Muslim ex-Army chaplain accused of spying is Obama delegate

PEOPLE!!!

Don't argue with Jexnet, read my above post. Jexnet is very anti-Muslim, and has refused to say ALL the facts instead of just the ones he wants people to see so that people think this guy was guilty, even though he wasn't.

Just the fact that he's Muslim make Jexnet believe he's guilty.

I think you're misunderstanding it and twisting the "context" around.

He was cleared because it was later found that the Army investigation was not done correctly (or by the book), and therefore was released due to a mis-handled investigation.

It doesn't mean he was innocent. It means he was released after further investigation of the Army's initial investigation which was found did not follow strict procedure.

People that are guilty are set free all the time or never do prison time for their crimes because of mis-handled investigations, hence my comparing it to the OJ case.

In OJ's situation, he had mostly an all Black jury.

You should fully understand the same sources before responding and making yourself look foolish.

[edit on 21-5-2008 by jetxnet]

reply to post by johnsky


I loved that post. I don't even need to say anything. You summed it up better than I could have.

Originally posted by jetxnet

"It was later found that the Army conducted the investigation wrong"

This means, he was cleared, but ONLY BECAUSE the investigation was done incorrectly by the Army leaving technicalities.

In other words, he got of with technicalities, much like OJ.

No, NOT in other words, in YOUR words!

And here's why.

From YOUR article!

Ex-chaplain James Yee, Ted Danson debate in Lacey

Yee, a Muslim chaplain, was arrested and detained in 2003 but later released and given an honorable discharge. Charges that he possessed classified information were later discounted, and an Army investigation later found the military did not follow proper procedures in the case.

LATER, that means after he was cleared they found some sort of procedural problem.

How can you jump to the conclusion that he got off on a technicality when he was cleared of the charge, and it wasn't until LATER that the military realized that proper procedures were not followed in the case!

This could also have meant that he NEVER should have been charged to begin with also!

And, how can you come up with this:

Originally posted by jetxnet

He was cleared because it was later found that the Army investigation was not done correctly (or by the book), and therefore was released due to a mis-handled investigation.

From this statement, "an Army investigation later found the military did not follow proper procedures in the case", we have no clue what procedure wasn't followed properly.

So you are jumping to conclusions.

So, those are your words and nobody elses that I can see.

[edit on 5/21/2008 by Keyhole]

reply to post by jetxnet

In OJ's situation, he had mostly an all Black jury.

And the racist undertones begin to show. This is really getting ugly. I don't like where this is going at all.


[edit on 21-5-2008 by projectvxn]

reply to post by jetxnet


Wait a minute. You're accusing this guy of being guilty of being a spy (treason carries the same punishment as murder, no light crime), because you 'think I'm misunderstanding it'? You would make a horrible juror. Guilty until proven innocent must be your philosophy.

Read the article YOU posted again:

Yee, a Muslim chaplain, was arrested and detained in 2003 but later released and given an honorable discharge. Charges that he possessed classified information were later discounted, and an Army investigation later found the military did not follow proper procedures in the case.

It clearly says 'charges were discounted, AND a LATER investigation found the military didn't follow the proper procedures'. The man was even given an honorable discharge. Do you think they give people who got off of TREASON an honorable discharge because THEY messed up?

You're crucifying this guy because he's Muslim and likes Obama. That's the real reason, not this crap.

Who sounds foolish now?





[edit on 5/21/2008 by bigbert81]

Originally posted by jetxnet

People that are guilty are set free all the time or never do prison time for their crimes because of mis-handled investigations, hence my comparing it to the OJ case.

In OJ's situation, he had mostly an all Black jury.

You should fully understand the same sources before responding and making yourself look foolish.

[edit on 21-5-2008 by jetxnet]

By the same token, you could also say that many innocent people are incarcerated unjustly for crimes they did not commit. Read the article again, and you'll see I'm right, they cleared him before discovering they had not followed proper procedure.

Comparing this to the OJ case is ridiculous. The only one looking foolish here is you.

Originally posted by lee anoma
- Did Obama personally MAKE him a delegate?
- Did Obama force him to pledge his vote?
- Does he even know Obama personally?

Guys...he is a democratic delegate elected by precinct representatives that has decided to vote for Obama. What does his past have to do with Obama? Obama has MANY pledged delegates all with a past of their own...is he responsible for that past, present and any future activities?

Get real, you're reaching.

FYI: Anyone who is a United States citizen that is able to, can vote for Obama.

Anyone.

Why is this even news?

- Lee

Funny, I used almost the exact same logic on another recent that that claimed McCain was at fault because some nut case endorsed him. But nooooooo, the lib sycophants here would have none of it.

I guess the **** only flows one way for the O(bs)ama supporters here.

Sample of dem hypocrisy

But you're right in a way, why is any of this news?

[edit on 5/21/2008 by centurion1211]

reply to post by centurion1211



I agree with you, blaming McCain for someone else's crap is not cool. As much as it isn't cool to do it with Obama. I'm an Obama supporter, but I'll take McCain to the cleaners on his record and his stated policies. I would never use such a wedge issue, but you're right, there's alot of hypocrisy on both sides. And it needs to stop because none of this is helping the country it's only hurting it.


[edit on 21-5-2008 by projectvxn]

reply to post by centurion1211


Difference:

A) Nut case endorsed McCain, McCain accepted endorsement and embraced it.

B) A guy who is NOT a nut case (unless you think all Muslims are nut cases) endorses Obama.

I hope you see the difference.

*Edit:

If you review my posts though, you will see that I also agree that NONE of it is news. I am especially tired of all of this BS being posted about all of the candidates.

It hurts this country and dilutes the minds of the voters with issues that are non sense, that way no one focuses on or expects answers to real issues. Unfortunately, it works.

[edit on 21-5-2008 by Sublime620]

I didn't have the impression that Presidential candidates choose their delegates - I thought it was the other way around.

And this is a guy who was innocent and wrongly accused - according to who?
The Army!

So we're supposed to take this guy's status as a delegate as somehow reflecting badly on Obama?

Can't you guys find anything about what Obama actually says or does himself to go nuts about?

More disinformation, religious bigotry, & distortion of the facts from the extreme right wing on ATS, to score a cheap political shot - surprise, surprise

reply to post by Sublime620


Jesus Christ!!!

I'm finally not the only one who thinks the vast majority of crap I've seen on here relating to Obama is BS propaganda.

Thank you, I was starting to think I was out of my mind.

Starred.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Funny, I used almost the exact same logic on another recent that that claimed McCain was at fault because some nut case endorsed him. But nooooooo, the lib sycophants here would have none of it.

I guess the **** only flows one way for the O(bs)ama supporters here.

Sample of dem hypocrisy

But you're right in a way, why is any of this news?

The logic is infallible. The media bias is apparent. This was my problem.

I didn't see your post anywhere in the thread you linked to. Where is the "lib sycophantic" attacks on your view that is basically my view? Not sure why you used me as an example (or what the deal is with the name calling and cursing) but I have repeatedly said that guilt by association is nonsense. Everyone in Washington is guilty by default then.

Cent...I started a thread regarding McCains ties as an example of why I think they shouldn't matter. In fact I said I can accept that neither has to share the views of the person that endorses them so why are you claiming foul and playing the political victim card?

I hate to quote myself AND the thread I started but:

Originally posted by lee anoma
As the article rightly states:

Mr. McCain says he does not endorse any of Mr. Hagee’s calumnies, any more than Barack Obama endorses Mr. Wright’s.

I can accept this.
Example of selective reading?

Oh and I am not a Democrat if that misguided jab was directed at me.

I am not sure which candidate I would vote for at this point but I have always been partial to McCain to be honest. In fact, my brother in Texas...who is a stern conservative...argued with me often about how McCain is not Republican enough. I said that he is probably the ONLY Republican I would vote for after this Bush mess.

I honestly think we need someone that can unite not only both political partys but America itself across MANY lines. We need it badly.

Before you start making angry unfounded assumptions you should at least switch to decaf.



- Lee

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by centurion1211

 

Difference:

A) Nut case endorsed McCain, McCain accepted endorsement and embraced it.

B) A guy who is NOT a nut case (unless you think all Muslims are nut cases) endorses Obama.

I hope you see the difference.

*Edit:

If you review my posts though, you will see that I also agree that NONE of it is news. I am especially tired of all of this BS being posted about all of the candidates.

It hurts this country and dilutes the minds of the voters with issues that are non sense, that way no one focuses on or expects answers to real issues. Unfortunately, it works.

[edit on 21-5-2008 by Sublime620]

Turns out you are "sublimely wrong (again). Please take some time to review this news article:

proof that sublime is incorrect

(CNN) -- In the face of mounting controversy over headline-grabbing statements from the Rev. John Hagee, CNN has learned that presumptive Republican nominee John McCain decided Thursday to reject his endorsement.

If a candidate is to be judged by who endorses them and not by who they endorse, O(bs)ama will end up the one with the most explaining to do.


Oh, and Rev. Wright is not a nut case?

O(bs)ama may think he's riding high right now, but from what I understand there is a ton of information about to be released on him detailing his relationship with organized crime in Chicago, and also radical subversive groups, and that his own grandfather actually owned slaves.

And wait until they start running commercials using his comments that we all have to get the OK from other counties on how we live our lives.

Last, he has to be a little worried that hillary might decide that her winning the nomination might now require the "vince foster solution".

One way or another it seems that this guy is toast.

[edit on 5/22/2008 by centurion1211]

A former Army Muslim chaplain at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who was cleared of spy accusations is now a Democratic National Convention delegate pledged to Sen. Barack Obama.

And of course the implication is that... I am not even going to there.

I swear this crap is getting noxious.

[edit on 22-5-2008 by grover]

reply to post by centurion1211

O(bs)ama may think he's riding high right now, but from what I understand there is a ton of information about to be released on him detailing his relationship with organized crime in Chicago, and also radical subversive groups, and that his own grandfather actually owned slaves.

Where is your proof? You can't just say that without a source.

And wait until they start running commercials using his comments that we all have to get the OK from other counties on how we live our lives.

When we fight wars on the basis that it will be global, and that we will be operating anywhere at any time without warning, then it does matter what the rest of the world thinks. They don't care how we live our lives, they care about how we affect theirs.




[edit on 22-5-2008 by projectvxn]