Charges dropped vs. suspect in 2000 USS Cole blast

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
billious bullshit snipped

Lions, and tigers, and bears, oh MY!

I'm going to repeat this one more time for you since you can't seem to answer a relatively simple question and instead have to dwell on smelly red herrings of an argument:

I already stated previously that if you can prove there was coercion in the guy's confession and show that it was extracted via torture, please do. Otherwise it's just a pathetic excuse for the usual dolts in here to go stand on their torture soapbox and stroke themselves over their superior moral code.

Answer the question instead of trying to tapdance on the head of that pin, Moonie.

You contributed to the fact that this thread is about torture when you replied to Vic who mentioned it in response to previous mentions. I didn't mention it till you did. So when the great TLC responds to the theme of torture you can just bet torture is in the topic mix.

And speaking of Red Herrings, what the hell about you? What kind of a bozo, in the 2008 announces on a nerd forum there's no such thing as witches. Are you trying to kill Vic with the shock?

As to your question, the answer had no bearing on the rest of your nonsense. I agree that the thread did not have to be about torture, but it included that real quick. As to whether there was torture in the dropped case, I have no idea.

And I also didn't tout my superior moral position, please note; its superiority is not in question.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
billious bullshit snipped

Lions, and tigers, and bears, oh MY!

I'm going to repeat this one more time for you since you can't seem to answer a relatively simple question and instead have to dwell on smelly red herrings of an argument:

I already stated previously that if you can prove there was coercion in the guy's confession and show that it was extracted via torture, please do. Otherwise it's just a pathetic excuse for the usual dolts in here to go stand on their torture soapbox and stroke themselves over their superior moral code.

Answer the question instead of trying to tapdance on the head of that pin, Moonie.

Come on Moonie, you gonna let him dis you like that?:evil:

Hehe, sorry, I was making chow mein and bacon and eggs but being dissed by TLC is sort of a complement.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
What you, and a couple of others, don't seem to get is that torture has absolutely no relevance to this discussion unless it can be proven al-Nashiri was tortured to elicit his confession.

Can you prove that? If not, then torture has no bearing on this particular topic in the first place.

The CIA admits he was tortured:

Last year, al-Nashiri said during a Guantanamo hearing that he confessed to helping plot the Cole bombing only because he was tortured by U.S. interrogators. The CIA has admitted he was among terrorist suspects subjected to waterboarding, which simulates drowning, in 2002 and 2003 while being interrogated in secret CIA prisons.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29042139/

Granted, I can't prove his confession was extracted under torture, but I also have yet to see a more reasonable explanation for why the charges against him were dismissed.

Thank you for providing an honest answer.

As far as why the charges were dropped, that was already discussed previously and was pretty clearly spelled out in the OP's link:

The legal move by Susan J. Crawford, the top legal authority for military trials at Guantanamo, brings all cases into compliance with President Barack Obama's executive order to halt terrorist court proceedings at the U.S. Navy base in Cuba.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Crawford dismissed the charges against al-Nashiri without prejudice. That means new charges can be brought again later. He will remain in prison for the time being.

"It was her decision, but it reflects the fact that the president has issued an executive order which mandates that the military commissions be halted, pending the outcome of several reviews of our operations down at Guantanamo," Morrell said Thursday night.

The ruling also gives the White House time to review the legal cases of all 245 terror suspects held there and decide whether they should be prosecuted in the U.S. or released to other nations.

 

[kylebisme]

I did read the article, but it doesn't specify why the charges against al-Nashiri in particular were dismissed, while the mention of torture later in the article implies such reasoning.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
I did read the article, but it doesn't specify why the charges against al-Nashiri in particular were dismissed, while the mention of torture later in the article implies such reasoning.

There was no specific reason given for dropping the charges. They were simply dismissed "without prejudice".

Putting two and two together:

1 Obama's executive order

2 al-Nashiri remains in prison

3 Charges can be brought at a later date

4 Give Obama's guys time for legal review

It's not a stretch to understand that the White House is basically clearing out the Bush detritus and wiping the slate clean to start anew. Without prejudice does not mean or even imply that al-Nashiri has been judged to be innocent, or guilty for that matter. It's a convenient legal limbo for now. Besides, the last thing Obama wants to do is release someone like al-Nashiri and possibly have him come back to haunt us in the future with another attack. The conservatives would go nuts if that happened.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
I did read the article, but it doesn't specify why the charges against al-Nashiri in particular were dismissed, while the mention of torture later in the article implies such reasoning.

There was no specific reason given for dropping the charges. They were simply dismissed "without prejudice".

Putting two and two together:

1 Obama's executive order

2 al-Nashiri remains in prison

3 Charges can be brought at a later date

4 Give Obama's guys time for legal review

It's not a stretch to understand that the White House is basically clearing out the Bush detritus and wiping the slate clean to start anew. Without prejudice does not mean or even imply that al-Nashiri has been judged to be innocent, or guilty for that matter. It's a convenient legal limbo for now. Besides, the last thing Obama wants to do is release someone like al-Nashiri and possibly have him come back to haunt us in the future with another attack. The conservatives would go nuts if that happened.

I agree.

Justice delayed is indeed justice denied, but for the term of delay. Justice delivered unjustly is unjustice and is difficult to rectify. Let us aspire to the highest justice we can and delay where questions are strong.