It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Demands Death For US Citizen In Iraq - On Behalf Of Romania?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
you on the other hand are convinced he is innocient. and that its all the fault of the US when reports clearly stte it was not the US who accused him nor was it the US who arrested him. Have a nice day



If the Romanians had everything under controll, why did the U.S. even interfere? If the Romanians wanted the death penalty, why were they not even at the trial?

I might be biased in this but I feel that the U.S. wants to set a precedent in Iraq of the death penalty. Sounds like Saddam's rule even though he's not in rule anymore.

How is it ok for the U.S. to give out the death penalty in Iraq, but it wasn't for Saddam? I'm not trying to defend Saddam in any way but why is it OK for the U.S. to stoop to his level and people who cry "Saddam needed to go because he was an evil man" can see this as OK?




posted on Oct, 18 2006 @ 07:26 PM
link   

BUCHAREST, Romania Romania has not been informed of the trial and sentencing to death of an Iraqi-American accused of helping in the kidnapping of three Romanian journalists in Iraq, Justice Minister Monica Macovei said Saturday.

Macovei said Romania had asked Iraq to extradite Mohammad Munaf, who has denied any role in the kidnapping of the journalists, who were held hostage for 55 days last year in Iraq. Munaf was their guide and translator.

Iraqi authorities have only informed their Romanian counterparts that they can't send Munaf to Romania because he was under investigation there, Macovei said. [url=http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/14/europe/EU_GEN_Romania_Iraq_Death_Sentence.php[ Link [/url]


So, if Romania did not even know about the trial, how could they ask the US to intervene and ask for the death penalty?



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots
There you have it Romanianian authorities accused the man and made the initial arrest not the US as you claim.


This is from one source: other sources agree that the US authorities arrested Munaf.

Fromdemocracy now


The man, Mohammad Munaf, was arrested by US troops last year.


From The Washington Post we get an additional crucial detail:


Mohammad Munaf, 53, has been in U.S. custody since May 23, 2005, when he was arrested during a military raid to rescue the Romanian journalists nearly two months after they were snatched.


Of course, it's now the AP report that's starting to look biased, rather than Amy Goodman. The right-wing Washington Post even adds the extra crucial detail. It's always the righties who are the first to fling around accusations of bias, but when you start looking more closely... how did they come to the conclusion that the Romanians handed Munaf over to the US when he was arrested when the hostages were rescued?

Nice, if ultimately futile, attempt to set up a straw man. And I notice you still haven't addressed the crucial issue of the US military interfering in an Iraqi trial. I await your next straw man or distraction gambit with bated breath.


As for the alleged forced confession I assume you have not heard of the al qaeda rule that states you must claim you have been tortured.


1) Please produce one shred of evidence that Munaf (who was a US citizen living in Romania prior to his fateful trip to his homeland) was attached to Al-Qaeda

2) Please demonstrate how this is a PROOF that he was not tortured, when we have copious evidence (is that "la-la-la-la" sound I hear you sticking your fingers in your ears and humming because you don't want to hear this? I think it is) that THE US TORTURES PEOPLE. Especially in Iraq.


And kindly do not imply I am picking out just certain points OK. What I was doing is comparing the inconsistencies between the reporting sources, of which one was biased and one unbiased.


Well, you didn't look very far to compare your inconsistencies, did you? You concentrated on one tiny difference - did the judge "promise" to drop the charges or did he just look as if he was going to do so? - while ignoring the rather larger, factual difference of whether the US arrested him or whether the Romanian authorities turned him over to the US. If the Romanian authorities wanted him arrested, why turn him over to the US military and not the Iraqi police? But the Washington Post added the crucial, consistent detail: that he was arrested by the US when they freed the Romanians. The US held him for more than a year without charge and without letting him see his lawyers. That's disgusting behaviour, but you seem quite at home with it. Like it or not, it's this kind of behaviour that distinguishes totalitarian societies like Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia from genuine democracies. Sadly, the US no longer belongs in the latter category.

Shots, you are picking out tiny points to deflect from the main point of this story, which is that the US has ensured that Munaf faces the death penalty. I don't know enough of the facts to assess his innocence or guilt. If the US has any real evidence against him, neither we nor Munaf's lawyers have seen it! That is not justice, and that is the central problem from which you consistently flee.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
.Shots, you are picking out tiny points to deflect from the main point of this story, which is that the US has ensured that Munaf faces the death penalty.


I am sorry you took it that way since that was not m intent. You see I have seen Amy Goodman take a story and run with it to garner public opinion against Americans before as she has done here. It convinced many but not me.

I then took what little info we had and researched the information fully only to find out it was all lies. Lies she never retracted I might add. A film alleging U.S special forces killed over 3000 Afghans detainees and buried them!!!
First view her video allegations make an assessment then make sure you read my posts on page 4 then perhaps you will understand where I am coming from and perhaps then understand why I am very skeptical of her allegations that claimed certain things were said or done, which is the main reason I want to see more info.

Edit to add link to movie so you do not have to search since democracy nows link does not work
SEE THE MOVIE CLIP HERE!


[edit on 10/19/2006 by shots]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stormrider
So, if Romania did not even know about the trial, how could they ask the US to intervene and ask for the death penalty?


That if true; certainly sheds a new light on the whole thing. It also discredits Amy Goodman since her alleged version claimed that the Rpmanian authoriteis had turned him over to US authorities.

Ah the plot thickens once again; so who is really telling the truth here?



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Shots... amazing stuff. Still failing to address the central issue of the story, and getting your facts wrong again. Amy Goodman did NOT suggest that the Romanians handed Munaf over to the US. She said the US arrested him. It was your supposedly "unbiased" AP report that got the facts wrong.

But why am I bothering? There is no persuading you, and there's no debating you either. You make it a rule never to respond to arguments I raise; instead you try and deflect from the point, most lately by saying "Amy Goodman got her facts wrong". Well, you have demonstrably got your facts wrong, time and again. Please, try reading more carefully and responding to points that people actually raise in the thread. This is the hallmark of honest debate rather than being a troll.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
Shots... amazing stuff. Still failing to address the central issue of the story, and getting your facts wrong again. Amy Goodman did NOT suggest that the Romanians handed Munaf over to the US. She said the US arrested him. It was your supposedly "unbiased" AP report that got the facts wrong.



I am trying address only the issues in question I thought I made that quite clear. As for my unbiased source you might want to see who posted the AP link originally, trust me you will find it was not me it was stormrider. Now what was that you said getting things wrong time and time again??

No offense but it works both ways that was an oops on your part, we all make them.

Now lets address the Original AP report which states



link

The Romanian government has accused Munaf of assisting in the March 2005 kidnapping. He was held with the three journalists for 55 days before they were released, his attorneys said. The Romanian Embassy turned Munaf over to U.S. authorities in Baghdad.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Kinly note the date of the story it preceeds the democracynow story by 4 days since one is dated on the 13th while the other is dated on 17th. Which one is truly correct, I do not know for sure but, my guess based on Amy's past track record would be she left that part off intentionaly to put her own spin on things if you will. Not at all that far fetched if you stop and think about.

I fully understand what you are saying when I do not address certain questions you have put to me, yet you have to understand, It is not as you assume me refusing to address them. I just do not want to address specifics before all the relevant information is obtained. I hope you can understand.

Edit to add What do you want to bet this will be her next story to spin out of control.

Tunisian and 3 others senteced to death

Also note this story shows how ill informed she is when it comes to Iraqs' use of thje death penalty on the 17th she claimed Iraq seldom used or uses the death penalty.

[edit on 10/19/2006 by shots]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Here is an atricle posted by AFP last week that states others were sentenced to death in addition to the US Citizen.


Yahoo news

A US citizen and five Iraqi accomplices were sentenced to death in Baghdad this week for kidnapping three Romanian journalists.

The Romanian news agency Mediafax identified the American as 53-year-old Mohammed Munaf, who worked as a guide and interpreter for the reporters and was arrested by US forces shortly after they were released.

Prima TV's reporters were kidnapped by an Iraqi gang in March 2005 and released two months later. Munaf was accused of arranging their disappearance in order to claim a share of any ransom money.

Romanian President Traian Basescu said at the time that his country's intelligence agents had negotiated the release of the journalists and that no ransom was paid.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Now who is reporting the news wrong, AP, democracy Now, or AFP? Once again I do not know but I will continue to try and find other sources that may or may not contain direct quotes of Romanian officials as to what they claim took place.

[edit on 10/19/2006 by shots]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   
I'm not going to join the pissing match, but I'd like to get this thread back to the facts.

We have no way of knowing for sure that Munaf would have been freed had there been no US intervention with the Iraqi judicial process. However, we DO know that the US intervened. We also know that the US directed the judicial process in a direction polar opposite of it's own judicial system. We know that nobody directly involved with the incident in question has implicated Munaf was involved, except himself.

The bottom line is that the US has interfered in a foriegn criminal trial, and influenced the outcome. This contradicts the fundamental principals of the US judicial system, as well as the morals and principals the US government was structured to defend. So even if the dissolution of Munafs rights as a US citizen is ignored, the US shouldn't have been involved anyway. There is an agenda here, and it's not the judge's, the court's, the Romanian's, or Munaf's.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unit541

We have no way of knowing for sure that Munaf would have been freed had there been no US intervention with the Iraqi judicial process. However, we DO know that the US intervened.


How do we know that the U.S. intervened? We seem to know that two U.S. representatives had a private consultation with the presiding judge, but I'm not sure we even know the facts concerning that. Did the two just walk in, demand to see the judge in his chambers--in private--present whatever they presented and then walk out. Were they invited to the courtroom by the judge? Had they been present during previous proceedings? Were there any previous proceedings? Was any testimony ever given by anyone? What are Iraq's laws concerning "friend of the court" presentations? Did the two give the judge a classified briefing containing information that would jeopardize other, on-going investigations or operations if revealed? There are simply far too many unasked and unanswered questions to conclude the U.S. intervened in an on-going trial.

The remainder of your post is conjecture and opinion based upon your conclusion concerning U.S. intervention so I will not address it at this point.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   
that is the bottomline in the end. US military personal interfered. Regardless of what the outcome might have been before hand, they interfered with the trial. He might have been found guilty anyway, but now because of this interference we cannot say. In america, this would probably be a mistrial because of this error made by the US military, but its not america so I can't say what will happen.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
I am trying address only the issues in question I thought I made that quite clear. As for my unbiased source you might want to see who posted the AP link originally, trust me you will find it was not me it was stormrider. Now what was that you said getting things wrong time and time again??


I'm aware that stormrider posted it originally: but you were the one to leap on it as "unbiased" in contrast to your constant accusations of bias from Amy Goodman. I'm sorry if my haste made that unclear. As ever, you don't address the central issue, that the US has interfered in the judicial process in Iraq with the result that the death penalty has been imposed, and without anyone knowing what evidence has been presented, if any.

Plus you don't address the Washington Post report at all. I might as well not have linked it. This is why it's scarcely worth trying to debate you, as you simply move away from the substantive issues, and waste time trying to accuse Amy Goodman of bias. It's boring and irrelevant.

As for Astronomer's comment about how little we know - well, we do know that two US military personnel addressed the judge in his chambers and then the judge came straight out and imposed the death penalty. If you think that justice has been served, then I sincerely hope you're nothing to do with the judicial process. Justice, as they say, has to be seen to be done, and this kind of secrecy runs counter to it. It is regarded as a basic tenet of civilisation that an accused person should know the evidence presented against them and should be able to argue against it. The Bush administration has effectively abolished this right in the US and therefore it cannot be said that the US stands for justice in the world. This case is merely one more tawdry example of how far the US has moved away from principles of natural justice.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   
The point concerning secret testomony is one I will gladly give you sir. That particular point has bothered me about the "military tribunals" that are being set up to try some of the prisoners the U.S. is holding in various locations. In my opinion it is wrong to try a man (potentially for his life) without him being able to see, hear, and rebut any wittnesses or testimony against him.

BTW rich23, justice may have been served, but the process of an open, transparent trial sure as hell wasn't.

[edit on 19-10-2006 by Astronomer70]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
As ever, you don't address the central issue, that the US has interfered in the judicial process in Iraq with the result that the death penalty has been imposed, and without anyone knowing what evidence has been presented, if any.


That is pure speculation, no one was in the room with the judge and US officials. :shk:

You and others are assuming that is what took place based on what his lawyers have said. I probably would try and insist something similar if I were his lawyer, yet that will not change the fact no one really knows what was said, For all anyone knows they might have invited him to dinner or perhaps discussed other issues that might not have been related to the case.



It's boring and irrelevant.


I would not be so sure about that, I am still working on that issue.



As for Astronomer's comment about how little we know - well, we do know that two US military personnel addressed the judge in his chambers and then the judge came straight out and imposed the death penalty.


Again you do not know that for sure nor does anyone else we were not there. It should also be pointed out the lawyer in the US was not the same as the one in Iraq he based his statements either on emails he received or phone conversations. Now if it were via phone how sure can you be that he did not embellish his remarks somewhat from those of the lawyer in Iraq?

Just for clarity My last statement was based on your original source used for the story between Goodman and the US lawyer.

[edit on 10/19/2006 by shots]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
To my mind, the only points that matter in this issue are the following:

1. There were no accusations from the other detainees that Mohammad Munaf was anything other than another kidnap victim.

2. The presiding judge in the case was on the verge of dismissing the charges due to lack of evidence.

3. Two US miltary officers, claiming to represent the Romanian Embassy convinced the presiding judge to impose the death penalty.

4. The Romainan government claims that they were unaware of any criminal or court proceedings against Munaf, until after the death penalty was imposed.

5. The US government has interfered in Iraqi affairs from the beginning.

6. A US citizen was denied his 5th amendment and other constitutional and civil rights.

Anything else is supurfluous to the case at hand.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Interesting article and more interesting the story of this man.

Still I am more concern as his status of American citizen and what rights he has lost.

I am confuse here, he got capture in Iraq? and he was in an Iraqi court?

Then I am afraid that he lost his rights already been in a foreign country.

Now what I don't understand is what the US military has do with getting into a trial that was in a foreign country and coercing the Judge into changing verdict.

Can somebody care to explain?



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   
marg6043 we know so pathetically little about this case we can't really even attempt to explain. All we can do is surmise, conjure up something that suits us personally and present what are probably ill founded opinions.

I don't think a verdict had ever been reached by the judge to begin with, so it couldn't have been changed. There is no allegation by anyone that the two U.S. representatives coerced the judge in any way. From what I've read so far, I'm not even sure there was a trial. I have no idea at all if there was a jury, or if testimony had been given by anyone, etc.....



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   
I dont see how anyone can deny this fact. Two US military Men were there and demanded the death penalty. As long as this happened, it doesn't matter if they had a secret meeting where they convinced the judge or not, they had interfered.

We have no idea to WHAT EXTENT they interfered, but it seems painfully obvious they DID interfer.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Mistrial In The Court Of Public Opinion

I apologize if this comes off sounding preachy or accusatory, but I feel compelled to comment on what I'm witnessing here.

The only thing I've seen proven so far in this thread is the willingness of some to make truth claims based on incomplete and conflicting information.

The job of a defense attorney is to represent his client, not tell the truth.

If we were to base our decisions on the claims of defense attorneys, no one would ever be found guilty.


It's Never Too Early To Jump To Conclusions

I've reviewed the sources provided in this thread and none of them individually or in aggregate offer a complete or reliable description of what is actually going on in this case. There are many, many elements complicating this story, and many legal and ethical principles in play.

There is also a clear and significant lack of reliable public information about this case -- enough so to render a logical conclusion impossible based solely on what has been presented so far.

Compounding the problem are assumptions, claims and accusations which aren't supported by the sources, and in some cases appear to be speculation or outright fabrications.

That's not the way to Deny Ignorance. :shk:

The People's Kangaroo Court

I don't know all the facts in this case, but as far as I can tell, no one else here does either.

In light of that, I recommend a little healthy skepticism, reservation of judgment and perhaps a commitment to uncover the truth rather than obscure it with fantasies and falsehoods.

But that's just a suggestion, and not a requirement. People are free to deceive themselves if they want.

Perhaps the most disappointing phenomenon is seeing some who claim to support the right to a fair trial themselves hand down summary convictions in absentia -- without even seeing all the evidence and hearing all the testimony necessary to render a fair judgment.

Oh the irony.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 05:27 PM
link   
nevermind, I read majics response and decided to look over the source. After doing so Im going to have to agree with majic since it seems that the military people interfering claim may or may not be true either. Overall there is little fact in this other then there is a guy that is getting the death sentence, and he is charging the military with coerced confession.

thanks majic for giving a wake up call to us people who were fighting over...well nothing, nothing that can be proven anyway. haha

[edit on 19-10-2006 by grimreaper797]




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join