Hello Margareth! Good to see ya over across the street here!
Despite Mark's "Bravo" comment, I beg to differ however. I don't know where it is that you are obtaining this information about a borderguard from Port Angeles Washinton, the information that I am referencing was reported in Steven Bradbury's May10th Report which claims that the information came from Khalid Shaykh Mohammad, wherein after being subjected to Level I, and Level II enhanced interrogation tactics, wherein Khalid would only tell interrogators, "Soon You Will Know" (what is getting ready to transpire); after Khalid was exposed to Level III enhanced interrogation techniques, he revealed the al Queida plot, which was to be performed by Southeast Asians to fly a plane into the tallest Skyscraper in Los Angeles. That an al Queida cell based here in the United States was also planning on setting off a dirty bomb in Washington D.C. Mark keeps referring to this information being previously released, but I am unaware of the specific details, (which were for the most part "blacked out" in both of Bradbury's Memoranda, as well as Jay Bybee's Memoranda. With regard to these homicidal murderers not having quick and expediant trials, I agree with you, I believe that the Bush Administration erred on this decision. I guess kind of like the Carter Administration did, as well as Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43, in not granting the Cuban refugees who were released from Cuban prisons back in the early 1980s, and who to this day, have never had trials here in the United States, but instead have just languished in federal prisons. If you believe that these homicidal murderers are entitled to a civilian trial, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, then I too would take issue with this observation also. These individuals should have been expediantly tried in a military court of justice, but that is another thread, for another day. Good to see you!! I hope that you will continue to join us from time to time and on occasion!!! Have a great Sunday!! Keith On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 6:22 PM, margareth <[email protected]> wrote: > > All I am certain of, is that there are a number of people who have > been in the custody of the US government since 2002, but who have so > far been denied any legal hearing. If the US constitution means what > it says, the Bush administration has made a mockery of it....In the > world of propaganda, AQ couldn't have asked for better proof of > American hypocrisy. The only certain prevention was of an attack on > LAX, that was thwarted because of the alertness of a borderguard at > Port Angeles Washington... but that was planned for New Years Day, > 2000. > The really sad thing is that the Bush administration has not focused > on the real defence which requires no torture. What it requires is > the cooperation of all Americans, in the protection of the flying > public.... that means that the baggage screeners need to be properly > trained, and all who work at any airport in the country have a > thorough screening,,,, before they start work. Of course that may just > mean that flying will need to be more regulated.. and probably more > expensive,,, but we can't have that now can we? > > On Apr 25, 3:21 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 11:23 AM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Well DOLT, you claim "Because there is no coalition" > > > > > There always was even in 2002... To claim Britain was not part of > > > the coalition in the fall of 2002 is simplely wrong... > > > > No, the claim was that as small as the active participant group was it > was > > not worthy of being called a coalition. The first Gulf war had a true > > "coalition".... compare it to that please > > > > > > > > > During the last half of the 20th century, this principle was expanded > > > internationally through the United Nations. The U.N. weapons > > > inspections in Iraq represent a good example of how the rule of law > > > has been used, and can be used again, to avert conflict. > > > > > Then you claim this as a 2002 fact... Problem is Bush said he would > > > enforce the UNSC Resolution even after 12 years of refusal to do > > > so... You said the UN had been effective up to 2002.. Truth is it > > > had not been as evidenced by Saddam 12 years of refusing to abide by > > > UN Resolutions... > > > > Show me ANYTHING that Saddam had that was not on the weapons inspectors > > reports.... > > > > > > > > > Except it hasn't... Only when all 5 veto holding powers agree can it > > > act... And then the restrictions are usually such that action is > > > ineffective... Please note Saddam ignore 12 years of Chapter VII > > > Resolutions because he had bribe the UNSC from taken action... > > > > According to the inspection reports this is false. Again show me one > thing > > he had that was not listed in those reports and show me where a single > > prewar Iraquian finger was lifted that was an EMMINENT danger to US > > sovereign territory. Show me ONE Bush prewar claim that has held up. > > > > To call into the matter the UN sanctions is to self indict. It is > necessary > > for a use of force decision by the UN....... please display tat text for > me. > > OH !! there is none. > > > > > > > > > As to the point of certitude, that too relates to the facts as in > > > place in 2002... The major intell agencie were of the consensus > > > Saddam had WMD or WMD components in the fall of 2002... > > > > Wrong. the Senate report says otherwise and so did German intelligence > > (noted in report). The greatest "threat" posed by Bush was nuclear... > since > > all material (500 tons of yellowcake) in iraqi possession was (given to > them > > by the US along with the research reactor) accounted for to the gram post > > war and in the inspection reports as well was discounted ENTIRELY by said > > germans (the originators of the report that Bush quoted incorrectly) > there > > is indeed a HUGE strawman... his name is Bush and ALL his stated reasons > for > > urgency of any type have been shot down in their entirty. > > > > Proof to the contrary list all nukes, bio agents, non-conforming delivery > > rockets and wmds as outlined by Bush in address to congrees that were > found > > please... > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you resort to name calling and straw-men... > > > > > On Apr 25, 11:51 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > This was written PREwar you dolt. please cite EXACTLY which facts are > > > > wrong.... you failed to do so AGAIN, which means there is no > > > > arguement, no proof. Everything written was upheld by the Republican > > > > controlled senate intelligence commitee in 2006. Go figure. kinda > like > > > > a ventriloquist and burro.......... he talked out of his ass as well. > > > > > > On Apr 25, 8:53 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >>> Bush also spoke of an "international coalition" that would > disarm > > > Hussein. Bush knows the American public is loathe to go it alone. What > he > > > failed to do was tell us who the members of his war coalition are. Why? > > > Because there is no coalition. > > > > > > > Per usual, your facts are wrong ... > > > > > > > >>> During the last half of the 20th century, this principle was > > > expanded internationally through the United Nations. The U.N. weapons > > > inspections in Iraq represent a good example of how the rule of law has > been > > > used, and can be used again, to avert conflict. > > > > > > > Except it hasn't... Only when all 5 veto holding powers agree can > it > > > > > act... And then the restrictions are usually such that action is > > > > > ineffective... Please note Saddam ignore 12 years of Chapter VII > > > > > Resolutions because he had bribe the UNSC from taken action... > > > > > > > >>> By tossing out any reasonable standards of evidence as a > > > prerequisite for military action, the White House puts us in a state of > > > constant uncertainty and increased insecurity where almost anything > could > > > lead to war. > > > > > > > Except to you reasonable means certitude... Read Eisenhower's > > > > > farewell speech... He notes that a nation can not wait to prepare > for > > > > > war after the fact (as had been the case)... The slippery Slope > of > > > > > Technology and Modern Communication decreases the reaction time > > > > > between certitude and uncertainty.... Today Saddam could have > > > > > produced, delivered then used chemical or biological WMD in a > matter > > > > > of weeks... > > > > > > > Further you ignore the consensus of the world's major intel agency > > > > > that Saddam had WMD capacity of some level... Again you twist > facts > > > > > to fit an ideology... > > > > > > > On Apr 24, 8:51 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Keith In Tampa < > > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > Studio, > > > > > > > > > Horse Hockey. > > > > > > > > > There is no spin here. I reference the Preamble of the > > > Constitution > > > > > > > because OUR Nation was being attacked, and WE ALL believed that > > > more attacks > > > > > > > were going to happen. Osama bin Laden promised as much. Khalid > > > Shaykh > > > > > > > Mohammad promised as much, Abu Zumdayah promised as much. Abu > al > > > Nashiri > > > > > > > promised as much. > > > > > > > > Small and isinificant points: > > > > > > > > The preamble applies on US soil ONLY. > > > > > > > > I believe my neighbor is selling black mold tainted marihuana by > the > > > ton... > > > > > > this will kill or make deathly ill 1000's ............ can I use > > > "advanced" > > > > > > questioning techniques and if not why not ?? > > > > > > > > > The pirate that was turned over to civilian prosecution is > > > something that > > > > > > > has been happening in our Nation for over two hundred years, > > > nothing new > > > > > > > here. It is called Admiralty-Maritime Law, and *in-rem* > > > prosecution. > > > > > > > There is no comparison between the piracy off the coast of > Somalia, > > > and > > > > > > > homicidal murderers who are intent on attacking and killing > > > Americans in our > > > > > > > own Nation. > > > > > > > > Agreed..... > > > > > > > > > Iraq's internal affairs has nothing to do with our own, other > than > > > > > > > there were a haven of these homicidal murderers convened within > the > > > borders > > > > > > > of Iraq, most especially after we as a Nation decided to remove > > > Saddam > > > > > > > Hussien from power in a preemptive attack. > > > > > > > > Long but a complete answer written in 2002 and every word is > still > > > true (and > > > > > > proven to be so) > > > > > > > > In attempting to make the case for invading Iraq, President > Bush's > > > speech > > > > > > Monday night revealed the folly of the new doctrine of > pre-emptive > > > attack. > > > > > > More clearly than any other statement by the White House, the > > > president laid > > > > > > bare the weakness of his administration's foreign policy. > > > > > > > > According to the president, "we cannot wait for the final proof" > that > > > Saddam > > > > > > Hussein's government is planning an imminent attack against the > > > United > > > > > > States. Even though President Bush acknowledged in his speech > that > > > Iraq does > > > > > > not currently threaten the United States, he said we must "assume > the > > > > > > worst." Essentially, the White House is proposing that the United > > > States > > > > > > invade a distant country without any evidence of impending > > > aggression. > > > > > > > > Bush also spoke of an "international coalition" that would disarm > > > Hussein. > > > > > > Bush knows the American public is loathe to go it alone. What he > > > failed to > > > > > > do was tell us who the members of his war coalition are. Why? > Because > > > there > > > > > > is no coalition. Quite the contrary, Bush's aggressive rhetoric, > > > disregard > > > > > > for international law, and his lack of any vision other than war > > > without end > > > > > > is causing traditional friends of the United States to join the > > > majority of > > > > > > the world's nations in distancing themselves from Washington in a > > > fashion > > > > > > not seen since the Vietnam War. > > > > > > > > The flimsy justifications President Bush has provided for an > urgent > > > Iraq > > > > > > invasion have not convinced the world community. Iraq's > neighbors, > > > Saudi > > > > > > Arabia and Kuwait, reject the notion of an imminent threat. The > > > Muslim world > > > > > > -- whose support is vital to any real effort to end the causes of > > > terrorism > > > > > > -- is adamantly opposed. In Europe, only England's Tony Blair and > > > Italy's > > > > > > Silvio Berlusconi have voiced support for Bush. They both do so > in > > > the face > > > > > > of majority opposition from their fellow citizens and street > > > demonstrations > > > > > > of hundreds of thousands of people. > > > > > > > > Many in the global community also distrust the Bush > administration's > > > > > > expanding war aims. It is not easy for our friends around the > world > > > to > > > > > > stomach the imperial scent of our newly enunciated military > doctrine > > > that > > > > > > proposes pre- emption of any powerful rivals. > > > > > > > > The president wants to launch a war based on assumptions, and > therein > > > lies a > > > > > > problem. One of the great advances of the modern era has been the > > > spread of > > > > > > the rule of law. This is the now common idea that democratically > > > decided > > > > > > laws - - not the capriciousness of individual rulers -- should > govern > > > human > > > > > > affairs. > > > > > > > > During the last half of the 20th century, this principle was > expanded > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
