GOVERNMENT KNOWS 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB!!!!!
"Guantanamo suspects may be tried on pre-9/11 charges; Move might skirt questions about torture" by Devlin Barrett, Associated Press | March 17, 2009
WASHINGTON - Old terror case files are being dusted off as the Obama administration considers prosecuting high-profile Guantanamo Bay detainees in civilian courts, focusing on crimes allegedly committed before Sept. 11, 2001. It's a tactic that could allow the government to limit testimony about harsh, more recent interrogations and to avoid revealing sensitive intelligence about Al Qaeda....
Prop 101: Al-CIA-Duh and the OSI
Prop 101: Al-CIA-Duh's Greatest Hits
Prop 101: The "Terrorism" Business
Al-CIA-Duh
Who Invented "Al-CIA-Duh?"
"Al-CIA-Duhs" Catch-and-Release Program
New York Times Admits War on Terror is U.S. Creation
The detainees were captured in the globe-spanning war to defeat Al Qaeda.... If they are tried on older charges, not based on questioning since 9/11, prosecutors could argue that testimony or evidence regarding more recent interrogations could not be admitted into evidence. Prosecutors are required to reveal to the defense much of what they have learned in an investigation concerning the charges a defendant faces. In past cases, such information has made its way back to terror plotters, including Al Qaeda....
Yeah, the information made its way back to people who were torturing them -- who just happen to be the same people who engineered and directed 9/11. Mr. Orwell, you awake in there?
Lawyers for the Guantanamo detainees are almost certain to try to get post-9/11 charges tossed out of court based on the prisoners' long detention and the harsh interrogation methods used by their captors....
--more--"
For more on the abominable atrocity of U.S. torture, go HERE
Oh, and about all that useful information Dogshit Dick has been claiming was tortured out of the patsies:
WASHINGTON - .... In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida - chiefly names of Al Qaeda members and associates - was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.
Moreover, within weeks of his capture, US officials had gained evidence that made clear they had misjudged Abu Zubaida. President Bush had publicly described him as "Al Qaeda's chief of operations," and other top officials called him a "trusted associate" of Osama bin Laden and a major figure in the planning of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. None of that was accurate, the new evidence showed.
Abu Zubaida was not even an official member of Al Qaeda, according to a portrait of the man that emerges from court documents and interviews with current and former intelligence, law enforcement, and military sources. Rather, he was a "fixer" for radical Muslim ideologues, and he ended up working directly with Al Qaeda only after Sept. 11 - and that was because the United States stood ready to invade Afghanistan.
Abu Zubaida's case presents the Obama administration with one of its most difficult decisions as it reviews the files of the 241 detainees still held in the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Abu Zubaida - a nom de guerre for the man born Zayn al-Abidin Muhammed Hussein - was never charged in a military commission in Guantanamo Bay, but some US officials are pushing to have him charged now with conspiracy.
It really reaches the point of absurdity when you realize 9/11 was an inside job carried out primarily by the CIA, Mossad, and the Bush administration.
The Palestinian, 38 and now in captivity for more than seven years, is accused of having links with Ahmed Ressam, an Al Qaeda member dubbed the "Millennium Bomber" for his plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport on New Year's Eve 1999. Jordanian officials tied him to terrorist plots to attack a hotel and Christian holy sites in their country. And he was involved in discussions, after the Taliban government fell in Afghanistan, to strike back at the United States, including with attacks on American soil, law enforcement and military sources said.
Others in the US government, including CIA officials, fear the consequences of taking a man into court who was waterboarded on largely false assumptions, because of the prospect of interrogation methods being revealed in detail and because of the chance of an acquittal that might set a legal precedent. Instead, they prefer to send him to Jordan. Some US officials remain steadfast in their conclusion that Abu Zubaida possessed, and gave up, plenty of useful information about Al Qaeda....
The International Committee for the Red Cross said in a confidential report that the treatment of Abu Zubaida and other, subsequent high-value detainees while in CIA custody constituted torture. And Abu Zubaida refused to cooperate with FBI clean teams who attempted to re-interview high-value detainees to build cases uncontaminated by allegations of torture, according to military sources. The Justice Department declined repeated requests for comment.
--more--"
Hey, even the JUDGES KNOW it's all bullcrap!!!!
"Detainees may question confinement; Judge rules on three held by US in Afghanistan" by Del Quentin Wilber and Karen DeYoung, Washington Post | April 3, 2009
WASHINGTON - A federal judge ruled yesterday that three detainees at a US military prison in Afghanistan may challenge their confinements, writing that the detainees' situation was "virtually identical" to those held at the US Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The ruling came in a series of lawsuits brought by detainees held at the prison at the Bagram Air Force Base north of Kabul. In his opinion, US District Judge John Bates compared their cases to the Guantanamo detainees, who won the right to challenge their confinements in federal court under a landmark Supreme Court ruling last year.
Yesterday's decision is the first time that right has been extended to detainees held by US forces outside Guantanamo. Outside experts said the ruling raises complicated questions for the Obama administration as it reviews detention policies, especially for terror suspects captured overseas....
What's complicated about it? LET 'EM OUT!!!!
It's "Al-CIA-Duh" for a REASON, folks!!!!
Dean Boyd, a spokesman for the Justice Department, issued a statement saying the government was reviewing the opinion and the administration was conducting an overall review of US detention policies. He said no decision had yet been made about appealing the ruling.
The Justice Department, under President Obama's administration, had agreed with the position of the Bush administration that the Bagram prisoners were not entitled to question their detention in US civil courts.
That's CHANGE for you!!!
On Jan. 22, the court invited the new administration to "refine" the Bush position. But the Justice Department informed Bates that it would "adhere to its previously articulated position" that the men had no right to habeas corpus, a centuries-old legal doctrine that permits people to challenge their imprisonment before judges.
The government had argued that such rights do not extend to foreigners held by the United States in war zones. But in his 53-page opinion, Bates tossed that argument aside, drawing a distinction between detainees captured on the battlefield and those brought to Bagram from other parts of the globe.
Attorneys for the Bagram prisoners say the men had been captured outside Afghanistan and brought to Bagram by US authorities years ago. "It is one thing to detain those captured on the surrounding battlefield at a place like Bagram," Bates wrote. "It is quite another thing to apprehend people in foreign countries - far from any Afghan battlefield - and then bring them to a theater of war, where the Constitution arguably may not reach."
Remember, we are a nation that engages in rendition and has secret black site prisons and floating dungeons based upon unholy and damnable lies regarding 9/11.
He added that "such rendition resurrects the same specter of limitless Executive power the Supreme Court sought to guard against" in its opinion about Guantanamo Bay last year. In that case, the court expressed concerns "that the Executive could move detainees physically beyond the reach of the Constitution and detain them indefinitely," Bates wrote. The judge wrote that the three detainees at Bagram were "virtually identical" to those held at Guantanamo Bay and were only being housed at Bagram because the government chose to put them there.
--more--"
How many places do we not know about, readers?
