Charges dropped vs. suspect in 2000 USS Cole blast

[RichardE]

Well, thanks to the big push to keep those poor people from having water poured on them this guy got his charges dismissed even after admitting to the bombing.

Text

The Pentagon says the senior military judge overseeing terror trials at Guantanamo Bay has dropped charges against a suspect in the 2000 USS Cole bombing.



The military charges against suspected al-Qaida bomber Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri marked the last active war crimes case at Guantanamo Bay.

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.

Obama was expected to meet with families of Cole and 9/11 victims at the White House on Friday afternoon to announce the move.

Seventeen U.S. sailors died on Oct. 12, 2000, when al-Qaida suicide bombers steered an explosives-laden boat into the Cole, a guided-missile destroyer, as it sat in a Yemen port.

The Pentagon last summer charged al-Nashiri, a Saudi Arabian, with "organizing and directing" the bombing and planned to seek the death penalty in the case.

In his Jan. 22 order, Obama promised to shut down the Guantanamo prison within a year. The order also froze all Guantanamo detainee legal cases pending a three-month review as the Obama administration decides where _ or whether _ to prosecute the suspects who have been held there for years, most without charges.

Two military judges granted Obama's request for a delay in other cases.

But a third military judge, Army Col. James Pohl, defied Obama's order by scheduling a Feb. 9 arraignment for al-Nashiri at Guantanamo. That left the decision on whether to continue to Crawford, whose delay on announcing what she would do prompted widespread concern at the Pentagon that she would refuse to follow orders and allow the court process to continue.

Retired Navy Cmdr. Kirk S. Lippold, the commanding officer of the Cole when it was bombed in Yemen in October 2000, said he will be among family members of Cole and 9/11 victims who are meeting with Obama at the White House on Friday afternoon.

Groups representing victims' families were angered by Obama's order, charging they had waited too long already to see the alleged attackers brought to court.

"I was certainly disappointed with the decision to delay the military commissions process," Lippold, now a defense adviser to Military Families United, said in an interview Thursday night. "We have already waited eight years. Justice delayed is justice denied. We must allow the military commission process to go forward."

Crawford was appointed to her post in 2007 by then-President George W. Bush. She was in the news last month when she said interrogation methods used on one suspect at Guantanamo amounted to torture. The Bush administration had maintained it did not torture.


Last year, al-Nashiri said during a Guantanamo hearing that he confessed to helping plot the Cole bombing.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Lemme strap you upside down to a board and pour water down your throat for days so you feel like you're dying and I bet you you'll confess to plotting the Cole bombing too.

 

[Brainonska511]

It looks like the charges were dropped for now just to give Obama's administration time to look over the cases and decide whether to proceed or not; The guy is still going to sit in jail and they can bring the charges back if they have the evidence.

And I don't care what you say, torture is wrong and the ends do not justify the means. If we're going to be a country of laws, we're going to follow them when we detain people or you're going to see a trail of broken laws that leads straight to hell.

 

[Farang]

This guy did not get to walk away. You read nothing but the headline. Next time please read the article before posting to you can provide some more valuable commentary.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Farang
This guy did not get to walk away. You read nothing but the headline. Next time please read the article before posting to you can provide some more valuable commentary.

I did read the article. Unless you are agreeing that they should continue detaining him even after dropping the charges. So much for the rights you guys like to sprout huh :roll:

They were rushed into dropping charges by a distorted public opinion.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Farang
This guy did not get to walk away. You read nothing but the headline. Next time please read the article before posting to you can provide some more valuable commentary.

I did read the article. Unless you are agreeing that they should continue detaining him even after dropping the charges. So much for the rights you guys like to sprout huh :roll:

They were rushed into dropping charges by a distorted public opinion.

You are one of two things: a fucking moron, or fucking stubborn. Pick.

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 has nothing to do with me agreeing or disagreeing. It has to do with all charges are being dropped at this time while a new policy is formulated. This man does not "walk." It was stated clearly in the article and you acted as if it wasn't, leading me to correctly assume you did not read the article.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Farang
This guy did not get to walk away. You read nothing but the headline. Next time please read the article before posting to you can provide some more valuable commentary.

I did read the article. Unless you are agreeing that they should continue detaining him even after dropping the charges. So much for the rights you guys like to sprout huh :roll:

They were rushed into dropping charges by a distorted public opinion.

You are one of two things: a fucking moron, or fucking stubborn. Pick.

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 has nothing to do with me agreeing or disagreeing. It has to do with all charges are being dropped at this time while a new policy is formulated. This man does not "walk." It was stated clearly in the article and you acted as if it wasn't, leading me to correctly assume you did not read the article.

I actually did, but I didn't see that line. Interesting, I guess we will see what they charge him with in the future if they don't have anything to charge him with now and if Obama has to personally tell the family members about this.

Edit: Changed the commentary.

 

[2Xtreme21]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Farang
This guy did not get to walk away. You read nothing but the headline. Next time please read the article before posting to you can provide some more valuable commentary.

I did read the article. Unless you are agreeing that they should continue detaining him even after dropping the charges. So much for the rights you guys like to sprout huh :roll:

They were rushed into dropping charges by a distorted public opinion.

You are one of two things: a fucking moron, or fucking stubborn. Pick.

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 has nothing to do with me agreeing or disagreeing. It has to do with all charges are being dropped at this time while a new policy is formulated. This man does not "walk." It was stated clearly in the article and you acted as if it wasn't, leading me to correctly assume you did not read the article.

I actually did, but I didn't see that line. Interesting, I guess we will see what they charge him with in the future if they don't have anything to charge him with now and if Obama has to personally tell the family members about this.

Edit: Changed the commentary.

I'm sure he won't leave out the detail that you did.

Can you just admit you're a partisan hack yet?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Farang
This guy did not get to walk away. You read nothing but the headline. Next time please read the article before posting to you can provide some more valuable commentary.

I did read the article. Unless you are agreeing that they should continue detaining him even after dropping the charges. So much for the rights you guys like to sprout huh :roll:

They were rushed into dropping charges by a distorted public opinion.

You are one of two things: a fucking moron, or fucking stubborn. Pick.

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 has nothing to do with me agreeing or disagreeing. It has to do with all charges are being dropped at this time while a new policy is formulated. This man does not "walk." It was stated clearly in the article and you acted as if it wasn't, leading me to correctly assume you did not read the article.

I actually did, but I didn't see that line. Interesting, I guess we will see what they charge him with in the future if they don't have anything to charge him with now and if Obama has to personally tell the family members about this.

Edit: Changed the commentary.

I'm sure he won't leave out the detail that you did.

Can you just admit you're a partisan hack yet?

Oh, funny, I was called a Democratic partisan hack last week, which side are you labeling me on? It's pathetic you look at everything solely on a left and right basis. You don't think for yourself you absorb your beliefs like plankton absorb there nutrients.

 

[GoPackGo]

Oh and I guess its no longer the "war on terrorism"

 

[Vic]

I hear torture worked well at the Salem witch trials too. :roll:

 

[palehorse]

"dismissed... without prejudice"

wake up Richard...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Vic
I hear torture worked well at the Salem witch trials too. :roll:

Because, like witches, terrorists don't really exist?

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: palehorse
"dismissed... without prejudice"

wake up Richard...

Yeah, I already admitted I missed that 😉

The point is this guy *admitted* to it, and they still have no done anything in regards to it and now the charges were dismissed. (Even though he can be recharged, there is no guarantee)

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: palehorse
"dismissed... without prejudice"

wake up Richard...

Yeah, I already admitted I missed that 😉

The point is this guy *admitted* to it, and they still have no done anything in regards to it and now the charges were dismissed. (Even though he can be recharged, there is no guarantee)

It's nothing more than a legal maneuver. It clears the docket so the Obama admin can deal with these guys anew, and have the time to do so. This guy will be recharged and put on trial. I'd bet on it.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: palehorse
"dismissed... without prejudice"

wake up Richard...

Yeah, I already admitted I missed that 😉

The point is this guy *admitted* to it, and they still have no done anything in regards to it and now the charges were dismissed. (Even though he can be recharged, there is no guarantee)

It's nothing more than a legal maneuver. It clears the docket so the Obama admin can deal with these guys anew, and have the time to do so. This guy will be recharged and put on trial. I'd bet on it.

Hopefully you are right :beer:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Oh and I guess its no longer the "war on terrorism"

It never was.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Vic
I hear torture worked well at the Salem witch trials too. :roll:

Because, like witches, terrorists don't really exist?

No, but like at Salem people are being tried on unreliable information.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Vic
I hear torture worked well at the Salem witch trials too. :roll:

Because, like witches, terrorists don't really exist?

No, but like at Salem people are being tried on unreliable information.

If we were pulling there fingernails off and boiling them them alive until they confess..sure. Most torture studies are based on the issue of pain and information, give information to make the pain stop. Water boarding did not cause pain, it caused panic. You can't compare information given under panic to information given when your bones are sticking out of your skin. :roll:

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Vic
I hear torture worked well at the Salem witch trials too. :roll:

Because, like witches, terrorists don't really exist?

No, but like at Salem people are being tried on unreliable information.

If we were pulling there fingernails off and boiling them them alive until they confess..sure. Most torture studies are based on the issue of pain and information, give information to make the pain stop. Water boarding did not cause pain, it caused panic. You can't compare information given under panic to information given when your bones are sticking out of your skin. :roll:

So psychological torture is okay but physical torture isn't? I take your :roll: and raise you :roll::roll:

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Vic
I hear torture worked well at the Salem witch trials too. :roll:

Because, like witches, terrorists don't really exist?

No, but like at Salem people are being tried on unreliable information.

If we were pulling there fingernails off and boiling them them alive until they confess..sure. Most torture studies are based on the issue of pain and information, give information to make the pain stop. Water boarding did not cause pain, it caused panic. You can't compare information given under panic to information given when your bones are sticking out of your skin. :roll:

So psychological torture is okay but physical torture isn't? I take your :roll: and raise you :roll::roll:

Yes

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Vic
I hear torture worked well at the Salem witch trials too. :roll:

Because, like witches, terrorists don't really exist?

No, but like at Salem people are being tried on unreliable information.

If we were pulling there fingernails off and boiling them them alive until they confess..sure. Most torture studies are based on the issue of pain and information, give information to make the pain stop. Water boarding did not cause pain, it caused panic. You can't compare information given under panic to information given when your bones are sticking out of your skin. :roll:

So psychological torture is okay but physical torture isn't? I take your :roll: and raise you :roll::roll:

Yes

I am aware of absolutely no credible source on torture that states a qualitative difference between information obtained under panic conditions as opposed to information obtained under pain conditions. If you're going to make such an outlandish claim, you're going to have to support it with something.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Vic
I hear torture worked well at the Salem witch trials too. :roll:

Because, like witches, terrorists don't really exist?

No, but like at Salem people are being tried on unreliable information.

The guy admitted his involvement. If you can prove coercion in that admission, please do. Other than that, I hope you realize that the comparison between witches and terrorists is patently ridiculous one the very face of it.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Vic
I hear torture worked well at the Salem witch trials too. :roll:

Because, like witches, terrorists don't really exist?

No, but like at Salem people are being tried on unreliable information.

The guy admitted his involvement. If you can prove coercion in that admission, please do. Other than that, I hope you realize that the comparison between witches and terrorists is patently ridiculous one the very face of it.

But no comparison between witches and terrorists was made? The Salem witch trials are infamous not due to the fact that they were about witches, but due to the fact that people were executed based on (obviously) crap evidence. Vic's statement was about the relationship between the type of 'justice' meted out there and the type of 'justice' we are affording people now, not the subject of the trials.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Vic
I hear torture worked well at the Salem witch trials too. :roll:

Because, like witches, terrorists don't really exist?

No, but like at Salem people are being tried on unreliable information.

If we were pulling there fingernails off and boiling them them alive until they confess..sure. Most torture studies are based on the issue of pain and information, give information to make the pain stop. Water boarding did not cause pain, it caused panic. You can't compare information given under panic to information given when your bones are sticking out of your skin. :roll:

So psychological torture is okay but physical torture isn't? I take your :roll: and raise you :roll::roll:

Yes

I am aware of absolutely no credible source on torture that states a qualitative difference between information obtained under panic conditions as opposed to information obtained under pain conditions. If you're going to make such an outlandish claim, you're going to have to support it with something.

As with he torture is wrong view, the only real sources are witness accounts, hersay and game theory studies all of which are readily available if you wish to look. The problem of course is that a "study" on torture requires a individual to be present during the torture who already knows the information this individual needs to say without the individual knowing the information is already available. The major problem with that, is it would be unethical to torture that individual since we already know the information. So it comes down to a chose your war vet for your side. You have people such as Air Force Col. John Rothrock who psychologically tortured people in Vietnam with success, or Army Col. Stuart Herrington who said that torture is ineffective while in Iraq.

Not to mention, most studies done on the aftermath of torture were done in relation to physical torture, during the early century, in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the French Algerian war, ect. Though it seems when you do find cases of "panic" torture, or torture that is not physically harming and causing trauma to the persons, most people agree that they received information that worked. Since psychological torture is something that is relatively new as a active agenda and not just an on the spot administration as Col. John Rothrock used it I would also love to see studies comparing the two. I am sure you can understand how that is not feasible from any moral perspective.

I would ask though, would you consider wrapping an Arab in an Israel flag torture?