Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens  (Read 7305 times)

Thikighoros

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 130
    • View Profile
Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
« Reply #30 on: November 17, 2005, 05:26:49 PM »
you know right-wing extremists in trouble when they beat dead horse known as bill clinton.

hahahahahahahaha!

And you know that left-wing extremists are in trouble when they bring up dead issues, like how we got into the war in Iraq. That's when you know they're out of ideas.
I look forward to the day that I could say (God willing):

Είναι δικηγόρος στρατιωτικός.
(I am a military lawyer).

www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=Thikighoros

Thikighoros

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 130
    • View Profile
Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
« Reply #31 on: November 17, 2005, 05:47:55 PM »
USA or USSR?

Report: CIA holds terror suspects in secret prisons
NEW YORK (AP) -- The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement, the Washington Post reported.

The secret facility is part of a covert prison system set up by the CIA nearly four years ago that at various times has included sites in eight countries, including Thailand, Afghanistan and several democracies in Eastern Europe, as well as a small center at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, according to current and former intelligence officials and diplomats from three continents, the paper said Tuesday.

The hidden global internment network is a central element in the CIA's unconventional war on terrorism, the Post said.

It depends on the cooperation of foreign intelligence services, and on keeping even basic information about the system secret from the public, foreign officials and nearly all members of Congress charged with overseeing the CIA's covert actions.

The existence and locations of the facilities -- referred to as "black sites" in classified White House, CIA, Justice Department and congressional documents -- are known to only a handful of officials in the United States and, usually, only to the president and a few top intelligence officers in each host country, it said.

The CIA and the White House, citing national security concerns and the value of the program, have dissuaded Congress from demanding that the agency answer questions in open testimony about the conditions under which captives are held.

Virtually nothing is known about who is kept in the facilities, what interrogation methods are employed with them, or how decisions are made about whether they should be detained or for how long.

While the Defense Department has produced volumes of public reports and testimony about its detention practices and rules after the abuse scandals at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at Guantanamo Bay, the CIA has not even acknowledged the existence of its black sites.

To do so, officials familiar with the program told the Post, could open the U.S. government to legal challenges, particularly in foreign courts, and increase the risk of political condemnation at home and abroad.

But the revelations of widespread prisoner abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq by the U.S. military -- which operates under published rules and transparent oversight of Congress -- have increased concern among lawmakers, foreign governments and human rights groups about the opaque CIA system.

Those concerns escalated last month, when Vice President Cheney and CIA Director Porter J. Goss asked Congress to exempt CIA employees from legislation already endorsed by 90 senators that would bar cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoner in U.S. custody.

Although the CIA will not acknowledge details of its system, intelligence officials defend the agency's approach, arguing that the successful defense of the country requires that the agency be empowered to hold and interrogate suspected terrorists for as long as necessary and without restrictions imposed by the U.S. legal system or even by the military tribunals established for prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.

The Washington Post said it is not publishing the names of the Eastern European countries involved in the covert program, at the request of senior U.S. officials.

They argued that the disclosure might disrupt counterterrorism efforts in those countries and elsewhere and could make them targets of possible terrorist retaliation.

The secret detention system was conceived in the chaotic and anxious first months after the September 11, 2001, attacks, when the working assumption was that a second strike was imminent.

Since then, the arrangement has been increasingly debated within the CIA, where considerable concern lingers about the legality, morality and practicality of holding even unrepentant terrorists in such isolation and secrecy, perhaps for the duration of their lives.

Mid-level and senior CIA officers began arguing two years ago that the system was unsustainable and diverted the agency from its unique espionage mission, the Post said.



Your comaprison with the USSR is ridiculous, unless you are including the fact the government is restricting freedom of religious (esp. Christian) expression.


I'm not surprised, actually I am heartened that we are actually dealing with terrorists the way they should be dealt with: brute force. They are not a bunch of misguided people that would declare their love for America and Israel in a heartbeat. They are hardened Islamists, that's why they are either fighting directly or plotting to kill Americans. This should not be forgotten.

I'm also happy with the fact that the CIA is finally doing something to aid in the war against Islamic terrorism. As far as I'm concerned the agency can do whatever it wants with them. Islamic terrorist do not recognize the Geneva Convention, and they act as civilians intentionally to defy it. If we are talikng about soldiers of another country, then it's a different story. But the Islamic terrorists owe their allegiance to no nation, only to the "coming Islamic Caliphate".

I'm not surprised that the media would bring this out. They want us to adopt the Reno model where we bring them to trial, and our legal system gets tied up, while terrorists send coded messages and more Americans die. They complained when we detained terrorists in Afghanistan (the supposed "good war" in the eyes of liberals). They complained when we sent them to other countries putting them under their responsibility, saying that we should retain custody of such dangerous people. Now, they complain when we have prisons in other countries. There's no pleasing such a set of people.
I look forward to the day that I could say (God willing):

Είναι δικηγόρος στρατιωτικός.
(I am a military lawyer).

www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=Thikighoros

TrojanChispas

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4702
  • , a worthy adversary
    • View Profile
Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
« Reply #32 on: November 17, 2005, 05:55:23 PM »
Look at the way the gov't treated John Walker.  He was an American and was tortured even though he never fired a shot at US forces and had nothign to do with Al-Qaeda.  Months before 9-11, he joined the Taliban (a bad organization) to fight the Northern Alliance (a much worse organization), not to fight against the US.

Isnt the fact that we dont torture part of what makes us the good guys, what elevates our global image?  What ever happened to no cruel or unusual punishment.

If we want to win this, we need to take th moral high ground.  The next thing you will be saying is that they should be allowed to rape the females that they capture.
Arab Majority May Not Stay Forever Silent
http://www.nysun.com/article/36110?page_no=1

Thikighoros

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 130
    • View Profile
Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
« Reply #33 on: November 17, 2005, 09:16:46 PM »
No, what makes us the good guys is that we don't send planes into office buildings during rush hour, knowing that many people are there. What makes us the good guys is that we dont plan the wole scale slaughter of a people just to advance a religion. What makes us the good guys is that we actually respect the rights of women and children, even those of the jihadis that are caught fighting against us.

As for raping women, ewww, get your mind out of the gutter. The problem is that we by default have the moral high ground because the object of terrorism is kill civilians and scare others into submission. We are not out to kill civillians (if we did, we'd never get support for a military action again).

As for John Walker Lindh, he was caught on the battlefield, fighting Americans. He was an American, fighting against American troops. Even if he did not intend on killing Americans initially, that still doesn't remove that fact. He was fighting his own country. That carries the death penalty (in military and civilian courts) in the United States. He should have been tried and executed.

I agree that the Northern Allaiance was a rotten grouping of anti-Taliban elements, but what alternative did we have? Direct invasion and occupation not an option because of the Soviet experience. But the Taliban was also a group of warring factions that were only unified by their leaders paying allegiance to Islamic fundamentalism. Even the "elimination" of heroin under the Taliban was at best, modest. The Taliban went after those drug growers who were against Taliban rule; there were many so it seemed like a total crackdown. But the Taliban looked the other way when it came to growers that supported their cause.

But, even the worst of the Northern Alliance could not compare with the Taliban. Women were forced to drop out of school once they reached puberty. Even in Saudi Arabia (where women can not drive) women are allowed to go to school up to the university level. The Taliban blew up the Baimiyan statues after international outcry, despite admonitions to the contrary even from Iran and Pakistan. The Taliban even made Hindus wear a special patch replicating the Star of David patch that the Nazis made Jews wear. The fact that you state that the Northern Allaiance was worse than the Taliban (which implies that the Taliban was better than the Northern Alliance) is astounding.
I look forward to the day that I could say (God willing):

Είναι δικηγόρος στρατιωτικός.
(I am a military lawyer).

www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=Thikighoros

TrojanChispas

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4702
  • , a worthy adversary
    • View Profile
Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
« Reply #34 on: November 17, 2005, 09:34:31 PM »

As for John Walker Lindh, he was caught on the battlefield, fighting Americans. He was an American, fighting against American troops. Even if he did not intend on killing Americans initially, that still doesn't remove that fact. He was fighting his own country. That carries the death penalty (in military and civilian courts) in the United States. He should have been tried and executed.



Wrong.  JWL never fought Americans. JWL was fighting with a taliban group that was trying to escape to Iran and made a deal with a warlord in Afghanistan to transport them to the border. Instead, JWL and his group was taken to prison.  JWL never fired a shot at an American.
In prison, the NA tortured and committed war crimes against JWL and his group who decided that their best bet was to rise up against the NA and try and take the weapons cache located nearby.  The NA were known for their war crimes and attrocities and for always executing all prisoners.  It just so happens that while JWL was being interrogated by the CIA, the uprising began and someone shot one of the CIA officers.  JWL had his hands tied beind his back the whole time and didnt know that the men were CIA, but the gov't tried to pin the murder on him. 
After the uprising began, the US intervened with troops and it was discovered the JWL was an American.  JWL was tortured without cause or reason.

Is that your idea of justice?

JWL was araigned for fighting with the enemy and the judge scheduled the first day of trial for the aniversary of 9-11.  Even though the US had no legitimate case, ie, JWL did not have the requisite mens rea for the crime, it still brought the charges against him.  Ask yourself, if the US had a case, why didnt they try the case and seek the death penalty?

The only reason JWL settled the case was becasue he could not get a fair trial in the US because the media had already convicted him of treason WITHOUT KNOWING THE FACTS.  Sound familiar?
Arab Majority May Not Stay Forever Silent
http://www.nysun.com/article/36110?page_no=1

Thikighoros

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 130
    • View Profile
Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
« Reply #35 on: November 17, 2005, 10:48:11 PM »
I have my facts right, John Walker Lindh was trying leave to Iran not because he didn't wan't to hurt Americans. He was trying to avoid capture by Americans soldiers.

The fact that he was trying escape to Iran is interesting. That he didn't escape to Pakistan, where most who were trying to escape initially went.

He knew he was guilty of treason; his running to Iran was because it would have ensured that he would not be captured. Most peole who weren't afraid to die in the Taliban either stayed put, or went to Pakistan. Whether he was involved in the murder of the CIA officer interrogating him is out of the question. He was in Afghanistan, fighting for the Taliban. The Taliban was fighting against the United States. He did not give the Americans or their allies any assistance that would have exonerated him for joining such a dispicable group. If you are fighting for a group that is fighting against the United States, and you are an American, you are guilty of treason.

I never said that the Norther Alliance was a group of savory characters; and you're right in stating that they were guilty of many atrocities. But in your claims, you don't eve try to even acknowledge what the Taliban did. Are you still making then claim that the Taliban was better than the Northern Alliance?
I look forward to the day that I could say (God willing):

Είναι δικηγόρος στρατιωτικός.
(I am a military lawyer).

www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=Thikighoros

TrojanChispas

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4702
  • , a worthy adversary
    • View Profile
Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
« Reply #36 on: November 17, 2005, 11:10:42 PM »
I have my facts right, John Walker Lindh was trying leave to Iran not because he didn't wan't to hurt Americans. He was trying to avoid capture by Americans soldiers.

The fact that he was trying escape to Iran is interesting. That he didn't escape to Pakistan, where most who were trying to escape initially went.

He knew he was guilty of treason; his running to Iran was because it would have ensured that he would not be captured. Most peole who weren't afraid to die in the Taliban either stayed put, or went to Pakistan. Whether he was involved in the murder of the CIA officer interrogating him is out of the question. He was in Afghanistan, fighting for the Taliban. The Taliban was fighting against the United States. He did not give the Americans or their allies any assistance that would have exonerated him for joining such a dispicable group. If you are fighting for a group that is fighting against the United States, and you are an American, you are guilty of treason.

I never said that the Norther Alliance was a group of savory characters; and you're right in stating that they were guilty of many atrocities. But in your claims, you don't eve try to even acknowledge what the Taliban did. Are you still making then claim that the Taliban was better than the Northern Alliance?

They were the moral equivalent.  Both were terrible, but JWL was not a bad guy.  He joinded the Taliban to fight the NA. Then 9-11 happened and he was caugh in the mix without a way to surrender because the NA was executing all prisoners. 

And your facts are wrong.  JWL never fired a shot at American forces.  In fact, there was nothing to suggest that he even knew 9-11 happened or that the US was no fighting the Taliban. 
Arab Majority May Not Stay Forever Silent
http://www.nysun.com/article/36110?page_no=1

Freak

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4899
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
« Reply #37 on: November 17, 2005, 11:25:45 PM »
You don't have to fire a shot to be convicted of treason. All that's required is that two credible witnesses testify that you knowingly aided or abetted an enemy of the US.
Freak is the best, Freak is the best!  Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
I don't like calling you Freak, I'd rather call you  Normal Nice Guy.

TrojanChispas

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4702
  • , a worthy adversary
    • View Profile
Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
« Reply #38 on: November 17, 2005, 11:34:50 PM »
Which doesnt explain why he wasnt tried for treason if he was a traitor.

Maybe it was because he didnt know the US had declared war on the Taliban and wasnt actually fighting against the US.
Arab Majority May Not Stay Forever Silent
http://www.nysun.com/article/36110?page_no=1

Julie Fern

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 27223
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: did Clinton lie to the american people? past smokescreens
« Reply #39 on: November 18, 2005, 07:36:56 AM »
you know right-wing extremists in trouble when they beat dead horse known as bill clinton.

hahahahahahahaha!

And you know that left-wing extremists are in trouble when they bring up dead issues, like how we got into the war in Iraq. That's when you know they're out of ideas.

dead issue?  you wish, sucka.

it quite relevant, as it point out that bush 0 & co. lied through teeth then and are lying through teeth now.

actually, bush 0 administration habitually lies.