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.

 

No Death Penalty For U.S. Embassy Bomb Suspect

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   

No Death Penalty For U.S. Embassy Bomb Suspect


www.foxnews.com

NEW YORK -- The U.S. government has decided not to seek the death penalty against a Guantanamo detainee charged in the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.

A letter released Monday advises a federal judge that Attorney General Eric Holder told prosecutors not to seek the death penalty in the New York trial of Ahmed Ghailani. His trial is scheduled for September 2010.
(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Obama to Try Terror Suspect in NYC, First Gitmo Detainee Brought to U.S.
Guantanamo al Qaeda suspect brought to New York
NY trial' for Guantanamo inmate
More On Internment Camps!




posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   
I love how this man is alleged to have done the things that have gotten him locked away in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

I wonder if he is actually guilty or if there was secret evidence linking him to these accusations.

This process leads us into becoming a Kangaroo Court nation of mock trials and shams through show trials.

It is often a consideration that detainees do not have rights, whereas prisoner's of war or prisoner's have rights, and considering this man is Tanzanian, he is not covered under our rights as an American citizen, but a lot of American, and I know a lot of ATS'ers are worried that this will set a precedent towards later stripping our rights when and if the U.S. Federal Government were to begin locking up American citizens with secret evidence like the Nazi's did during Germany's rise during WWII.

The reason this type of thought process is prevalent in America today is because of all of the cover-ups, lies, and the scandals that each successive Presidential Administration from the J.F.K. assassination to his brother R.F.K., the Nixon with the Watergate scandal, to Reagan and Olive North with the Iran/Contra scandal, as well as Rex-84.

As well as this there has been speculation in the conspiracy theorist community for a long time about F.E.M.A. Detention Camps being the new version of the old Nazi Concentration Camps that littered Europe before the Allies defeated Adolph Hitler and the Axis.

It has been rumored that Michigan may be where terrorist detainees will be shipped once the facility at Guantanamo Bay is closed after pressure to close the facility has spiraled negative publicity against it.

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 6-10-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Looking at some of the definitions here we have to see that they are loosely based upon a sideways look at the laws to bypass the Geneva Convention, and possibly would later be used to strip away our Constitutional Rights.


Quote from : Wikipedia : Detainee

Detainee is a term used by certain governments and their military to refer to individuals held in custody, such as those it does not classify and treat as either prisoners of war or suspects in criminal cases.

It is used to refer to "any person captured or otherwise detained by an armed force."

More generally, it is "someone held in custody."

The word "detainee" is from the French word "détenu" and the French verb "détenir".

In French, both "détenu" and "prisonnier" mean prisoner.

However, a "détenu" is a guilty person, whereas a "prisonnier" is not necessarily a guilty person; for example the prisoners of war or the persons before a judgment

In wars between nations, detainees are referenced in the Fourth Geneva Convention.


You cannot declare a war, and then bypass the common international laws, and characterize them as non-combatants, thereby not treating them humanely, because if we as a society let this happen then we are no better than them, because this is the false reasoning behind not giving them rights because of their treatment of our men and women as prisoners of war.

This only opens a Pandora's Box on how much more violence is spread about to people, and we as a people united have to be better than our enemies, if they are in fact enemies, because this makes us civilized human beings.

In other words, you cannot have it both ways, if you expect the world to respect us, we have to respect ourselves first and hold ourselves to a higher standard.


Quote from : Wikipedia : Prisoner of War

A prisoner of war (POW, PoW, PW, P/W, WP, or PsW) or enemy prisoner of war (EPW) is a combatant who is held in continuing custody by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict.

The earliest recorded usage of the phrase is dated 1660.


If we allow our Government to gray the lines between black and white on the rule of law then we are accepting the very same fate as those men and women detained for secret evidence at a later date because of the ignorant excuse of not wanting to give away intelligence gathering techniques. This is at best a farce as an excuse, and at worst a deniability issue through lies and deception because of the various techniques are literally outdated within a few simple years due to both Hollywood giving it away as a televison or movie plot, or because of a newspaper article that exposes the secrets because of the cover-ups to begin with.

At the UN, the Obama administration backs limits on free speech.

Above is the perfect example of what I am talking about with the current Adminstration trying to deny us our rights to Freedom of Speech, by graying the lines of a protected document and rights we as citizens demand.

If the man is guilty, I say produce the evidence, and try him in a court of law, and bury him in the overwhelming evidenciary process, because if one iota of doubt is left and he is not tried than it will set a precedent for tearing down the very laws that protect us as innocent citizens when the next set of terror laws and or secret evidence is not trotted out, but used as a coercive technique to push someone to the terrorist status, whether guilty or innocent.


[edit on 6-10-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
The relevance to state secrets is not easily dismissed due to the fact that this is just an excuse to allow a travesty to take place when not enough evidence is forthcoming, or when a cover-up is ensued due to the nature of the crime itself, either in the commital, or in the duplicity of the people in trying to commit a crime through cover-up because of negligence.


Quote from Wikipedia : State Secrets Privilege

The State Secrets Privilege is an evidentiary rule created by United States legal precedent.

The court is asked to exclude evidence from a legal case based solely on an affidavit submitted by the government stating court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which might endanger national security, and military secrets in particular as in the case of United States v. Reynolds, the first case that saw formal recognition of the privilege.


I remember reading about this particular case below, and as well watching several History Channel episodes where it was outlined that the plane went down due to negligence or faulty equipment, and just how quickly the Government will go into deniability and either now cite this, or National Security.


Quote from : Wikipedia : United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953)

United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953), is a landmark legal case in 1953 that saw the formal recognition of State Secrets Privilege, a judicially recognized extension of presidential power.


The Government usually cites favorable statutes and or laws which can give it complete deniability, or as well give it total immunity in order to not pay for something that is usually their fault in the first place due to either tacit agreements, illegal acts, or negligence due to lack of oversight.

All of this ground as well covers black-bag jobs, black-box operations, and as well highly illegal acts and unethical acts via the people who are supposed to protect and serve us, not terrorize and torture us.

[edit on 6-10-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   
How easily our nation will speak about human rights and basic dignity and forget them when someone is held without rights as an enemy combatant and linked to a horrendous event. I have to often wonder why the International Court of Justice was opened to begin with if we will not allow justice to play out.

U.N. Human Rights Watch 2009 Report


quote from : International Court of Justice : Jurisdiction

The International Court of Justice acts as a world court.

The Court has a dual jurisdiction : it decides, in accordance with international law, disputes of a legal nature that are submitted to it by States (jurisdiction in contentious cases); and it gives advisory opinions on legal questions at the request of the organs of the United Nations or specialized agencies authorized to make such a request (advisory jurisdiction).


[edit on 6-10-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


The United States has for the longest time now maintained black sites outside of U.S. Domestic terrortory, and they are convenient in fuzzing the line.

Yes we do need to be concerned, as if this is allowed to happen to this man, it could happen to U.S. citizens!

We can now legally be detained for refusing a flu injection!



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


The United States has for the longest time now maintained black sites outside of U.S. Domestic terrortory, and they are convenient in fuzzing the line.

Yes we do need to be concerned, as if this is allowed to happen to this man, it could happen to U.S. citizens!

We can now legally be detained for refusing a flu injection!



That was exactly the kind of crap I was referencing between the lines with my original post, that we can be locked up for refusing a simple shot, which many people would rather die than receive. What of those people whose religion this goes against, because of their strict regimentation towards not allowing this to happen? Do they automatically get locked up, do they get a free pass, do they get a chance to plea a case up to the Supreme Court and ask for a waiver, or should they just report automatically to detention facilities?

It is getting ridiculous anymore with the laws that are being passed with none if any thought of the repercussions of how exactly the American populace will respond and or react to it, which almost leads one to think they do not give a damn, or they are intentionally trying to initiate an insurrection through the people rising up thereby trying to negate our rights by cracking down.




top topics



 
2

log in

join