5 top Gitmo detainees plead guilty, seek martyrdom

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/12/08/Gitmo_911_suspects_to_plead_guilty/UPI-68631228752620/

• 5 top Gitmo detainees plead guilty, seek martyrdom - afforded by death penalty. Should they get it? s
  • I think it has been proven..(sm) - Just the big bad
    • Yes, I agree with that. - I just think that the detainees have..sm

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

WASHINGTON - Lawyer Patrick Murphy and five other veterans of the Given their experience in Iraq, the six Democrats in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Maryland and Virginia say they are eminently qualified to pose the tough questions. Their reservations mirror public opinion, with an increasing number of Americans expressing concern about the mission and favoring a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops.

The most recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll showed only 37 percent of Americans approve of Bush's handling of Iraq, with 62 percent disapproving.

This summer, Democrat Paul Hackett, an Iraq war veteran, nearly defeated Republican Jean Schmidt in a special election in an Ohio district considered a GOP stronghold. Hackett focused on his wartime experience and his opposition to Bush's policies.

On Monday, with support from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and other party leaders, Hackett decided to seek a higher office, the Senate seat now held by two-term Republican Mike DeWine, said spokesman David Woodruff.

Some guys don't think it's time to question our government, but the fact is I love my country, said Murphy, 31, who fought with the 82nd Airborne Division. We need to have an exit strategy now.

While fighting in Iraq, a private asked then-Capt. Murphy why U.S. forces were in the Persian Gulf nation and was told it didn't matter; there was a job to do and just try to return home safely.

That wasn't the time to question our government, Murphy recalled.

Murphy is challenging first-term Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick, a Republican in the northern Philadelphia suburbs of the 8th District.

Another Iraq war veteran, Texas Republican Van Taylor, is also running for a House seat, but he backs President Bush.

In 1974, public outrage over the Watergate scandal and Republican President Richard M. Nixon's administration swept a class of reform-minded Democrats into office. It's too soon to measure the impact of the war on the 2006 elections, but the handful of veterans pursuing seats in the House is an early indicator.

The Democratic veterans walk a fine line as they reach out to voters who may question Bush's handling of the conflict. The task is to challenge the administration while still being seen as patriotic.

David Ashe, who spent most of 2003 working as a Marine judge advocate general in Iraq, chooses his words carefully when asked whether the United States should have invaded.

There's no reason to Monday morning quarterback the decision, said Ashe, 36, who is trying to unseat first-term Republican Rep. Thelma Drake in Virginia's 2nd District. I would say we're in the right position to succeed. Whether or not we're going to get that success remains to be seen.

Although they often talk tough about the Bush administration, some of the candidates don't fit the typical anti-war image, said Charles Sheehan-Miles, executive director of Veterans for Common Sense.

They really want to help the Iraqi people and see the mission through, and they think we're losing because of stupid mistakes made at the senior leadership level, Sheehan-Miles said.

Historically, war experience has added to a candidate's credibility. As many as 70 percent of lawmakers in the 1950s were war veterans, but only about 40 percent of the members of Congress today have military experience.

During the Vietnam War, there was such a collective funk that veterans felt free to criticize, said John Johannes, a political science professor at Villanova University. A few, like Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., got their political start as anti-war activists.

Veterans today have an advantage because Americans have a positive feeling about soldiers, said John Allen Williams, a political scientist at Loyola University in Chicago.

Unlike Vietnam, people who do not like the war are not blaming the veterans, Williams said.

But that will not guarantee success, contends Ed Patru, deputy communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee. Democratic war veterans who are seen as liberal on other issues aren't going to be popular with voters, he said.

I think a lot of Democrats are looking at what happened in Ohio and trying to duplicate that around the country, Patru said.

Taylor, 33, a Republican businessman from West Texas, supports Bush's policies. He is a major in the Marines reserves, and, like the Democrats, cites his war experience.

The war on terror is going to be with us for a long time and Congress is going to grapple with the war on terror, Taylor said. We need policy-makers who know what it means to make war.

Bryan Lentz, 41, an attorney from Swarthmore, Pa., volunteered to go to Iraq at age 39 with a civil affairs unit. The Army reserves major was so disillusioned by the lack of a plan in Iraq that he decided while he was in Iraq to run for Congress.

He is trying to unseat 10-term GOP Rep. Curt Weldon (news, bio, voting record), who is vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

I'm not anti-war, I'm anti-failure, Lentz said. We need to define what victory is and we need to set a plan to get there. You cannot stay the course if you do not set a course.

Friday, Nov. 10, 2006
Exclusive: Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse
A lawsuit in Germany will seek a criminal prosecution of the outgoing Defense Secretary and other U.S. officials for their alleged role in abuses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo
By ADAM ZAGORIN

Just days after his resignation, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is about to face more repercussions for his involvement in the troubled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New legal documents, to be filed next week with Germany's top prosecutor, will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers, for their alleged roles in abuses committed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The plaintiffs in the case include 11 Iraqis who were prisoners at Abu Ghraib, as well as Mohammad al-Qahtani, a Saudi held at Guantanamo, whom the U.S. has identified as the so-called 20th hijacker and a would-be participant in the 9/11 hijackings. As TIME first reported in June 2005, Qahtani underwent a special interrogation plan, personally approved by Rumsfeld, which the U.S. says produced valuable intelligence. But to obtain it, according to the log of his interrogation and government reports, Qahtani was subjected to forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, prolonged stress positions, sleep deprivation and other controversial interrogation techniques.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs say that one of the witnesses who will testify on their behalf is former Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, the one-time commander of all U.S. military prisons in Iraq. Karpinski — who the lawyers say will be in Germany next week to publicly address her accusations in the case — has issued a written statement to accompany the legal filing, which says, in part: It was clear the knowledge and responsibility [for what happened at Abu Ghraib] goes all the way to the top of the chain of command to the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld .

A spokesperson for the Pentagon told TIME there would be no comment since the case has not yet been filed.

Along with Rumsfeld, Gonzales and Tenet, the other defendants in the case are Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone; former assistant attorney general Jay Bybee; former deputy assisant attorney general John Yoo; General Counsel for the Department of Defense William James Haynes II; and David S. Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Senior military officers named in the filing are General Ricardo Sanchez, the former top Army official in Iraq; Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the former commander of Guantanamo; senior Iraq commander, Major General Walter Wojdakowski; and Col. Thomas Pappas, the one-time head of military intelligence at Abu Ghraib.

Germany was chosen for the court filing because German law provides universal jurisdiction allowing for the prosecution of war crimes and related offenses that take place anywhere in the world. Indeed, a similar, but narrower, legal action was brought in Germany in 2004, which also sought the prosecution of Rumsfeld. The case provoked an angry response from Pentagon, and Rumsfeld himself was reportedly upset. Rumsfeld's spokesman at the time, Lawrence DiRita, called the case a a big, big problem. U.S. officials made clear the case could adversely impact U.S.-Germany relations, and Rumsfeld indicated he would not attend a major security conference in Munich, where he was scheduled to be the keynote speaker, unless Germany disposed of the case. The day before the conference, a German prosecutor announced he would not pursue the matter, saying there was no indication that U.S. authorities and courts would not deal with allegations in the complaint.

In bringing the new case, however, the plaintiffs argue that circumstances have changed in two important ways. Rumsfeld's resignation, they say, means that the former Defense Secretary will lose the legal immunity usually accorded high government officials. Moreover, the plaintiffs argue that the German prosecutor's reasoning for rejecting the previous case — that U.S. authorities were dealing with the issue — has been proven wrong.

The utter and complete failure of U.S. authorities to take any action to investigate high-level involvement in the torture program could not be clearer, says Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a U.S.-based non-profit helping to bring the legal action in Germany. He also notes that the Military Commissions Act, a law passed by Congress earlier this year, effectively blocks prosecution in the U.S. of those involved in detention and interrogation abuses of foreigners held abroad in American custody going to back to Sept. 11, 2001. As a result, Ratner contends, the legal arguments underlying the German prosecutor's previous inaction no longer hold up.

Whatever the legal merits of the case, it is the latest example of efforts in Western Europe by critics of U.S. tactics in the war on terror to call those involved to account in court. In Germany, investigations are under way in parliament concerning cooperation between the CIA and German intelligence on rendition — the kidnapping of suspected terrorists and their removal to third countries for interrogation. Other legal inquiries involving rendition are under way in both Italy and Spain.

U.S. officials have long feared that legal proceedings against war criminals could be used to settle political scores. In 1998, for example, former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet — whose military coup was supported by the Nixon administration — was arrested in the U.K. and held for 16 months in an extradition battle led by a Spanish magistrate seeking to charge him with war crimes. He was ultimately released and returned to Chile. More recently, a Belgian court tried to bring charges against then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for alleged crimes against Palestinians.

For its part, the Bush Administration has rejected adherence to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on grounds that it could be used to unjustly prosecute U.S. officials. The ICC is the first permanent tribunal established to prosecute war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded and he was one of the key architects of the 9/11 attack.  You don't think he is guilty?  Are you kidding me?

This man plotted and planned an attack on American soil that killed thousands of Americans and you don't think he should have been waterboarded? 

You tell me this.....how many detainees were actually subjected to waterboarding....other than Khalid Mohammed that is.  Did we do it to every single detainee.  Do you even realize that these detainees, a lot of them, were turned in by other people in their country or caught as a direct result of interrogating other detainees. 

The last time I checked, Khalid Mohammed still has his head attached to his body....which is more than I can say for Jack Hensley, Nicholas Berg and any other American who had their head cut off.  It wasn't a swift cutting off either.  I don't know if anyone here has seen the video of one of the beheadings but I had the misfortune of seeing one on the internet and it is an image that haunts me to this day.  They basically grabbed him by his head, took a big knife and cut all the way around his neck, and then literally had to start sawing at his neck to get his head the rest of the way off. It took quite a while to accomplish the whole thing.  When it was done, they threw the guy's head on his body and started cheering. 

I have no compassion for terrorists and I think it is sad that some of you people do.  They are ruthless people whose only desire is to rid the world of infidels....that includes you, JTBB.  Yes, you.  They want you dead and you want them treated fairly. 

he said, she said, dem said, pub said.  What difference does it make?  Fix the problem.  I don't believe the dems are anymore at fault for this than the pubs.  If anything, I blame Bush and not because he's a pub but because he was supposed to be our leader.  If he thought this was an issue, why didn't he press it?  Oh, because someone told him it wasn't.  Since when does he listen to anyone, and especially the dems. 

President Theodore Roosevelt, 1918:  To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

Senator Robert A. Taft (also known as Mr. Republican), 1941 (after Pearl Harbor):  I believe that there can be no doubt that criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government..... Too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think it will give some comfort to the enemy.... If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country more good than it will do the enemy, and it will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur.

I think everyone knows that he had prescriptions from more than a couple of docs.

No one on your side of the fence has answered my question posed above. If MJF had aired an ad against stem cell research, would you have had the same reaction? Would Rush have had the same reaction? I think not. I think you would have applauded him for his courage and his willingness to do such a thing especially in light of the seriousness of his disease.  Another question, what do you think about Nancy Reagan and her son Ron being pro stem cell research openly?

Does anyone know exactly what planet Bush is from?  He seems to be in his own little world.  It's times like this you wonder exactly how did such an idiot ever get elected.  LOL

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#28629277

going down, but I really want Bush and Cheney to be tried for war crimes.  This is a dilemma for Obama - we have many, many issues to work on, but to allow the atrocities to go unpunished does not sit well with me.  Let's have some trials, Mr. Holter.

If it's closed, where will the terrorists go? Our regular jails that would not be able to handle them. Leave them free in our own country to terrorize? Home to their own country? Did you know that some countries do not want to accept them back?

Did you know that some of the terrorists that were freed and sent home were captured a second time trying to kill our troops?

Shall this country be subjected to suicide bombings because Gitmo is closed? I don't think so. I don't agree with prisoner torture BUT what do you think has been happening since WWII? It's okay for other countries to torture our servicemen and women, but not okay for us to do it?

It's a double standard.

How about this - we remove the terrorist/prisons from GITMO and move them to other prisons throughout the country.  Then send all the crooked politicians, bankers, and people who are receiving bail-outs and turning around and taking holiday's with the money and going to spa's, and not using the bail outs on what they are for, etc. - send them to GITMO. - just a suggestion.

are there because they were turned in by their own people or their names were given during interrogation.  Yes, there may be some who are innocent but aren't there also some people in prisons who were covicted and are innocent.  That happens.  This is war and in war....you can take no chances. 

Did we not put Japanese people into concentration camps during war?  Did we not drop a bomb on two Japanese cities and totally destroy them with the A-Bomb?  I don't recall administrations going back against previous administrations for those actions.  It was war......just like now.  This is war.  Terrorists have set off bombs at the WTC.  They blew a hole in the USS Cole.  They took down both WTC towers and hit the pentagon with one plane going down before making it to its destination, which was suspected to be the White House. They want to continue more attacks on us and you are worried about waterboarding a prisoner who might potentially know information that could save American lives.  You would much rather let them go or not "torture" them and not find out any new intelligence to save Americans and stop potential attacks?

Didn't we ridicule Bush for not seeing 9/11 coming?  There were warnings.  We were up his butt for not putting the intelligence together and thwarting the attacks on that day.  So when he turned around and decided to interrogate prisoners for more information, now you hate him for doing that too.  You can't have it both ways people.  Terrorists want us dead and they will continue to plot and execute their attacks on us.  Will it not sink in until, God forbid, you or someone you love is killed by them?  They have no compassion for us.  I can guarantee you that they are laughing at us for our soft interrogation process.  They think we are weak and now we have given them more fuel to get more people to join their cause by making CIA memos public as well as pictures.  Obama has made our military and all Americans more unsafe with his stupid stunt.

If he continues to pursue this witch hunt, I hope to God it nails all the dems who didn't seem to have a problem with this in the past either and that includes Pelosi.  If they are going to take down Bush and Cheney, they best nail the dems who didn't say anything and knew about it.  If they are going down, they all better go down.  I have lost any respect I had for Obama when he made this public.  We are at war and these childish blame games are going to get more Americans killed.  Shame on him!   

are there because they were turned in by their own people or their names were given during interrogation.  Yes, there may be some who are innocent but aren't there also some people in prisons who were covicted and are innocent.  That happens.  This is war and in war....you can take no chances. 

Did we not put Japanese people into concentration camps during war?  Did we not drop a bomb on two Japanese cities and totally destroy them with the A-Bomb?  I don't recall administrations going back against previous administrations for those actions.  It was war......just like now.  This is war.  Terrorists have set off bombs at the WTC.  They blew a hole in the USS Cole.  They took down both WTC towers and hit the pentagon with one plane going down before making it to its destination, which was suspected to be the White House. They want to continue more attacks on us and you are worried about waterboarding a prisoner who might potentially know information that could save American lives.  You would much rather let them go or not "torture" them and not find out any new intelligence to save Americans and stop potential attacks?

Didn't we ridicule Bush for not seeing 9/11 coming?  There were warnings.  We were up his butt for not putting the intelligence together and thwarting the attacks on that day.  So when he turned around and decided to interrogate prisoners for more information, now you hate him for doing that too.  You can't have it both ways people.  Terrorists want us dead and they will continue to plot and execute their attacks on us.  Will it not sink in until, God forbid, you or someone you love is killed by them?  They have no compassion for us.  I can guarantee you that they are laughing at us for our soft interrogation process.  They think we are weak and now we have given them more fuel to get more people to join their cause by making CIA memos public as well as pictures.  Obama has made our military and all Americans more unsafe with his stupid stunt.

If he continues to pursue this witch hunt, I hope to God it nails all the dems who didn't seem to have a problem with this in the past either and that includes Pelosi.  If they are going to take down Bush and Cheney, they best nail the dems who didn't say anything and knew about it.  If they are going down, they all better go down.  I have lost any respect I had for Obama when he made this public.  We are at war and these childish blame games are going to get more Americans killed.  Shame on him!   

As a purely political move, Candidate Obama - who knew nothing about the real problems - promised to close Gitmo and signed that order on his first day in office. 

1.  Why close Gitmo?  The main reason given is that Gitmo is a "rallying cry" for jihadists.  I have not seen the slightest shred of evidence offered to support this mantra, which has become the poster child for the truism that if you repeat something often enough people will believe it.

2.  Even if true, Obama does not explain why "The Shoe" (SHU = secure housing unit) in Michigan, for example, wll not simply become the new rallying cry, especially given that the Gitmo prisoners will find that conditions in a SHU are much more harsh than they had in Gitmo, which has been called "Club Fed". 

3.  The point is made that no one has escaped from "The Shoe".  So what?  No one has escaped from Gitmo either.

4.  What Obama knows (because experts have told him) is that escaping is not the issue anyway.  A prison on the American mainland  is much more subject to an attack from the outside - such as an airplane being flown into it (some might remember the little incident on 9/11?) - than is the case with Gitmo.  If the attack kills some of the terrorists housed there, they will simply be martyrs.  The purpose of the attack would not be to break them out, but to destroy the prison and make a statement to the world about terrorist capabilities.

5.  The town or city where the SHU is located will also make a lovely target for terrorists.   Or, perhaps they'll murder some of the guards who live in the town. They do not have this capability with Gitmo.

There is no absolutely level on which closing Gitmo makes even the slightest bit of sense and most Americans know this. What this amounts to is nothing more or less than subjugating national security for purposes of shameful, irresponsible political grandstanding. 

Impeach Obama now.