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.

 

Administration halts prosecution of alleged USS Cole bomber

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Administration halts prosecution of alleged USS Cole bomber


www.washingtonpost.co m

The Obama administration has shelved the planned prosecution of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the alleged coordinator of the Oct. 2000 suicide attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, according to a court filing.

The decision at least temporarily scuttles what was supposed to be the signature trial of a major al-Qaeda figure under a reformed system of military commissions.

the Justice Department said that "no charges are either pending or contemplated with respect to al-Nashiri in the near future."
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Here is something that the Bush and Obama administrations have in common - pure incompetence in how to deal with these detainees.

They could have/should have been tried in the field under a military tribunal, but no. GWB had to bring them to Gitmo under some notion that they could be detained, pretty much indefinately and their rights voided.

Obama runs for President and he figures, with the advice of his sterling Attorney General that he's just going to shut Gitmo down, ship a bunch of these dudes to other countrys and try the rest in civil court.

Problem there, the other countrys either don't want them or will let them free and the military is not schooled in the capture and maintenance of evidence, hence these dudes will get off in a civil trial.

OK - thats behind us so Holder decides to try Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri under a new form of military court, but it would appear that the spectre of losing that case is also too great to continue with the trial.

With respect to these detainees we have 10 years of the Keystone Cops in action. If these gents were guilty, they should have been tried and executed in the field. If not that, they should have been turned over to either the Iraqi or Afgan government and let those governments deal with them. If they let them go, too bad.

At least the US would not be in the middle of this disaster.

www.washingtonpost.co m
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   
This afternoon's Meagan Kelly show on Fox she asked "why would they do this?", and it was stated that any further steps on this could possibly effect the Political Campaigning for this coming November's Elections. To which she replied, "oh, then that makes sense".

OMG? No, that does not make sense what-so-ever! God Gawd Blonde Woman!

She sure is cute though! Gotta love all this in a basket of glazed doughnuts! (as if this would make any more sense, but sarcastically if anything)



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Greensage
 


The idiocy of the thing is that Obama did not have to make such declarative statements about this at all during the campaign or subsequent his election.

He should have simply told the truth and that is that Bush's policy with respect to these gents was foolish and dealing with the situation would be messy and problematic. He should not have just come out and said that he would "just deal with it". For the absolutely poor advice he was given on this matter, someone should have been shown the door, most likely Holder.

Now he is in a position where if he does not move forward to effectively deal with these folks in a criminal sense the right and middle get irate. If he does not move to close gitmo and move these folks to civil trials the left gets irate. It is an absolute mess. For all of the things that he has been inappropriately blaming Bush for, this is one where he should have blamed Bush and should continue to be open about the difficulties with the situation.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   
My guess would be that since Al-Qaeda is a CIA created fiction, there are too many holes in their story to subject it to public scrutiny.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
This is so simple that we Americans are just too stupid to believe.

Obama is protecting his own. It's that simple!



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by hinky
 


So thousands of Muslims die under Obama, 1 is released and this is proof that Obama is a Muslim? Are you serious?



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross
 


A man born to a Muslim father is a Muslim. That is the reality of their religion.
Under Sharia law one is not permitted to leave that religion. In speaking with George Stephanopolis, he stated he was Muslim..of course Stephanopolis corrected him.

He does nothing but feed and reinforce the perception of 20% of the public, that he is Muslim.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by justacitizen
 


His father was agnostic. He feeds the perception that he is a Muslim by carrying on wars that have killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims?



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by justacitizen
 


His father was agnostic. He feeds the perception that he is a Muslim by carrying on wars that have killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims?


What his father's final belief structure was does not change fact. He went to Muslim schools and has been widely quoted as saying that the daily call to prayer is the most beautiful sound in the world.

My real belief, based on the preponderance of evidence such as friends, pastor for 20 years and his actions are that his current belief system is based on Black Liberation theology an anti American philosophy if there ever was one. Its provide us with understanding as to why he is doing everything possible to dismantle this country as we know it.

Regarding Afghanistan, he backed himself into a corner with his constant
campaign slogans that Afghanistan was the right war and Iraq was a distraction from it. He continues that war but at the same time makes moves to insure failure, such as an almost impossible "Rules of engagement" policy that ties the hands of our troops.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Obama is a devout Muslim. He cannot allow anyone to hurt a fellow Muslim. It's against what they believe. I just cannot believe no one is getting it yet. Obama is openly Islamic in front of our eyes and no one understands.








[edit on 28-8-2010 by Fromabove]



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 


Obama cannot let anyone hurt a fellow Muslim, yet he is carrying on 2 wars that are killing thousands of Muslims. I don't understand birther logic.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by justacitizen
 


He went to Muslim schools? Really? His teachers said the school was not overly religious. The claim that he attended a madrassa has been debunked, twice. Interesting how people leave out the fact that he went to a Catholic school also.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by Fromabove
 


Obama cannot let anyone hurt a fellow Muslim, yet he is carrying on 2 wars that are killing thousands of Muslims. I don't understand birther logic.

No amount of logic can stop them, they just like to assume Obama is muslim, even though he sanctions the killings of muslims every day.



posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


It was funny at first, but now I kinda pity them.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 12:36 AM
link   
You know has it ever occured to anyone in the case of the U.S. Cole that no actual real crime may have been committed.

Warships in foreign ports of call aren't exactly little old ladies on the way to the bank with a social security checks.

They are instruments of war, and as such are about the business of killing and being killed.

Did we arrest everyone in Nazi Germany who participated in the Army and charge them with murder for killing Allied troops in acts of war?

Should we arrest every U.S. Service man who has ever killed an enemy soldier?

At the heart of this is who can legally declare an act of war. Just governments or can people too?

There is little difference between a boat with a shape charge attached ramming a war ship that is unprepared for the attack, than a warship firing a shell 45 miles inland into a village that has no warning it is coming.

How does the War Ship's action become legal, but someone carrying out an attack against a obvious military target becomes illegal?

There is a reason why they can't try these people in Gitmo and other places.

The reason is there really is no mechanism in any law for it, and it violates the actual laws of war, and various international conventions to do so.

These people are basically just kidnap victims being held in a way that we would decry if another nation held our own troops.

There is something bigger at play here regarding World Wide Law that is preventing Bush and Obama and the Military alike from proceeding.



[edit on 29/8/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I never thought of it this way before, but you make a very good point.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I never thought of it this way before, but you make a very good point.


See trying these people for what are in essence ligitimate acts of war under the laws of war, sets a precedent that could in fact turn the laws that govern something as insane as warfare upside down, and making it a legal liability for anyone engaged in an act of war to a lowly private to the head of a nation.

Ask yourself this, in regards to our own revolution, our rebel army was not a recognized legal entity!

It was comprised of people rebelling against the legal authority of the land, by targeting military targets and personnel.

So if the same standards were applied then as we are struggling to do now, everyone in the continental army which was only an army self named and not a vested legal authority would have been criminally liable for all acts they committed.

A U.S. Warship in a Yemen Port has no jurisdiction there as a legal authority they are simply a de facto force, not a de jure force.

de facto is self proclaimed by a matter of principle not law.

So an act of violence carried out against it is simply an act of war, on a military target, that is not, not against the law.

The United States technically has no jurisdiction or legal remedy through the established laws of war and international law.

Since the ship was docked, they can't even use Laws of the Sea.

Yes we are upset because it was our warship targeted and our sailors killed, but that does not actually constitute a crime in this circumstance.

I contend these people have not been charged because there is no charge under International Law that is applicable and as such would not end up resulting in a violation of International Law, and the Laws of War.

While it's true the accused and condemned through this breech would have little recourse since the U.S. is in de facto control of them, it literally would change everything in how our own captured military personnel might be held to account in future wars and military actions.

As you know we are carrying out military actions all the time in places like Pakistan and Somalia where there is absolutely no official declaration of war on our part.

So if we hold these men criminally liable in this circumstance, then we would be criminally liable in those circumstances.



[edit on 29/8/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 02:15 AM
link   
the uss cole was a warship true but at the time of attack the cole was not involved in open warfare. the mastermind should have been shot in field as enemy combatant by a socom sniper. taking him into custudy opened up to many cans of worms and could have been handled better



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler


I See trying these people for what are in essence ligitimate acts of war under the laws of war,


Under the laws of warfare you must be in uniform to be protected.
if you are not in uniform your a spy, saboteur, or terrorist and do not come under the Geneva convention.



A U.S. Warship in a Yemen Port has no jurisdiction there as a legal authority they are simply a de facto force, not a de jure force.


This is wrong,
The US can hunt down these people any time any where as saboteurs, or terrorist.


So an act of violence carried out against it is simply an act of war, on a military target, that is not, not against the law.

Wrong as the attackers were not in uniform, and the boat they used was not flying a belligerent flag. this makes them saboteurs, or terrorist in a time of conflict.


The United States technically has no jurisdiction or legal remedy through the established laws of war and international law.

Under international law the US does have the right to hunt down and arrest saboteurs, or terrorist acting out side the laws of war when they attack a US warship or kill US citizens


Since the ship was docked, they can't even use Laws of the Sea.

The USS Cole was not docked it was at anchor.
The laws of the seas do not apply as the Cole was a warship.
and the Geneva conventions do apply as the Cole as attacked in a neutral port. by saboteurs, or terrorist

This is for the protection of neutral ports against damage or destruction.



Yes we are upset because it was our warship targeted and our sailors killed, but that does not actually constitute a crime in this circumstance.

Under the rules of war it does as these saboteurs, or terrorist attack a US ship in a neutral port.




While it's true the accused and condemned through this breech would have little recourse since the U.S. is in de facto control of them, it literally would change everything in how our own captured military personnel might be held to account in future wars and military actions.

Not the same as these people do not come under the Geneva convention as they were not protected by wearing a uniform.
Captured military personnel would come under the Geneva convention as they are wearing a uniform.
Others are saboteurs, or terrorists









[edit on 29-8-2010 by ANNED]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join