Darth to Bambi: Put up, or Shut up.

rimrocker · Apr 24, 2009

basso said:

let's go back to the future.

[rquoter]President Palin's Quandary: To Prosecute Or Not
by MATT LEWIS
April 23, 2013

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS TO FACE PROSECUTION

WASHINGTON – The Justice Department announced today that charges could be filed against numerous Obama Administration officials as a result of last year's terror attack in Los Angeles. In announcing the indictments, Attorney General John Cornyn said that top officials showed "gross and purposeful negligence" by releasing perpetrators of the attacks from the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and demanding that interrogation tactics be softened against chief planner Mehmet al-Meshugeneh, who had already revealed that a major attack was being planned against a major U.S. sporting event.

"By purposefully disregarding crucial intelligence, and in releasing known participants in the plot into Saudi custody, numerous government officials took action which made the Staples Center bombing possible," Cornyn said. He went on to note that, "numerous individuals in the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security knowingly pursued policies which would endanger the lives of Americans. They placed their political priorities above the safety of the citizens of this country, and thousands of innocent people died as a result. These people must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

At the White House, Press Secretary Adam Brickley said that President Sarah Palin stands firmly behind the decision. "It's not as if we relish the thought of prosecuting members of the previous administration," Brickley said, "but, at this point, there is a clearly established precedent – set in place by the Obama Administration themselves – which says that government officials must be held accountable if they contributed in any way to major breaches of the law. In this case, the individuals under investigation do appear to have purposefully allowed these terrorists to continue their actions – prioritizing international public opinion over the lives of the American people. So, while this may be a politically charged issue, there is a real need to prosecute."

Ironically, it appears that the highest ranking official who could face prosecution is former Attorney General Eric Holder, who personally dropped the state's case against Mr. al-Meshugeneh after declaring his capture in Afghanistan illegal. Al-Meshugeneh later admitted that, at the time of his release, he had already told the government of his role in planning the attack which killed almost 10,000 people, including the entire Los Angeles Lakers and Dallas Mavericks basketball squads. Holder was also the primary force in prosecuting Bush Administration officials who issued legal opinions supporting waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics. As such, it appears that he actually set the precedent under which he may now be prosecuted himself.

Public opinion polls show 62 percent of Americans support prosecution of at least some Obama Administration officials.
[/rquoter]
Click to expand...

Wow. That is off the wall even for you. It's been clear for awhile that you are living in some kind of wingnut fantasy land and now you give us unassailable proof.

Rashmon · Apr 24, 2009

poor basso...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QIc8tYOofJ8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QIc8tYOofJ8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

pgabriel · Apr 24, 2009

he can't respond to the franchiseblade's post about the us prosecuting for Waterboarding, so he posts this as his trump card.

mc mark · Apr 24, 2009

fantasizing about the obliteration of LA?

that's pretty sick

pgabriel · Apr 24, 2009

so I guess by this guy's logic, we can prosecute bush for moseying on down to the ranch when he warned of a possible attack

rimrocker · Apr 24, 2009

By the way, the Matt Lewis who wrote basso's futuristic p*rn is the same one who said Obama was out of the country when he was in Hawaii. As I said in another post, they've gone from being clever to just being stupid.

Major · Apr 24, 2009

basso said:

let's go back to the future.

[rquoter]President Palin's
Click to expand...

Err, the whole "visualizing the future" attempt failed after the first two words...

FranchiseBlade · Apr 24, 2009

basso said:

let's go back to the future.
Click to expand...

This is your "honest debate" about whether the practices approved by the Bush administration qualify as torture?

You ask for an honest debate, and this is what you respond with?

vlaurelio · Apr 24, 2009

I bet the author's a jazz fan

FranchiseBlade · Jun 5, 2009

This might have deserved its own thread, but I figured I'd give it a shot here.

This is hilarious. Liz Cheney totally gets busted for lying(or not knowing what the hell she's talking about.) Then she contradicts herself.

<div><iframe height="339" width="425" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/31113837#31113837" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 425px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">Breaking News</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">World News</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">News about the Economy</a></p></div>
For those that can't watch videos here is something that basically points out the same things.

Liz Cheney continues to be the gift that keeps on giving. Today's installment is downright Orwellian, In an interview with NBC News' Andrea Mitchell, Cheney insisted that her father had always disavowed the notion that there was a link between Iraq and al Qaeda and September 11th, while simultaneously suggesting that such a link was true. Then she sort of got snippy with Mitchell for the way she kept intimating that maybe this was all a little nonsensical.

The segment began generically enough, with Liz Cheney saying that she was, is, and continues to be troubled by the way the current administration keeps characterizing torture and rendition and the maintenance of Kafka-esque penal colonies as a bad thing. Where things really got testy -- downright mindbending -- was this exchange over Vice President Dick Cheney's appearance at the National Press Club, at which time, as Mitchell pointed out, he "seemed to be taking a step back" from contentions he had previously made about the connections between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.
MITCHELL: Has he rethought that? Was he rephrasing it?

LIZ CHENEY: No, this is something he has actually said for many years. There was a report in the aftermath of 9/11 that came from the CIA that Mohammad Atta had met in Prague --

MITCHELL: It was quickly discredited!

LIZ CHENEY: Well, let me finish. So, there was a report, and when the report was outstanding, you had a number of people in the administration publicly talking about the fact that there could have been a connection in terms of the Mohammad Atta meeting. Once it became clear that the report didn't hold up, he and others in the administration were out publicly saying that and there's been a real attempt in my view to blur the distinction. He has not said that there is a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

She's correct that there's been a real effort to blur the distinction! But it's her father and the administration he participated in said effort. If you are looking for evidence of this, well, heck! Let's take a look at the 2002 Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. In plain English, it says:

Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Additional false foundation comes later in the Authorization:

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations

That's the core foundational document of the Iraq War and in it, clearly, the administration is arguing vehemently that there was a link between Iraq and both the September 11th attack and al Qaeda.

This warped recall of historical fact continues:

LIZ CHENEY: The issue is whether there's a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, which as he mentioned in that speech, George Tenet himself testified to, there's much evidence between the connection of Saddam and al Qaeda and Saddam and other terrorist organizations.

MITCHELL: Well, al Qaeda in Iraq, which was an offshoot, but didn't exist before the start of the war.

LIZ CHENEY: That's actually not true.

No, Liz, it actually is true, the testimony of "George Tenet himself" (I gather the "himself" is added to imply we should revere this historic bungler) notwithstanding.

In July of 2004, the 9-11 Commission found that there was no "collaborative operational relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda:

"We have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."
At around the same time, the Senate Intelligence Committee agreed with these findings:

The Senate Intelligence Committee's report said CIA analysts were reasonable in their conclusion that there was no "established, formal" relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, nor proof that the two had collaborated in attacks. The committee noted that no new information had emerged since the CIA's key reports to suggest otherwise.
And if you are interested, at their worst, the al Qaeda franchise known as "al Qaeda in Iraq," who filled the post-Saddam vacuum, never amounted to very much:

How big, then, is AQI? The most persuasive estimate I've heard comes from Malcolm Nance, the author of The Terrorists of Iraq and a twenty-year intelligence veteran and Arabic speaker who has worked with military and intelligence units tracking al-Qaeda inside Iraq. He believes AQI includes about 850 full-time fighters, comprising 2 percent to 5 percent of the Sunni insurgency. "Al-Qaeda in Iraq," according to Nance, "is a microscopic terrorist organization."
Liz Cheney went on to disingenuously assert that the presence of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq, prior to the war, was evidence of an Iraq/al Qaeda link. Once again, Liz Cheney is wrong. Zarqawi operated in an area of Iraq that was outside of Saddam's control, and independently of al Qaeda:

From the AP: January 24, 2004:

Zarqawi was widely regarded to be the "leader" of Ansar al-Islam prior to the war against Iraq. However, according to the AP, "Ansar al-Islam operated in a region of northern Iraq that was outside of Saddam's control before the war. It was bombed by U.S. warplanes during the fighting."
From the Washington Post, June 16, 2004:

In a statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee in March 2004, "CIA Director George J. Tenet described Zarqawi's network among other groups having 'links' to al Qaeda but with its own 'autonomous leadership, own targets [and] they plan their own attacks.' Although Zarqawi may have cooperated with al Qaeda in the past, U.S. officials say it is increasingly clear he had been operating independently of Osama bin Laden's organization."
It honestly baffles the mind that one has to keep going over these facts, again and again.
Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/liz-cheney-restates-iraq_n_211477.html

JujuxG · Jun 5, 2009

i like president Obama approach, but i kinda torn between, do we use torture as a method to gain information about terrorists plot or that torturing someone is never justified, any body can give me some opinion .

FranchiseBlade · Jun 5, 2009

JujuxG said:

i like president Obama approach, but i kinda torn between, do we use torture as a method to gain information about terrorists plot or that torturing someone is never justified, any body can give me some opinion .
Click to expand...

There is plenty of information in this thread and others. You can start with the testimony of one of the top interrogators in the business. This is the guy that was first called in to interrogate Abu Zubaydah.

· A former senior FBI agent involved in the interrogation of captured al-Qaida operative Abu Zubaydah told a Senate panel Wednesday that the use of harsh techniques to extract information was "slow, ineffective and unreliable."
Click to expand...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104092457

Read that articles as well the other threads and posts.

For the record you should have read through this whole thread before posting your question.

Forums

Darth to Bambi: Put up, or Shut up.

rimrocker Member

Rashmon Member

pgabriel Educated Negro

mc mark Member

pgabriel Educated Negro

rimrocker Member

Major Member

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member

vlaurelio Member

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member

JujuxG Member

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

Darth to Bambi: Put up, or Shut up.

rimrocker Member

Rashmon Member

pgabriel Educated Negro

mc mark Member

pgabriel Educated Negro

rimrocker Member

Major Member

FranchiseBlade Member Supporting Member

vlaurelio Member

FranchiseBlade Member Supporting Member

JujuxG Member

FranchiseBlade Member Supporting Member

Share This Page

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member

FranchiseBlade Member
Supporting Member