trust more? Bush or the terrorists?

My honest answer is the terrorists, hands down. They've been open and honest about their intentions from the beginning. Bushco can't claim that. Not saying I like them more, just that I'd trust their intentions more.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Jeff7
That's a damn scary prospect, where you can be locked up, without even being told why, and subjected to "interrogation" to get information that you don't know. Then they let you go, and you want some kind of redress, but you're not allowed to do that.

This guy is still in jail. The OP is wrong. Read the article.

President Bush acknowledged the existence of the CIA system in September and transferred Khan and 13 other prisoners designated as "terrorist leaders" to the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Under our new law this guy will be tried for his crimes, but not in a civilian court. Therefore, he will not have a civilian attorney. The only reason to talk to one would be to push these claims of torture.

This is a tough one. If he was really 'tortured' then we should know about it, but after what the attorney did in New York via sending out messages for her client I do not trust sending in a civilian lawyer. Who knows what might come out that we don't want or need out there.

BTW: Water boarding, cold rooms and loud music aren't tortue in my book... I wana see broken arms or missing fingers

I read the article. It said "ex-CIA prisoner". "Ex" means "not anymore". This would indicate that he has been released, and I haven't found a statement to the contrary.

Are you that stupid? Does the line transferred Khan and 13 other prisoners designated as "terrorist leaders" to the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. mean anything to you?

How about this ? Link "President Bush acknowledged the existence of the CIA system in September and transferred Khan and 13 other prisoners designated as "terrorist leaders" to the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Under a law passed last month, they are to be tried before special military commissions and may not have access to civilian courts."

How about this? "The legal battle centres on Majid Khan, a 26-year-old former Catonsville, Maryland, resident who was one of 14 high-value detainees transferred in September from the ?black? sites to Guantanamo. Legal efforts to gain access to him continue. He is one of 14 detainees to whom access by defence lawyers is being denied. " Link

Do we need to fly you to Gitmo so you can see him yourself?

 

[ProfJohn]

This is the closest I could find to what Khan is accused of doing. link

U.S. officials say Khan, a Pakistani national who lived in the United States for seven years, took orders from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the man accused of orchestrating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Mohammed allegedly asked Khan to research poisoning U.S. reservoirs and considered him for an operation to assassinate the Pakistani president.

So the guy hung out with the mastermind of 9-11 and may have been working on ways to poison our water supply.

How many of actually think it is a bad idea for him to be in jail?

 

[jimkyser]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This is the closest I could find to what Khan is accused of doing. link

U.S. officials say Khan, a Pakistani national who lived in the United States for seven years, took orders from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the man accused of orchestrating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Mohammed allegedly asked Khan to research poisoning U.S. reservoirs and considered him for an operation to assassinate the Pakistani president.

So the guy hung out with the mastermind of 9-11 and may have been working on ways to poison our water supply.

How many of actually think it is a bad idea for him to be in jail?

I've got no problem with him being in jail, but that quote says allegedly. So there is either proof he did these things or there isn't. If there is proof he needs to be convicted in a court of law with open evidence standards and punished. Otherwise, he should be released. And if the only evidence against him was gleaned using torture, it shouldn't be admissible. That's part of the challenge of law enforcement, you actually have to work to find proof. You can't beat it out of people.