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.

 

Turley: Obama 'Accessory' To War Crimes if No Prosecution!

page: 5
22
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by cal7man
reply to post by noangels
 
where is your proof of the so called lies??

Right here. Plenty of other evidence if you need it.


no WMD'S, you sound like a scratched record, or a warped cd, you can shout until blue in the face but i saw this all first-hand,

You saw what first hand? The fact that THERE WERE NO WMDs? The fact that Iraq didn't represent any threat to a country that spends more on "defense" than the rest of the world combined?


have you ever served the coalition forces?? me and my friends did in desert shield and storm, no lies about why we did it!!!


OK, now I understand why you're so angry. You and the entire nation were lied to big time, just like you've been lied to about Gulf War Syndrome. It's not psychological or PTSD, it's genetic damage from depleted uranium, as this Discovery Channel documentary proves.

Forget the MSM -- we all know they're pawns and corporate-controlled. When one-third of the troops who were sent to Desert Storm are now disabled, do you really think the U.S. government is telling you the truth?




posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by Angus123

Originally posted by ky

It's all as plain as day. Have you not been paying attention or is it your job to stand on the corner and shout "nothing to see here?"

And guess what, we haven't been attacked since 911. You do remember 911, right?

Of course I do. That was the day Bin Laden struck inside the U.S. just like the PDB given to Bush a month earlier said he was going to and Bush blew it off and went on vacation.


Oh, so it was Osama bin Laden and 19 cave-dwellers who were responsible for 9/11?

That's odd. The FBI says, “There's no hard evidence connecting Osama Bin Laden to 9/11.”

So if there's no evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11, I wonder where the evidence leads?




That's your evidence? Those sources are pretty weak. You might want to take about 10 seconds or less to do a fact check.

www.fbi.gov...

(check the top right corner)



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Turley, like every other college professor, likes to lecture. His opinions are just that, opinions. Likely, there are many other law professors with opinions on this matter who are not so smitten with the public and personal fame.
This will be played out by the politicians [Rove testimony may start the ball rolling] and their legal counsels over a long period of time. We have more important things to worry about, now.
I put Turley on "ignore" because he is irrelevant noise.


ky

posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Of course I do. That was the day Bin Laden struck inside the U.S. just like the PDB given to Bush a month earlier said he was going to and Bush blew it off and went on vacation. He was quite the protector. Well... unless you count the 3000+ people that died that particular day.


This post just cracks me up. And it proves something very important. You complain about Bush's tactics throughout this WAR (i.e. his aggression) but at the same time he didn't do enough to prevent 911. So what's it going to be? Sit back and do nothing or take the fight to them? Which of these two choices would make you less angry?



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ky

Of course I do. That was the day Bin Laden struck inside the U.S. just like the PDB given to Bush a month earlier said he was going to and Bush blew it off and went on vacation. He was quite the protector. Well... unless you count the 3000+ people that died that particular day.


This post just cracks me up. And it proves something very important. You complain about Bush's tactics throughout this WAR (i.e. his aggression) but at the same time he didn't do enough to prevent 911. So what's it going to be? Sit back and do nothing or take the fight to them? Which of these two choices would make you less angry?


What are you talking about "which" is it going to be? Why can't it be both?
But truthfully, he didn't plan or execute 9-11. He's far too stupid. But he made for a nice puppet.
In any case, he was an utter failure. You cannot polish up his record no matter how much fawning slobber you use.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
reply to post by RRconservative
 



"LIBERATING" 50 Million people? More like DISPLACING 50 million people, and murdering tens of thousands.

On top of what a FARCE this invasion was, based on nothing but LIES, the authorization of TORTURE is a WAR CRIME--Period.

Looking at this debacle with rose-colored glasses will not wipe that fact away, no matter how anyone tries to spin the Iraq fiasco.



[edit on 27-1-2009 by DimensionalDetective]



DD, your debating with an ostrich who is probably paid by the CIA with coc aine money...

S+F


ky

posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Please, don't be confused. I am not for one minute trying to convince any person that Bush has done a splended job. There were plenty of mistakes made. As there was with every President previous to Bush and as there will be with Obama. Our nation had not seen anything like 911 since Pearl Harbor. Bush did what the nation cried out for. Retaliation. His approval rating was like nothing seen before. But when he went into Iraq with the wrong battle plan, that is when it all started to turn around. And now we have the economic situation here in the U.S.

I understand as well as most do, that he made his mistakes. All I am saying is that everything he did was either voted through by Congress or is protected by the Constitution. He will not be prosicuted.

Oh and the only thing I fawn over when talking about Bush is how we have not been attacked since. And that would include at least 9 planned attacks thwarted due to waterboarding. Hey look at that, it would seem that I am slobbering.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ky
Oh and the only thing I fawn over when talking about Bush is how we have not been attacked since. And that would include at least 9 planned attacks thwarted due to waterboarding.


I'd like to see the evidence for that claim.

Can you provide the basis for that ky?


ky

posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Absolutely converge. I would be glad to. I believe there was one specific articles stating 3 or 4 different attacks back in March. And then Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma speaks about Bush's "invisible legacy". Give me a few minutes to find these please.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ky
 

No problem.

Thank you



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Originally posted by GoldenFleece


That's your evidence? Those sources are pretty weak. You might want to take about 10 seconds or less to do a fact check.

www.fbi.gov...

(check the top right corner)


OK, Mr. Fact Check -- I spent the 10 seconds.

Show me where Osama bin Laden is wanted for 9/11.

Maybe YOU should check your own "facts."



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Originally posted by GoldenFleece


That's your evidence? Those sources are pretty weak. You might want to take about 10 seconds or less to do a fact check.

www.fbi.gov...

(check the top right corner)


OK, Mr. Fact Check -- I spent the 10 seconds.

Show me where Osama bin Laden is wanted for 9/11.

Maybe YOU should check your own "facts."


If you read what is on that poster it says-

ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH

IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.


If you check to see what Federal Facilities happened to be in the WTC, you'd see-

www.govexec.com...



Building No. 6:
U.S. Customs Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Bureau Occupational Safety and Health Administration Department of Labor -- Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration Department of Commerce -- Foreign Commercial Service Export-Import Bank
Building No. 7:
IRS U.S. Secret Service Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Defense Department Securities and Exchange Commission


And if you look at the date that poster was originally made-

June 1999 with some revisions in November 2001



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Selective reading -- that "federal facility" is in Africa: "MURDER OF U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; CONSPIRACY TO MURDER U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES;"

NO mention of 9/11. An FBI spokesman is on record regarding why bin Laden is NOT wanted for 9/11.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
If you read what is on that poster it says-

ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH

IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.


Actually, I believe that's for the 1998 US embassy bombings


In the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings (August 7, 1998), hundreds of people were killed in simultaneous car bomb explosions at the United States embassies in the East African capital cities of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya. The attacks, linked to local members of the al Qaeda terrorist network .ed by Osama bin Laden, brought bin Laden and al Qaeda to international attention for the first time, and resulted in the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation placing bin Laden on its Ten Most Wanted list.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
If you check to see what Federal Facilities happened to be in the WTC, you'd see-

www.govexec.com...


Building No. 7:
IRS U.S. Secret Service Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Defense Department Securities and Exchange Commission


LOL -- so Osama bin Laden is responsible for WTC 7 too?!

For that one, I'd investigate the domestic terrorist Larry "Pull It" Silverstein!






[edit on 29-1-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I don't see where the confusion is, the page seems explicit on what his charges are:


MURDER OF U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; CONSPIRACY TO MURDER U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH



USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.


I'm pretty sure if the FBI was accusing him of 9/11, it would explicitly say so.


ky

posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
converge, I somehow started a new thread with my reply. I have asked to moderator to help me move it over here. Sorry for the delay.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ky You complain about Bush's tactics throughout this WAR (i.e. his aggression) but at the same time he didn't do enough to prevent 911. So what's it going to be? Sit back and do nothing or take the fight to them?


Personally, I'd be happy if there were no more false-flag terrorist attacks like Operation Northwoods and The 9/11 Reichstad Fire.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ky
 

Correct me if I'm wrong but the only thing in Sen. Inhofe's list that is admittedly from the result of interrogation in Guantanamo Bay, is this:


FBI Thwarted the locally recruited terrorist cell the “Lackawanna 6” by the capture of Juma al-Dosari in Afghanistan and subsequent interrogation while imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.


I'm reading it on Sen. Inhofe's page.

And how do you know this person was waterboarded? The only list the CIA has admitted to doesn't include his name.


On February 6, 2008, the CIA director General Michael Hayden stated that the CIA had used waterboarding on three prisoners during 2002 and 2003, namely Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zubayda and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.


The only person that consists of that CIA waterboarded list and is mentioned in Sen. Inhofe's list of "thwarted plots" is:


Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of Sept. 11 and author of numerous plots confessed in court in March 2007 to planning to destroy skyscrapers in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.


How did you reach to the "at least 9 planned attacks thwarted due to waterboarding."?

Forgive me for not taking President Bush's word or Sen. Inhofe's praise of him as evidence that "waterboarding thwarted at least 9 planned attacks", but can you blame me? After all the lies Bush and his Administration fed us?

I was hoping to see some documented evidence of waterboarding resulting in any useful or credible intelligence, but I guess that documentation is probably secret, like the intelligence on Iraq was. Or they don't even have documentation on the effectiveness of the method.

I'm inclined to believe the latter since apparently don't even have case files on some of the detainees.


President Obama's plans to expeditiously determine the fates of about 245 terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and quickly close the military prison there were set back last week when incoming legal and national security officials -- barred until the inauguration from examining classified material on the detainees -- discovered that there were no comprehensive case files on many of them.

Instead, they found that information on individual prisoners is "scattered throughout the executive branch," a senior administration official said.

Several former Bush administration officials agreed that the files are incomplete and that no single government entity was charged with pulling together all the facts and the range of options for each prisoner. They said that the CIA and other intelligence agencies were reluctant to share information, and that the Bush administration's focus on detention and interrogation made preparation of viable prosecutions a far lower priority. - source



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
LOL, where's everybody at?

I thought for sure people would be up in arms over this?

Anybody disagree? Agree?

I say if Obama and Biden continue on with the "we're moving forward" and let this past admin get away with their crimes, then they are no better than them, and that sets a precident that says breaking the law is A-okay.

I wonder if any of us broke the law, if our lawyer could just come into the court and say, "That's in the past, we're moving forward your honor."

Does that show respect for the rule of law (which the Bush admin trashed)?

I think not.


Actually, in 8 of my own legal cases I had to repeatedly deal with Legal Entities at the Federal, State, and Local level who kept saying that the illegal actions of the Judge, Prosecutor, Defense Attorney's (6+ of them) and the particpating parties and Organizations were, in their words, "water under the bridge." Fortuanately they are all on film and recorded tape, and in written records, saying as much.

It is the actual belief of those in power that they and their buddies and others like them can screw up royally as far as the law goes, and that "demographic exemption" laws give them complete "immunity" so that no only can their legal errors hold, but, can continue as though what was founded upon these errors were legal, despite their root being illegal.

It is one of the straws which will have severe repercussions for those in power, in the end. People are fighting each other less and the system's powers that be, more. Maybe, someday we'll have a war were the right people actually fight those who really deserve to be on the battlefield. That would be a Eutopian War one could only dream of.

Yep, try them all, and take all their accessories with them. Bring the prisoners here, I'd be fine with having them jailed near me. if it means they get an open real trial. I'm guessing they are more innocent than is claimed. I think terrorists are simply rebels to oppression anyways. I don't advocate violence, but, maybe the real terrorists know something we don't.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join