Judge dismisses charges against detainee

[JMJ]

"The judge, Army Col. Peter Brownback, said he had no choice but to throw the Khadr case out because he had been classified as an "enemy combatant" by a military panel years earlier — and not as an "alien unlawful enemy combatant."

The Military Commissions Act, signed by Bush last year, specifically says that only those classified as "unlawful" enemy combatants can face war trials here, Brownback noted during the arraignment in a hilltop courtroom on this U.S. military base.

Sullivan said the dismissal of Khadr case has "huge" impact because none of the detainees held at this isolated military base in southeast Cuba has been found to be an "unlawful" enemy combatant.

"It is not just a technicality — it's the latest demonstration that this newest system just does not work," Sullivan told journalists. "It is a system of justice that does not comport with American values.""


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070604/...ntanamo_trials

[sdsinc]

I suppose that for the bush administration the thousands of Blackwater contractors operating in Iraq do not qualify as unlawful enemy combatants...

[Duckinla]

So, what's the reaction? Are you guys happy about this? Figure that if they were put there by the Bush administration, they must in some way be your ally?
Was thinking about a similar subject the other day. Funny how it works out that when America, our Allies, and Iraq are losing, that means that Al Qeida, Iran and the Democrats are winning. Funny or sick, not sure which. Depends who's family member bites it in the next terrorist attack, I guess.

[Banned: AlienGG]

Bush has done it again!

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by Duckinla

So, what's the reaction? Are you guys happy about this? Figure that if they were put there by the Bush administration, they must in some way be your ally?
Was thinking about a similar subject the other day. Funny how it works out that when America, our Allies, and Iraq are losing, that means that Al Qeida, Iran and the Democrats are winning. Funny or sick, not sure which. Depends who's family member bites it in the next terrorist attack, I guess.

Yes I'm very happy JUSTICE prevailed. Just because someone doesn't believe in what you believe in Duck, whatever that is, it doesn't make them "one of them." If it does I can tell you that you are in the minority. And if it came down to an "Us and them" battle I don't think I would want to be in the minority. If you are you end up dead or in a detainee camp on some island. Do you see how YOU and THEY resemble each other more? They believe we should live our lives their way. You believe we should live our lives your way. I believe you both should mind your own damn business. 9-11 didn't happen because we were doing the right thing all along. It happened because of our two-faced political system.

[Duckinla]

Yes I'm very happy JUSTICE prevailed. Just because someone doesn't believe in what you believe in Duck, whatever that is, it doesn't make them "one of them."

So let me get this straight. Osama Bin Laden runs a world-wide terror organization that takes credit for killing 2500 people on September 11. His assistant is captured, but charges have to be dismssed because a word is missing from his official classification. And you are "happy JUSTICE prevailed".

Yes, that does pretty much make you one of them. It's not just that you and I don't believe in the same thing. You and I are pretty much on opposite teams. You are apparently on the team of OBL and his assistant. I am on the team of the people who were killed by them.

[JMJ]

Where does it say that the 14 year old boy was his assistant?

[Raider]

Originally Posted by JMJ

9-11 didn't happen because we were doing the right thing all along. It happened because of our two-faced political system.

No, it happened because we had a "DO NOTHING" President for 8 years.

When anything news breaking goes the Presidents way, Dems and Liberals HATE to acknowledge it, or wont acknowledge it because it bolsters the Presidents policy. But when something goes against Bush like this story appears too, threads like these pop up with all the Anti-Bushies jumping on board.

Just look at what the LIBERAL New York times did in last Sunday's paper, The terror plot to blow up fuel tanks and a pipeline feeding New York’s JFK airport got buried on PAGE 30!, but if it were news about Libby or a US soldier crapping on an Iraqi, you can count on it making the front page.

[JMJ]

Your example is a great example of how more terrorists are being created. One of them "a former Guyanese Parliament member."

[Duckinla]

From the article:

Hamdan is accused of chauffeuring bin Laden and being the al-Qaida chief's bodyguard.

You've made your position clear: We brought the 9-11 attacks on ourselves. Like I said, we're on different teams. You side with the attackers, I side with the victims.

[JMJ]

You can make me out to be whatever you wish. Anyone who doesn't side with Bush is a terrorist. It doesn't surprise me and I could care less what you think about me. They didn't just wake up one day and say "Let fly some planes into the WTC." There were years of compounding reasons behind theirs reasons. The one that stands out in my mind the most was from when we we're "assisting Bin laden" and then we turned our backs on him. Hence two-faced. Whats even funnier is the Bin Laden family assisted George Bush and Dick Cheney financially for years. Who know's maybe Bin laden knows more about little Georgie than we do? Or mabey he knows more about what went on in that country than little georgie and you. Speaking of Bin Laden. He's still not anywhere to be found.. Maybe he's hanging out at George's Camp Hideaway. That would be the last place anyone would look.

I found a little article on some correspondent asking high level government officials what the difference between a shiite and a sunni was. He asked key officials who made key decisions such as the counter terrorism director, CIA director, etc. None of these people could tell him the difference. Out of all of the people he asked only 1 asked him to explain it to them. You see the people making the decisions to pull the trigger so to speak for you and I have no idea what the whole story is.

[Duckinla]

You don't have to side with Bush to want the battle against Al Qeida. But when you hate Bush so much that you actually side with those who wish to destroy us, that's an unreasonable position to take.

If 9-11 was a result of our two-faced foreign policies, can you please explain the terrorist attacks in places like Bali and the Phillipines?

[JMJ]

I think of both sides as theological fanatical freaks. If they have the balls they wish for everyone to believe they have then they would duel it out themselves and save everyone else a lot of grief. Instead they both hide behind their chauffeur's and body guards in hideaway camps, bark orders and let others die for their ideology.

As far as why they bomb those places. They were targeting US interests were they not? And the others were claimed to been done or threatened because they were our Allies.

[Raider]

Originally Posted by Duckinla

If 9-11 was a result of our two-faced foreign policies, can you please explain the terrorist attacks in places like Bali and the Philippines?

The attacks in the Philippines from Abu Sayyaf date back to 1991, long before 911, and not all were targeted against the US...And Duck, it's "Philippines" I corrected your quote.

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by Raider

The attacks in the Philippines from Abu Sayyaf date back to 1991, long before 911, and not all were targeted against the US...And Duck, it's "Philippines" I corrected your quote.

The US and Bin Laden ties go back to the 80's during the Soviet/Afghan war which ended in 1989. He was more or less the person who dispersed the money and weapons for us to him and his followers whom we are fighting now, and again, with the weapons we supplied them. I guess that puts the time line just about right for your 1991 and Operation Desert Storm.

Here's a couple of other 80's buds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._su..._Iran-Iraq_war

"It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into [an aggressive power]" and "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted — and frequently encouraged — the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq.”

"Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddām on 19 December – 20 December 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984; the same day the UN released a report that Iraq had used mustard gas and tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops. The NY Times reported from Baghdad on 29 March 1984, that "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name."

[Raider]

Originally Posted by JMJ

The US and Bin Laden ties go back to the 80's during the Soviet/Afghan war which ended in 1989. He was more or less the person who dispersed the money and weapons for us to him and his followers which we are suppose to be fighting now, and again, with the weapons we supplied them. I guess that puts the time line just about right for your 1991 and Operation Desert Storm.

I dont want to go too far off on your thread here, but I was referring to the Philippine attacks that Duck asked about, if you research the attacks by Abu Sayyaf, you'll find that most of the victims were in fact Filipinos, which were not on the battlefield during storm.

[JMJ]

Abu Sayyaf Group; Philippines, Malaysia Separatist group composed of several semiautonomous factions Aims to create Islamic state in Philippines; profit-driven terror 200–500 Year founded 1991 Kidnappings, bombings, assassinations, and extortion

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908746.html

[Raider]

If your going to go back to Reagan/Bush concerning Iran/Iraq, you need to go further back to the Carter days....Please post the Iran hostage crisis, what led up to it and why it lasted as long as it did OK?

[JMJ]

That has nothing to do with how within a matter of years we are supporting their efforts to arch enemies. Both Saddam and Bin Laden. So what changed? If I had to guess the expectations of oil for our support didn't go through. So instead of buying at a buddy discount we went in a took it. Only it's costing a lot more than if we would have just went ahead and bought it.

You see we had ulterior motives in Afghanistan as well. I think this is what really ticked off Bin Laden. We used him to drive out the communist powers so Big oil could continue with it's plans for pipelines there since the early 90's maybe even early as late 80's. The geological study was ordered and paid for by the US government around 1992 (will have to find that one) I'm assuming they already had plans before 1992 and that was just when they started to put them in motion. The country wasn't ever stable enough to do it likely because Bin Laden figured this out and became the enemy. Just after we went in a took the country over the deal was done and work began.

These are documented events. I'm just putting the pieces of the documented puzzle together. There's no other conclusion for me to come to other than we didn't get what we wanted so we went in a took it ourselves. And this is the reason those people want to kill as many of us as they can.

[Raider]

Originally Posted by JMJ

That has nothing to do with how within a matter of years we are supporting their efforts to arch enemies.

Your leaving out the whole Iran/Iraq conflict, but save it, I'm not going to get into it with you...Your doing just what the New York times does, reporting only what you want us to hear.

Originally Posted by JMJ

So instead of buying at a buddy discount we went in a took it.

We took there oil? when, where and how? Provide some facts for us on this one.