Southern District of Manhattan. Can't wait for the trial testimony.
coaste...@yahoo.com
November 23, 2009
Associated Press
NEW YORK -- The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will
plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign
policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said.
Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz
Ali, said Sunday the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks
but "would explain what happened and why they did it."
The U.S. Justice Department announced earlier this month that Ali and
four other men accused of murdering nearly 3,000 people in the
deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. will face a civilian federal
trial just blocks from the site of the destroyed World Trade Center.
Ali, also known as Ammar al-Baluchi, is a nephew of professed 9/11
mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Mohammed, Ali and the others will explain "their assessment of
American foreign policy," Fenstermaker said.
"Their assessment is negative," he said.
Fenstermaker met with Ali last week at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo
Bay in Cuba. He has not spoken with the others but said the men have
discussed the trial among themselves.
Fenstermaker was first quoted in The New York Times in Sunday's
editions.
Critics of Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try the men in a
New York City civilian courthouse have warned that the trial would
provide the defendants with a propaganda platform.
Dean Boyd, a spokesman for the Department of Justice, said Sunday that
while the men may attempt to use the trial to express their views, "we
have full confidence in the ability of the courts and in particular
the federal judge who may preside over the trial to ensure that the
proceeding is conducted appropriately and with minimal disruption, as
federal courts have done in the past."
Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Holder for hours
about his decision to send the five 9/11 suspects to New York for
trial.
Critics of Holder's decision - mostly Republicans - argued the trial
will give Mohammed and his co-defendants a world stage to spout
hateful rhetoric. Holder said such concerns are misplaced, and any
pronouncements by the suspects would only make them look worse.
"I have every confidence that the nation and the world will see him
for the coward that he is," Holder told the committee. "I'm not scared
of what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has to say at trial - and no one else
needs to be, either."
The attorney general said he does not believe holding the trial in New
York - at a federal courthouse that has seen a number of high-profile
terrorism trials in recent decades - will increase the risk of terror
attacks there.
© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material
may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
tdny
"icono...@yahoo.com" <coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e65519a3-b9b6-425c...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Yesterday, I went to see the the William Moses Kunstler documentary,
Disturbing the Universe.
Kunstler was an amazing human being, he has no equal.
One thing that viewing this documentary teaches reasonable human beings,
is the folly of judging people before they have had their day in court.
Time and time again, Kunstler represented individuals that were pilloried,
by mainsteam society, tried in the press, he stood by them.
They were found innocent on the charges presented against them.
The only thing we know about KSM and his co defendants, is what the USA
government is
telling us about them.
It could all be true, some if it true, or all of it a complete lie.
We do not know.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/99862/movie-trailers-william-kunstler-disturbing-the-universe
coaste...@yahoo.com
> "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Exactly. The modern nation state is the most dangerous of man's
inventions. It has over and over again been hijacked by interests
inimical to basic human liberties, to Nazis, to Stalinists, to Pol
Potists. It must be kept leashed and denied the right to cut corners
when matters of justice are concerned. To shrink from the delivery of
due process to defendants hated by the mob is to defeat ourselves as a
democratic country; to say to ourselves that we can not face the
prospect of an aquittal or even of public testimony which might offend
or disabuse us of illusions is to deny our most fundamental
principles. And to DO THAT is to cave to cowardice and to bring
disrepute to our system of justice and to destroy our pride in it. If
all men and women are not to have such fundamental rights where do we
draw the line? The answer is that no line should ever be drawn. We
have to face the implications of our own liberties, that if we don't
defend them against the great power of the state we will lose them.
American liberties are a constant trust and we must struggle
constantly to maintain them.
coaste...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>
> > - Show quoted text -
My rant needed a little fix.
> Exactly. The modern nation state is the most dangerous of man's
> inventions. It has over and over again been hijacked by interests
> inimical to basic human liberties, by Nazis, bt Stalinists, by Pol
> Potists. It must be kept leashed and denied the right to cut corners
> when matters of justice are concerned. To shrink from the delivery of
> due process to defendants hated by the mob is to defeat ourselves as a
> democratic country; to say to ourselves that we can not face the
> prospect of an aquittal or even of public testimony which might offend
> or disabuse us of illusions is to deny our most fundamental
> principles. And to DO THAT is to cave to cowardice and to bring
> disrepute to our system of justice and to destroy our pride in it. If
> all men and women are not to have such fundamental rights where do we
> draw the line? The answer is that no line should ever be drawn. We
> have to face the implications of our own liberties, that if we don't
> defend them against the great power of the state we will lose them.
> American liberties are a constant trust and we must struggle
> constantly to maintain them.
>
drahcir
Seems as if you forgot to read the article to which you are replying.
I didn't forget, so I know a hell of a lot more than what the USA is
telling us. I know this, from Ali's lawyer:
Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz
Ali, said Sunday the men would not deny their role in the 2001
attacks
but "would explain what happened and why they did it."
>
> It could all be true, some if it true, or all of it a complete lie.
>
> We do not know.
>
> http://www.hulu.com/watch/99862/movie-trailers-william-kunstler-distu...
drahcir
wrote:
> 9/11 Defendants to 'Explain' Actions
> November 23, 2009
> Associated Press
>
> NEW YORK -- The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will
> plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign
> policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said.
H, please give us the benefit of your years as a lawyer and comment
upon this. This is a criminal trial in a criminal court. From the
defense's point of view, motive, as any other evidence, is irrelevant
unless it is clearly exculpatory. Can't a judge sustain an objection
by the prosecution each time a defendant starts to spout irrelevant
crap?
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On Nov 23, 2:28 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 9/11 Defendants to 'Explain' Actions
> > November 23, 2009
> > Associated Press
>
> > NEW YORK -- The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will
> > plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign
> > policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said.
>
> H, please give us the benefit of your years as a lawyer and comment
> upon this. This is a criminal trial in a criminal court. From the
> defense's point of view, motive, as any other evidence, is irrelevant
> unless it is clearly exculpatory. Can't a judge sustain an objection
> by the prosecution each time a defendant starts to spout irrelevant
> crap?
Get your coaching from someone who tells you the whole truth, Ratner.
These men will be on trial for their lives. The criminal process has
various phases. Once convicted they will have to be sentenced. That
has different rules. The issue won't be exculpation but mitigation.
The history, their backgrounds and states of mind are obviously
relevant to it. It will be covered by the press whether the Israel
Lobby likes it or not. And it WILL NOT like it. Thanks for prompting
me to point this out.
drahcir
wrote:
> On Nov 24, 8:43 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 23, 2:28 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > 9/11 Defendants to 'Explain' Actions
> > > November 23, 2009
> > > Associated Press
>
> > > NEW YORK -- The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will
> > > plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign
> > > policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said.
>
> > H, please give us the benefit of your years as a lawyer and comment
> > upon this. This is a criminal trial in a criminal court. From the
> > defense's point of view, motive, as any other evidence, is irrelevant
> > unless it is clearly exculpatory. Can't a judge sustain an objection
> > by the prosecution each time a defendant starts to spout irrelevant
> > crap?
>
> Get your coaching from someone who tells you the whole truth, Ratner.
Um, since I've asked you, are you suggesting that you won't tell me
the whole truth?
> These men will be on trial for their lives. The criminal process has
> various phases. Once convicted they will have to be sentenced. That
> has different rules. The issue won't be exculpation but mitigation.
> The history, their backgrounds and states of mind are obviously
> relevant to it. It will be covered by the press whether the Israel
> Lobby likes it or not. And it WILL NOT like it. Thanks for prompting
> me to point this out.
um, sure, anytime, i guess....(twilight zone)
tdny
"drahcir" <justrich...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:26fbc4fb-53b0-4bcb...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
KSM was waterboarded hundreds of times.
What would you or I, or any other human, "confess" to under similar
conditions.
Again, I repeat, we only know what the USA government is telling us,
nothing more.
Don't be in such haste to judge.
coaste...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Read this carefully. It represents a major problem for you and your
ilk:
Ray McGovern: Shining Light on Roots of Terrorism
November 15th, 2009 | Author: Patriot
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/111509a.html
Ray McGovern: Shining Light on Roots of Terrorism
By Ray McGovern
November 15, 2009
Media commentary on the upcoming 9/11 trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
has raised concern that state secrets may be divulged, including
details about how the Bush administration used torture to extract
evidence about al-Qaeda.
“I think that we’re going to shine a light on something that a lot of
people don’t want to look at” is how American Civil Liberties Union
attorney Denney LeBoeuf put it, according to The New York Times on
Saturday.
No problem, says Attorney General Eric Holder, who claims to have
“great confidence” that other evidence – apart from what may have been
gleaned from the 183 times Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded, for
example – will suffice to convict him.
Maybe so, But what the Fawning Corporate Media (or FCM) have so far
neglected is the likelihood that the testimony will be so public that
they will have to break their studied silence about why Sheikh
Mohammed and his associates say they orchestrated the attacks of 9/11.
For reasons that are painfully obvious, the FCM have done their best
to ignore or bury the role that Israel’s repression of the
Palestinians has played in motivating the 9/11 attacks and other anti-
Western terrorism.
It is not like there is no evidence on this key issue. Rather, it
appears that the Israel-Palestine connection is pretty much kept off
limits for discussion.
Yet, as Sheikh Mohammed and the other alleged 9/11 conspirators go to
trial, the FCM’s tacit but tight embargo will be under great strain.
Eyes will have to be averted from the sensitive Israeli-Palestinian
motive even more than from torture, which most Americans know about
(and, God help us, are willing to explain away).
The Bromides
To refresh our memories, let’s recall the bromides we were fed by the
likes of President George W. Bush about why the terrorists attacked on
9/11.
Rather than mentioning long-held grievances expressed by many Arabs –
such as Western intrusion into their region, Washington’s propping up
of autocrats who enrich themselves in deals with multinational oil
companies, and Israel’s military occupation of Palestinian territory –
Bush told the American people that “the terrorists hate our freedoms.”
Former Vice President Dick Cheney reprised that feel-good theme in a
speech to the American Enterprise Institute on May 21. Cheney said the
terrorists hate “all the things that make us a force for good in the
world — for liberty, for human rights, for the rational, peaceful
resolution of differences.”
Some observers might have found those qualities strange for Cheney to
cite given his role in violating constitutional rights, torturing
captives and spreading falsehoods to justify an aggressive war against
Iraq.
But Cheney also slipped up in the speech, presumably because he had
lost his best speechwriters upon leaving office. He inadvertently
acknowledged the Israeli albatross hanging around the neck of U.S.
policy in the Middle East.
“They [terrorists] have never lacked for grievances against the United
States. Our belief in freedom of speech and religion … our belief in
equal rights for women … our support for Israel… — these are the true
sources of resentment,” Cheney said.
Yet “our support for Israel” is hardly ever included in these
formulations, but Cheney at least got that part right.
Rarely in the FCM – and not even often on the Web – does one find
Sheikh Mohammed’s explanation for what motivated him to “mastermind”
9/11. Apparently, few pundits have made it as far as page 147 of the
9/11 Commission Report.
The drafters were at work on the report when they learned that Khalid
Sheikh Mohammed had been captured. They knew that he earned a degree
in mechanical engineering from North Carolina A&T in Greensboro in
1986, before going to Afghanistan to fight the Russian occupier.
And it seems their first assumption was that he suffered some major
indignity at the hands of Americans in Greensboro. Thus the strange
wording of one major finding on page 147 of the 9/11 Commission
Report:
“By his own account, KSM’s animus toward the United States stemmed not
from his experience there as a student, but rather from his violent
disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.”
Moreover, the footnote section reveals that KSM was not the only
“mastermind” terrorist motivated by “U.S. foreign policy favoring
Israel,” although in the footnote the Commission dances around a
specific reference to Israel, leaving it to the reader to infer that
point from the context. Note the missing words in the footnote on page
488:
“On KSM’s rationale for attacking the United States, see Intelligence
report, interrogation of KSM, Sept. 5, 2003 (in this regard, KSM’s
statements echo those of Yousef, who delivered an extensive polemic
against U.S. foreign policy at his January 1998 sentencing),” the
footnote said.
Was Yousef, who happens to be Mohammed’s nephew, perhaps upset about
U.S. foreign policy favoring NATO expansion, or maybe toward Guam?
Obviously, the unstated inference in the footnote was about Israel.
The First Attack
The family connection between Yousef and Mohammed was not incidental,
either. “Yousef’s instant notoriety as the mastermind of the 1993
World Trade Center bombing inspired KSM to become involved in planning
attacks against the United States,” the 9/11 Commission Report noted
on page 147.
The 1993 World Trade Center bombing occurred on Feb. 26, 1993, when a
car bomb was detonated below Tower One. The 1,500-pound urea nitrate-
hydrogen gas-enhanced device was intended to knock the North Tower
(Tower One) into the South Tower, bringing both towers down and
killing thousands of people.
It failed to accomplish that, but the bombing did kill six people and
injured 1,042.
Motive? Ramzi Yousef spelled out his motive in a letter to The New
York Times after the bombing:
“We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned
building. This action was done in response for the American political,
economical, and military support to Israel, the state of terrorism,
and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region.”
Yousef was captured in Pakistan in 1995, imprisoned in New York City,
and held there until his trial. On Nov. 12, 1997, he was convicted of
“seditious conspiracy” and was sentenced the following January to life
without parole. He is held at the high-security Supermax prison in
Florence, Colorado.
Regarding the touchy Israel connection, the 9/11 Commission stepped up
to the plate in the “Recommendations” section of its final report,
which was issued on July 22, 2004, but then bunted:
“America’s policy choices have consequences. Right or wrong, it is
simply a fact that American policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict and American actions in Iraq are dominant staples of popular
commentary across the Arab and Muslim world. … Neither Israel nor the
new Iraq will be safer if worldwide Islamist terrorism grows
stronger.” (pp 376-377)
A more convincing swing at this issue was taken in an unclassified
study published by the Pentagon-appointed U.S. Defense Science Board
on Sept. 23, 2004, just two months later. The board stated:
“Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather, they hate our
policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what
they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against
Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for
what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi
Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf States.
“Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy
to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving
hypocrisy.”
The report directly contradicted what Bush had been saying about “why
they hate us,” letting the elephant out of the bag and into the room,
so to speak.
But, you say, you didn’t hear much about that report either, despite
24-hour cable “news” networks and the “change-everything” importance
of 9/11 in justifying U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq?
Creative Editing
If you’ve read down this far, you will not be surprised that the FCM
ignored the Defense Science Board findings for two months. On Nov. 24,
2004, The New York Times, erstwhile “newspaper of record,” finally
published a story on the report — but only after some highly
instructive surgery.
Thom Shanker of the Times quoted the paragraph beginning with “Muslims
do not ‘hate our freedom’” (see above), but he or his editors
deliberately cut out the following sentence about what Muslims do
object to, i.e., “what they see as one-sided support in favor of
Israel and against Palestinian rights” and support for tyrannical
regimes.
The Times did include the sentence that immediately followed the
omitted one. In other words, it was not simply a matter of shortening
the paragraph. Rather, the offending middle sentence fell victim to
the “delete” key.
Similarly creative editing showed through the Times’ reporting in late
October 2004 on a videotaped speech by Osama bin Laden. Almost six
paragraphs of the story made it onto page one, but the Times saw to it
that the key point bin Laden made at the beginning of his speech was
relegated to paragraphs 23 to 25 at the very bottom of page nine.
Buried there was bin Laden’s assertion that the idea for 9/11 first
germinated after “we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the
American-Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and
Lebanon.”
There is other evidence regarding the Israeli-Palestinian motive
behind 9/11.
Though Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was not allowed to talk to the attorneys
in the 2006 trial of 9/11 co-conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, the judge
did allow into the official record a statement by Mohammed on the
“Purpose of the 9/11 Attacks,” which was drawn from “numerous written
summaries of Sheikh Mohammed’s oral statements in response to
extensive questioning.”
The following statement from Sheikh Mohammed appears on page 11 of
Defense Trial Exhibit 941 from “United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui,
Criminal No. 01-455-A”:
“Sheikh Mohammed said that the purpose of the attack on the Twin
Towers was to ‘wake the American people up.’ Sheikh Mohammed said that
if the target would have been strictly military or government, the
American people would not focus on the atrocities that America is
committing by supporting Israel against the Palestinian people and
America’s self-serving foreign policy that corrupts Arab governments
and leads to further exploitation of the Arab/Muslim peoples.”
Some recent articles about Mohammed’s upcoming trial also have
mentioned the Israel-Palestine motive behind 9/11, though usually in
passing and deep inside the stories. For instance, Sunday’s New York
Times carries a front-page article giving a “portrait of 9/11
‘Jackal,’” Mohammed.
But one has to read deep into the jump on page 26 to learn that the
original plan for the 9/11 attacks envisioned Mohammed flying on one
of 10 planes that were to be hijacked and that “he would be on the one
plane not to crash, and after the plane landed would emerge and
deliver a speech condemning American policy on Israel.”
Revisionist View
Yet, the Fawning Corporate Media won’t stop performing its creative
editing – or creative composition – to obscure this motive. Never mind
what the 9/11 Commission Report said about Mohammed not being driven
by resentments from his college days in North Carolina, theWashington
Post offered a revisionist view on that point on Aug. 30:
“KSM’s limited and negative experience in the United States — which
included a brief jail stay because of unpaid bills — almost certainly
helped propel him on his path to becoming a terrorist,” according to
an intelligence summary, the Post reported. “He stated that his
contact with Americans, while minimal, confirmed his view that the
United States was a debauched and racist country.”
A telling revision perhaps extracted from one of Mohammed’s 183
waterboarding sessions – and certainly politically more convenient in
that it obscured Mohammed’s other explanation implicating “U.S.
foreign policy favoring Israel.”
But let’s look for a moment at the “debauched and racist” part. Could
Mohammed be speaking some truth here – and not just about his college
days of the 1980s?
Would the Washington Post’s editors be so supportive of the “war on
terror” if captives from a more favored ethnic or religious group were
stripped naked before members of the opposite sex, put in diapers,
immobilized with shackles in stress positions for long periods, denied
sleep and made to soil themselves?
In my view, racism comes very much into play here. If Mohammed and
other detainees looked more like us, would it be so easy to demonize
and waterboard them? [See, for example, Consortiumnews. com’s “Bush’s
Interrogators Stressed Nudity.”]
Unguarded Moments
At rare moments, however, hard truths about the 9/11 motivations slip
out – although not in high-profile presidential speeches nor in
Washington Post op-eds. For instance, at a public hearing in June
2004, 9/11 Commissioner Lee Hamilton asked a panel of government
experts, “What motivated them [the hijackers] to do it?”
The CIA analyst in the group is seen in some panic, directing his eyes
toward the other panelists in the all-too-obvious hope that someone
else will answer the politically loaded question. FBI Supervisory
Special Agent James Fitzgerald rose to the occasion, saying:
“I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States.
They identify with the Palestinian problem; they identify with people
who oppose oppressive regimes, and I believe they tend to focus their
anger on the United States.”
For Hamilton and his colleagues that proved to be a politically
incorrect answer. Ergo, you will not find that testimony in the 9/11
Commission Report. And notably absent from the report’s
recommendations is any suggestion as to how one might address the
question of Israeli treatment of Palestinians and U.S. support for it.
In their book Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11
Commission, Chairmen Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton are unusually candid
in admitting that this issue was so sensitive and contentious that
they chose the course of least resistance.
Despite the findings of the Commission staff – and FBI Agent
Fitzgerald – that the hijackers were not motivated by religious
ideology, many of the Commissioners much preferred attributing the
attacks to Islam than to U.S. policy toward Israel.
Kean and Hamilton explain that those commissioners were dead set
against identifying Israel as a major factor motivating the
terrorists, because someone might get the idea that Washington should
reassess its policy.
But it’s a legitimate and urgent question: Would a more determined
commitment by the U.S. government to secure an independent state for
the Palestinians and to alleviate their suffering undercut the appeal
of al-Qaeda and other extremist groups to young people in the Muslim
world?
Or put differently, why should ardent supporters of Israel in the U.S.
Congress behave in such a way as to make the Muslim world view the
United States as disinterested in the plight of the Palestinians and
thus increase the danger of future attacks against the United States,
as well as against Israel?
The Goldstone Report
The rest of the world and most Americans opposed the Israeli strikes
on Gaza last December and January that resulted in the killing of
1,400 Palestinians, with 13 Israelis also killed. And there was wide
criticism of the silence not only of the Bush/Cheney administration,
but also of President-elect Barack Obama.
The UN-authorized investigation by the widely respected South African
jurist, Richard Goldstone, himself a Jew, pointed to war crimes by
both Israel and Hamas, although the inquiry’s harshest criticism
landed on Israel for the staggering civilian death toll.
This finding led Israel’s Likud government to activate its powerful
U.S. lobby, which pressed the House of Representatives to denounce the
Goldstone report, which the House did on a 344-36 vote.
In a wondrous display of pot-and-kettle, House members branded the
Goldstone report “irredeemably biased.” Democratic House Majority
Leader Steny Hoyer called the report “unbalanced and unfair and
inaccurate.”
These so-called “friends of Israel” either don’t know or don’t care
that this sort of resolution only makes matters worse regarding
American attempts to defuse the explosive anger building across the
Middle East. It is a gift to al-Qaeda.
This U.S. pandering to the Likud Lobby – and the implicit suggestion
that the lives of 1,400 Palestinians don’t much matter – also is bad
for the people of Israel. Indeed, it may prove suicidal, by delaying
the geopolitical imperative for Israel to make peace with its Arab
neighbors and thus avert some future catastrophe.
Closer to home, by further identifying itself with – and justifying –
Israeli repression of the Palestinians, the United States helps breed
more Khalid Sheikh Mohammeds and Ramzi Yousefs, more young terrorists
determined to make Washington and the American people pay a price.
It requires no logical leap to conclude that Likud-friendly lawmakers
— the Steny Hoyers, the Howard Bermans, the Ileana Ros-Lehtinens of
this world — could scarcely think up a better way to raise the threat
level from terrorists who feed on festering sores like the calamity in
Gaza.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the
ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He worked
as an Army intelligence officer and CIA analyst for almost 30 years,
and is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
(VIPS). He spent a few weeks in Israel and the occupied territories in
summer 2008.
——————————————————————————————————-
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On Nov 24, 12:59 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 24, 8:43 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 23, 2:28 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > 9/11 Defendants to 'Explain' Actions
> > > > November 23, 2009
> > > > Associated Press
>
> > > > NEW YORK -- The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will
> > > > plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign
> > > > policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said.
>
> > > H, please give us the benefit of your years as a lawyer and comment
> > > upon this. This is a criminal trial in a criminal court. From the
> > > defense's point of view, motive, as any other evidence, is irrelevant
> > > unless it is clearly exculpatory. Can't a judge sustain an objection
> > > by the prosecution each time a defendant starts to spout irrelevant
> > > crap?
>
> > Get your coaching from someone who tells you the whole truth, Ratner.
>
> Um, since I've asked you, are you suggesting that you won't tell me
> the whole truth?
You need counsel but you're not my client, Missey.
>
> > These men will be on trial for their lives. The criminal process has
> > various phases. Once convicted they will have to be sentenced. That
> > has different rules. The issue won't be exculpation but mitigation.
> > The history, their backgrounds and states of mind are obviously
> > relevant to it. It will be covered by the press whether the Israel
> > Lobby likes it or not. And it WILL NOT like it. Thanks for prompting
> > me to point this out.
>
> um, sure, anytime, i guess....(twilight zone)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
More twilight zone stuff to keep you reassured:
Intelligence Veterans Write to President on Torture
Submitted by davidswanson on Mon, 2009-09-28 14:54. Criminal
Prosecution and AccountabilityTorture
September 27, 2009
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Accountability for Torture
We write you, Mr. President, as former intelligence professionals to
voice strong support for Attorney General Eric Holder’s authorization
of a wider investigation into CIA interrogation. We respectfully
disagree with the direct appeal to you by seven former CIA directors
to quash that wider investigation.
The signatories of this Memorandum are former intelligence officers
and analysts who have worked with CIA directors going back as far as
Allen Dulles. Our cumulative experience totals more than 200 years.
We are encouraged by your own support for Attorney General Holder’s
decision to have federal prosecutor John Durham investigate possible
criminal activity by individuals engaging in torture and other
violations of international agreements on the treatment of detainees.
From our own experience in intelligence, both as field operators and
as senior analysts, we know that personal accountability is vital to
maintaining an effective intelligence service that reflects our best
traditions and the rule of law.
Among the former CIA directors who, by letter of September 18, asked
you to “reverse” the attorney general’s decision are some who were
cognizant of and involved in decisions that led to the abuses in
question. We find that troubling.
Clearly, the role of CIA directors in issuing orders that led to
inappropriate behavior, and their failure to hold officers
accountable, helped create the environment in which abuses occurred—
the ones detailed in the Special Review of the CIA Inspector General,
for example.
No analytical leap is required to conclude that those particular CIA
directors might have understandable interest in blocking investigation
of their own complicity. They include, first and foremost, George Tenet
—many of whose misdeeds are already a matter of public record. To
mention just a few:
—Tenet was the chief enabler of torture. He also oversaw widespread
kidnapping (“extraordinary rendition”), which in some cases led to
torture.
—Our sources tell us that Tenet knew about the overstepping of the
guidelines approved by the lawyers and that he knew the people doing
it. Rather than restrain them, he pushed them still harder, in an
attempt to please his masters.
We strongly believe that investigations of possible wrongdoing cannot,
in all fairness, be limited to the proverbial “bad apples at the
bottom of the barrel.” Rather, in our view, such investigations must
be allowed to go wherever the evidence leads.
The inquiry last year by the Senate Armed Forces Committee provides a
good model for doing precisely that. The main conclusion of the
committee’s “Inquiry Into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody,”
approved last fall without dissent, was captured in its first subhead:
“Presidential Order Opens the Door to Considering Aggressive
Techniques.”
The Hollywood version of the CIA portrays amoral spies willing to do
anything without regard to ethics or human rights. Our own long
experience persuades us that the intelligence community has an
abundance of men and women of outstanding character, who are committed
to the rule of law, and whose primary desire is to serve the nation
and protect the American people.
However much former CIA directors and other people at risk might wish
to derail an investigation into possible war crimes, we believe the
moral standing of our nation requires that we apply the same standards
to offenses by U.S. officials as we would to accusations of war crimes
by those in other countries.
For all these reasons, we strongly endorse efforts by the Department
of Justice to investigate allegations of torture and human rights
abuses by any Americans—CIA officers and contractors included.
Please regard this Memorandum as follow up to the more extensive
comments on torture in the VIPS review prepared for you in late April.
A copy of that Memorandum was eventually posted at Consortiumnews.com
(see http://tinyurl.com/cvvr2x).
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
Steering Group
Ray Close, National Clandestine Service (CIA), Princeton, NJ
Phil Giraldi, National Clandestine Service (CIA), Purcellville, VA
Melvin A. Goodman, US Army, CIA, Dept. of State, Dept. of Defense,
Bethesda, MD
Larry Johnson, CIA & Department of State, Bethesda, MD
Pat Lang, US Army (Special Forces), DIA, Alexandria, VA
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council, Linden, VA
Tom Maertens, Department of State, Mankato, MN
Ray McGovern, US Army, CIA, Arlington, VA
Sam Provance, US Army (Abu Graib), Greenville, SC
Coleen Rowley, FBI, Apple Valley, MN
Greg Thielmann, Dept. of State, Sen. Intelligence Committee Staff,
Arlington, VA
Ann Wright, US Army, Department of State, Honolulu, HI
coaste...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
> > 9/11 Defendants to 'Explain' Actions
> > November 23, 2009
> > Associated Press
>
> > NEW YORK -- The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will
> > plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign
> > policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said.
>
> H, please give us the benefit of your years as a lawyer and comment
> upon this. This is a criminal trial in a criminal court. From the
> defense's point of view, motive, as any other evidence, is irrelevant
> unless it is clearly exculpatory. Can't a judge sustain an objection
> by the prosecution each time a defendant starts to spout irrelevant
> crap?
Think now:
US Rep. Capuano: Cheney Should Face Prosecution BOSTON (AP) -- U.S.
Rep. Michael Capuano is suggesting former Republican Vice President
Dick Cheney face prosecution for allowing the waterboarding of terror
suspects.
Capuano (cap-yoo-AH'-noh) said Monday it appears that the orders to
subject al-Qaida terror suspects to waterboarding could be traced to
Cheney's office. If that's the case, Capuano said Cheney should be
prosecuted. He said those carrying out the orders shouldn't be
scapegoated for obeying executive instructions.
Capuano made the comments during a forum among the Democratic
candidates for the late Edward Kennedy's seat on WGBH's Greater
Boston.
Capuano is vying for the Democratic nomination with City Year co-
founder Alan Khazei (KAY'-zee), Attorney General Martha Coakley and
Boston Celtics co-owner Stephen Pagliuca (pah-lee-OOH'-kah).
drahcir
wrote:
> On Nov 24, 1:19 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 24, 12:59 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 24, 8:43 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 23, 2:28 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > 9/11 Defendants to 'Explain' Actions
> > > > > November 23, 2009
> > > > > Associated Press
>
> > > > > NEW YORK -- The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will
> > > > > plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign
> > > > > policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said.
>
> > > > H, please give us the benefit of your years as a lawyer and comment
> > > > upon this. This is a criminal trial in a criminal court. From the
> > > > defense's point of view, motive, as any other evidence, is irrelevant
> > > > unless it is clearly exculpatory. Can't a judge sustain an objection
> > > > by the prosecution each time a defendant starts to spout irrelevant
> > > > crap?
>
> > > Get your coaching from someone who tells you the whole truth, Ratner.
>
> > Um, since I've asked you, are you suggesting that you won't tell me
> > the whole truth?
>
> You need counsel but you're not my client, Missey.
Yes, that's nice, H. Are you cutting back on your meds or something.
Your replies have been particularly alzheimic today. Somehow, you just
can't seem to get the correct spelling of "Missy" to stick, can you?
>
> > > These men will be on trial for their lives. The criminal process has
> > > various phases. Once convicted they will have to be sentenced. That
> > > has different rules. The issue won't be exculpation but mitigation.
> > > The history, their backgrounds and states of mind are obviously
> > > relevant to it. It will be covered by the press whether the Israel
> > > Lobby likes it or not. And it WILL NOT like it. Thanks for prompting
> > > me to point this out.
>
> > um, sure, anytime, i guess....(twilight zone)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> More twilight zone stuff to keep you reassured:
Why you think this needs posting to me is anyone's guess.
> (seehttp://tinyurl.com/cvvr2x).
drahcir
wrote:
> On Nov 24, 8:43 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 23, 2:28 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > 9/11 Defendants to 'Explain' Actions
> > > November 23, 2009
> > > Associated Press
>
> > > NEW YORK -- The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will
> > > plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign
> > > policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said.
>
> > H, please give us the benefit of your years as a lawyer and comment
> > upon this. This is a criminal trial in a criminal court. From the
> > defense's point of view, motive, as any other evidence, is irrelevant
> > unless it is clearly exculpatory. Can't a judge sustain an objection
> > by the prosecution each time a defendant starts to spout irrelevant
> > crap?
>
> Think now:
I think always. What exactly you mean by the above is anyone's guess.
H, if you weren't so alzheimic you'd remember my position wrt Bush/
Cheney.
coaste...@yahoo.com
The Bushies learned a lot of their torture techniques from the light
unto the nations. We were allies you know.
> > Ann Wright, US Army, Department of State, Honolulu, HI- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On Nov 24, 2:54 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 24, 8:43 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 23, 2:28 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > 9/11 Defendants to 'Explain' Actions
> > > > November 23, 2009
> > > > Associated Press
>
> > > > NEW YORK -- The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will
> > > > plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign
> > > > policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said.
>
> > > H, please give us the benefit of your years as a lawyer and comment
> > > upon this. This is a criminal trial in a criminal court. From the
> > > defense's point of view, motive, as any other evidence, is irrelevant
> > > unless it is clearly exculpatory. Can't a judge sustain an objection
> > > by the prosecution each time a defendant starts to spout irrelevant
> > > crap?
>
> > Think now:
>
> I think always. What exactly you mean by the above is anyone's guess.
> H, if you weren't so alzheimic you'd remember my position wrt Bush/
> Cheney.
Your representation as to your "position" was most likely a lie. But
in any event it doesn't matter. I'm not here to talk to you. Doing so
is simply a didactic exercise. Lots read me, Missy.
> > US Rep. Capuano: Cheney Should Face Prosecution BOSTON (AP) -- U.S.
> > Rep. Michael Capuano is suggesting former Republican Vice President
> > Dick Cheney face prosecution for allowing the waterboarding of terror
> > suspects.
>
> > Capuano (cap-yoo-AH'-noh) said Monday it appears that the orders to
> > subject al-Qaida terror suspects to waterboarding could be traced to
> > Cheney's office. If that's the case, Capuano said Cheney should be
> > prosecuted. He said those carrying out the orders shouldn't be
> > scapegoated for obeying executive instructions.
>
> > Capuano made the comments during a forum among the Democratic
> > candidates for the late Edward Kennedy's seat on WGBH's Greater
> > Boston.
>
> > Capuano is vying for the Democratic nomination with City Year co-
> > founder Alan Khazei (KAY'-zee), Attorney General Martha Coakley and
> > Boston Celtics co-owner Stephen Pagliuca (pah-lee-OOH'-kah).- Hide quoted text -
drahcir
See? I told you if you kept up your alzheimer meds, you'd remember for
a few hours how to spell "Missy"!
Fish Supper
***
This is your standard reply when you're getting your arse kicked, isn't it?
It's as boring and unimaginative as you are.
Ico has been making you look stupid in post after post after post. He
presents reasoned arguments, backed up with sources and comes to well argued
conclusions.
You? You're not intelligent enough to present a grown-up counter argument,
you drool like a buffoon and then revert to spouting infantile drivel in
answer before running away in true IDF fashion when things get too tough.
47 times, coward.
drahcir
> "drahcir" <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Um, no. Your illness prevents you from perceiving that my reply
addresses the post to which it responds. That is ALWAYS the case with
me, Fish. Someone in your condition, however, cannot perceive it. You
must accept your lot, Fish.
> It's as boring and unimaginative as you are.
>
> Ico has been making you look stupid in post after post after post.
Whoa, you're more far gone than I thought!
He
> presents reasoned arguments, backed up with sources and comes to well argued
> conclusions.
LOL! You are certifiable.
>
> You? You're not intelligent enough to present a grown-up counter argument,
Fish, my arguments have been presented to you, and I have PROVEN with
cites that you are unable to perceive them. In my opinion, that
inability is indicative of severe mental illness.
> you drool like a buffoon
Buffoons don't generally drool, Fish. Perhaps you are thinking of
baboons, but I've never seen one of them drool, either.
and then revert to spouting infantile drivel in
> answer before running away in true IDF fashion when things get too tough.
Do you feel better now that you've gotten that out of your system? I
hope so. Now, just sit down and relax, take the little pills that the
nice nurse has given you in the plastic minicup, and watch your shows.
>
> 47 times, coward.
Hey, let's look at the bright side - you may have lost your entire
reasoning faculty, including your ability to perceive replies on
usenet, but at least you can still count!
coaste...@yahoo.com
I devised it ab initio. I get to spell it. Besides given names are
rendered in myriad ways. Help me recall the feminized version of
Richard will you? I might like that better than Missy. Maybe it's
Dickie, hey?
coaste...@yahoo.com
They won't need or want to lie about their motivations. They are going
to meet their Maker. Our regional specialists understand them and
their books lay them out clearly. As a nation we haven't been really
free to listen. There has been too much uproar stimulated every day by
the pro-Zionist attack dogs about "anti-Semitism". There is little
reason to doubt that the Defendants will be consistent with Muslim
grievances as described by our scholars. When the 9/11 TERRORISTS not
only explain what happened but WHY THEY DID IT, the entire world will
be sitting on the edge of their seats. It will be a bigger media event
here in the States than the OJ trial and it will be taking place in
the home borrough of world-Jewry. Among other legitimate grievances
against the West, but against Israel and the U.S. in particular, these
men will be explaining how and why the intimate connection between
Israeli oppression and our forty years of de facto support for it
motivated them to commit their own *obviously* responsive crime. There
won't be too much which is new, perhaps, for the well informed, but
that won't matter. Some of these things are going to be very new for
our neo-lumpen elements, now the majority of our population. Their
perspective surely will be. As an aside I predict that before the dust
settles our obviously timid, biased or silent press is going to take a
beating.
Surely you already know what's coming! You've at least been reading me
on this turn of afairs. You're incompetent in this field, but not
quite fully stupid. I haven't hidden those dots you need to connect.
You must know you won't be able to refute the Defendants' basic
narrative even on this board. How could you? You flounder here every
day. In the end you won't be able to get past calling these men going
to their deaths "liars". But the history will provide broadly
supportive context and accordingly you will get no competent support
whatever from the mainstream Jewish Community, from the quality Jewish
intelligentsia. They've been hiding and will continue there. They
aren't about to slug it out in public in the street. They will leave
that, unfortunately, for the right wing lobby hacks. They won't want
to feed the increasing disgust and revulsion the American people are
experiencing with Israel by again defending the indefensible.
Fish Supper
<infantile nonsense and failure to respond to any questions snipped>
drahcir
> "drahcir" <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Are you, like, not the sharpest tack in the box? I don't know how else
to say this, so I'll say it again. Ali's lawyer said not that "the men
would not deny their role in the 2001
attacks". What about that statement do you not comprehend?
>
> Don't be in such haste to judge.
I'm not judging. I'm reading what a defendant's lawyer said. You
should try doing the same.
drahcir
wrote:
Sheesh, another pretentious diatribe below. This H has time on his
hands. Forgive me, H, I really can't express to you how uninterested I
am in your excess verbiage.
drahcir
And I get to call you alzheimic for constantly spelling it wrongly.
We're even.
Besides given names are
> rendered in myriad ways. Help me recall the feminized version of
> Richard will you? I might like that better than Missy. Maybe it's
> Dickie, hey?
H, you never did fully explain this problem you have with femininity.
That's ok - I am sure everyone understands.
Fish Supper
***
so uninterested that you had to reply - albeit with your usual inane
drivel.
While you're at it, try replying to this:
http://media-islam.or.id/2009/11/16/video-gaza-the-new-holocaust/ from
58seconds in.
drahcir
> "drahcir" <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
drahcir
Fish, why do you so crave my attention? Did your father leave you at a
young age (if you can remember that far back)?
Fish Supper
***
It's not so much craving your attention as picking at a scab. You are a pus
encrusted scab trying desperately to cover the wound that is Israeli war
crimes:
54 times you've squirmed away from this now:
http://media-islam.or.id/2009/11/16/video-gaza-the-new-holocaust - it must
really be overwhelming evidence of IDF criminality when even you can't lie
about it.
drahcir
> really be overwhelming evidence of IDF criminality when even you can't lie
> about it.
Hey, let's look at the bright side - you may have lost your entire