One of the lessons that I learned from 9/11 was that so long as we as a nation remain true to the principles our nation was founded upon, the terrorists cannot secure victory over our people no matter what the costs may be in terms of human life and treasure...
The Bush Administration lost sight of this reality when it sought to press the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II.
One means of reaffirming the U.S. belief system is trying the terrorists for their actions on 9/11...
This will help to expand Obama's outreach to the Muslim world by demonstrating that the rule of law which we so richly value in American societies is a law that can and will be applied fairly to even those who our people hold in the lowest regard.
This is a step toward reestablishing our natonal integrity IMHO.
It is not the only step that needs to be taken...but it is one of many...and it is an action I should think we could find much common ground on...
November 14, 2009
Accused 9/11 Mastermind to Face Civilian Trial in N.Y.
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
NEW YORK TIMES
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/us/14ter...agewanted=print
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Friday that it would prosecute Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, in a Manhattan federal courtroom, a decision that ignited a sharp political debate but took a step toward resolving one of the most pressing terrorism detention issues.
The decision, announced by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., could mean one of the highest-profile and highest-security terrorism trials in history would be set just blocks from where hijackers for Al Qaeda destroyed the World Trade Center, killing nearly 3,000 people.
Mr. Holder said he would instruct prosecutors to seek death sentences for Mr. Mohammed and four accused Sept. 11 co-conspirators who would be tried alongside him.
But while the civilian system would handle those cases, he said five other detainees would be prosecuted before a military commission.
Those facing a military trial include Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who is accused of planning Al Qaeda’s 2000 bombing of the Navy destroyer Cole in Yemen. All 10 detainees are being held at the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
“Today’s announcement marks a significant step forward in our efforts to close Guantánamo and to bring to justice those individuals who have conspired to attack our nation and our interests abroad,” Mr. Holder said.
No decision has yet been made about where to hold the military trials, Mr. Holder said. But the administration’s decision to bring five Sept. 11 detainees onto United States soil for prosecution in the civilian legal system drew immediate fire from members of Congress as well as relatives of victims and neighbors of the federal courthouse.
They argued that Qaeda suspects did not deserve the protections afforded by the American criminal justice system, that bringing them into the United States would heighten the risk of another terrorist attack, that civilian trials increase the risk of disclosing classified information, and that if the detainees were acquitted they could be released into the population.
“We should not be increasing the danger of another terrorist strike against Americans at home and abroad,” said Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York.
Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, questioned the wisdom of trying terrorism suspects in civilian courts, arguing that military commissions were more appropriate. But many other Democrats praised the move, noting that New York had been the setting for other high-profile terrorism trials — including the prosecution of Omar Abdel Rahman, the “blind sheik” who was convicted of plotting to blow up the United Nations headquarters and other New York landmarks.
“New York is not afraid of terrorists,” said Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, adding, “Any suggestion that our prosecutors and our law enforcement personnel are not up to the task of safely holding and successfully prosecuting terrorists on American soil is insulting and untrue.”
Mr. Holder said he was confident that the men would be convicted, and other administration officials said they had ample legal authority to keep classified information secret. They also suggested that they could continue to detain anyone deemed to be a “combatant” under Congress’s authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda.
Mr. Mohammed and the other detainees would not be moved right away. Under a recently enacted law, the administration must give Congress 45 days notice before bringing any Guantánamo Bay detainee into the United States. Mr. Holder said the administration would comply with that requirement as it seeks indictments from a grand jury.
The decision to prosecute some detainees in civilian court was a major policy shift from the Bush administration, which contended that suspected Al Qaeda members should not be treated like — nor given the rights of — ordinary criminals. It had charged the Sept. 11 defendants before a military commission at Guantánamo, which has a more flexible standard for evidence.
Days after his inauguration, President Obama signed orders halting the Bush era military commission trials and instructing officials to shut the prison within a year. But it became clear that closing the facility would be easier said than done, as political and legal pressures made it tough to move terrorism suspects into prisons in the United States, and other countries refused to accept them.
In a speech in May, Mr. Obama said that some detainees would be tried in civilian court, but that others could be prosecuted before a modified system of military commissions. Congress recently enacted legislation adding safeguards to the panels.
Kenneth Wainstein, an assistant attorney general for national security during the Bush administration, said he took “great comfort” from the Obama administration’s decision to use commissions to handle detainees who cannot be tried in civilian courts for reasons of evidence, security or applicable charges.
“They made what I think for them was a difficult policy and political decisions to retain military commissions — to fine-tune them but retain them,” he said, characterizing Mr. Holder’s approach as a “good call.”
In his May speech, Mr. Obama also said some detainees who are deemed too dangerous to release but too difficult to prosecute could be brought to the United States for preventive detention — essentially holding them indefinitely without trial. Mr. Holder on Friday offered no new details about that plan, which has drawn fire from civil-liberties groups and local communities.
In July, a task force of Justice and Pentagon prosecutors developed a system for evaluating what to do with each detainee, taking account of factors like where offenses took place, the identity of victims, and the manner in which evidence was gathered.
There was an internal debate over who would ultimately handle what is likely to be among the most visible trials in years.
Some military prosecutors who had spent years building cases against the accused Sept. 11 conspirators wanted to keep them.
New York prosecutors wanted them, too, as did those in the Eastern District of Virginia, which has jurisdiction over the area surrounding the Pentagon, where one of the planes struck.
Mr. Holder said that over the past few weeks, he had “personally reviewed” the 10 cases and made the final determination about which system would prosecute the two sets of detainees. He also decided that the Sept. 11 prosecutorial team would include attorneys from the Eastern District of Virginia.
Political considerations did not come into play in his decision, he said.
On the morning before Friday’s announcement, Mr. Holder called Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York and Gov. David Paterson of New York to inform them of his decision. Mr. Bloomberg said that he supported having the trial in the city, and that its police force could handle any security issues.
“It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site where so many New Yorkers were murdered,” Mr. Bloomberg said.
Civil-liberties and human-rights groups praised the decision to try the detainees in federal court. Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, called the announcement “an enormous victory for the rule of law.”
He also announced that the A.C.L.U. and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers would shut down a joint effort to provide defense attorneys for the detainees facing military commissions. They spent about $4 million on the effort, he said.
But civil liberties groups expressed disappointment that the Obama administration would continue to use military commissions — even with the modifications. They said they would continue to press for all detainees to receive regular trials or court-martials.
The prospect of prosecuting Mr. Mohammed and Mr. Nashiri has been particularly difficult because their defense lawyers are expected to argue that they were illegally tortured by the Central Intelligence Agency during their confinement. Both were subjected to waterboarding, a controlled drowning technique.
About 215 detainees remain at Guantánamo, although about 90 have been cleared for release. The task force is continuing to evaluate their cases and Mr. Holder is expected to make more announcements are expected in coming weeks.
An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to the conviction of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman. Mr. Rahman was found guilty in 1995 of conspiracy to blow up buildings in and around New York.
Full Version: US Bids To Reclaim Its Global Moral Authority...
ITA Taz...
We cannot allow our nation to sink to the depths of the slime of third world countries and terrorist groups that orchestrate such actions.
There are many who would sacrifice our national integrity and morality by taking the low road... all in the name of "eye for an eye" revenge.
I don't disagree with your rationale Taz...Mu hope is that information will come out that brings into sharper relief the general suspicion of the 9/11 Report.
QUOTE(rla @ Nov 16 2009, 12:37 PM) 
I don't disagree with your rationale Taz...Mu hope is that information will come out that brings into sharper relief the general suspicion of the 9/11 Report.
What if the result of the trial is to confirm the "official story" rather than suspiciions regarding the report?
I think either way it is a positive result.
One of the issues the truthers make is that no one has ever been brought to trial for the 9/11 attacks...well that will not longer be a part of their case...
I would hope the result will be to diminish any and all suspicions regarding the report...by demonstrating al Qaeda's involvement to the satisfaction of a jury of our peers...though I cannot see how this case survives a change of venue motion...because how can they get a fair trial in NYC?
I love our former prosecutor friend Rudy Giuliani..a former US attorney -- who is arguing these people are not entitled to legal rights...
Boy has he fallen off the justice band wagon...
QUOTE(NiteOwl @ Nov 16 2009, 11:06 AM)
ITA Taz...
We cannot allow our nation to sink to the depths of the slime of third world countries and terrorist groups that orchestrate such actions.
There are many who would sacrifice our national integrity and morality by taking the low road... all in the name of "eye for an eye" revenge.
We cannot allow our nation to sink to the depths of the slime of third world countries and terrorist groups that orchestrate such actions.
There are many who would sacrifice our national integrity and morality by taking the low road... all in the name of "eye for an eye" revenge.
Common ground...what we're all about...
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's N.Y. trial: America's moment to shine
By Star-Ledger Editorial Board/The Star-Led...
November 15, 2009, 5:48AM
AP Photo/www.muslm.netA photo downloaded from an Arabic-language website shows a man identified as Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, in detention at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Dismiss any of the hogwash people are spewing that bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the horrific 9/11 attacks, and four other Guantánamo detainees to trial in New York is foolish. The overdue legal proceedings are an opportunity to showcase America at its best.
Our justice system is built on the bedrocks of due process and rule of law, which sadly have been put aside for terrorist suspects languishing for years in Gitmo. It’s time to bring those principles front and center again.
Concerns about putting America at risk by bringing terror suspects onto our soil and into our maximum security prisons are nothing more than distractions. New York survived the trials of Ramzi Yousef and Omar Abdel-Rahman. It will survive this one, too.
The trial, however, comes with two real hurdles. Seating an impartial jury in New York City — finding a dozen city residents who can set aside their own feelings about what happened on 9/11 — will be difficult, but not impossible.
The greater challenge may be presenting evidence against Mohammed that hasn’t been tainted by the Bush administration’s "enhanced interrogation" policies. Mohammed was subjected to waterboarding more than 100 times, according to published reports. Any information the government gleaned during those torture sessions most likely will be inadmissible in court.
Nonetheless, the trial is an opportunity to demonstrate America’s commitment to justice and the rule of law.
"I’m absolutely convinced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be subject to the most exacting demands of justice," President Obama said while in Asia for a trade meeting. "The American people insist on it."
Yes, we do — and we want the rest of the world to know it.
http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2009...meds_trial.html
By Star-Ledger Editorial Board/The Star-Led...
November 15, 2009, 5:48AM
AP Photo/www.muslm.netA photo downloaded from an Arabic-language website shows a man identified as Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, in detention at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Dismiss any of the hogwash people are spewing that bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the horrific 9/11 attacks, and four other Guantánamo detainees to trial in New York is foolish. The overdue legal proceedings are an opportunity to showcase America at its best.
Our justice system is built on the bedrocks of due process and rule of law, which sadly have been put aside for terrorist suspects languishing for years in Gitmo. It’s time to bring those principles front and center again.
Concerns about putting America at risk by bringing terror suspects onto our soil and into our maximum security prisons are nothing more than distractions. New York survived the trials of Ramzi Yousef and Omar Abdel-Rahman. It will survive this one, too.
The trial, however, comes with two real hurdles. Seating an impartial jury in New York City — finding a dozen city residents who can set aside their own feelings about what happened on 9/11 — will be difficult, but not impossible.
The greater challenge may be presenting evidence against Mohammed that hasn’t been tainted by the Bush administration’s "enhanced interrogation" policies. Mohammed was subjected to waterboarding more than 100 times, according to published reports. Any information the government gleaned during those torture sessions most likely will be inadmissible in court.
Nonetheless, the trial is an opportunity to demonstrate America’s commitment to justice and the rule of law.
"I’m absolutely convinced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be subject to the most exacting demands of justice," President Obama said while in Asia for a trade meeting. "The American people insist on it."
Yes, we do — and we want the rest of the world to know it.
http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2009...meds_trial.html
November 14, 2009
Editorial
A Return to American Justice
Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. took a bold and principled step on Friday toward repairing the damage wrought by former President George W. Bush with his decision to discard the nation’s well-established systems of civilian and military justice in the treatment of detainees captured in antiterrorist operations.
From that entirely unnecessary policy (the United States had the tools to detain, charge and bring terrorists to justice) flowed a terrible legacy of torture and open-ended incarceration. It left President Obama with yet another mess to clean up on an urgent basis.
On Friday, Attorney General Holder announced that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, and four others accused in the plot will be tried in a fashion that will not further erode American justice or shame Americans. It promises to finally provide justice for the victims of 9/11.
Mr. Holder said those prisoners would be prosecuted in federal court in Manhattan. It was an enormous victory for the rule of law, a major milestone in Mr. Obama’s efforts to close the detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and an important departure from Mr. Bush’s disregard for American courts and their proven ability to competently handle high-profile terror cases. If he and Vice President Dick Cheney had shown more faith in the laws and the Constitution, the alleged mass murderers would have faced justice much earlier.
Republican lawmakers and the self-promoting independent senator from Connecticut, Joseph Lieberman, pounced on the chance to appear on television. Despite all evidence to the contrary, they said military tribunals are a more secure and appropriate venue for trying terrorism suspects. Senator John Cornyn of Texas, a former judge who should have more regard for the law, offered the absurd claim that Mr. Obama was treating the 9/11 conspirators as “common criminals.”
There is nothing common about them — or Mr. Holder’s decision. Putting the five defendants on public trial a few blocks from the site of the former World Trade Center is entirely fitting. Experience shows that federal courts are capable of handling high-profile terrorism trials without comprising legitimate secrets, national security or the rule of law. Mr. Bush’s tribunals failed to hold a single trial.
The fact that defense lawyers are likely to press to have evidence of abuse aired in court — Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was tortured by waterboarding 183 times — is unlikely to derail the prosecutions, especially given Mr. Holder’s claim to have evidence that has not been released yet.
Regrettably, the decision fell short of a clean break. Five other Guantánamo detainees are to be tried before a military commission for the 2000 bombing of the Navy destroyer Cole, including Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who is accused of planning the attack.
The rules for the commissions were recently revised to bring them closer to military standards. And Mr. Holder cites the fact that the Cole bombing was an attack on a military target to justify a military trial. But that does not cure the problem of relying on a new system outside the regular military justice system. Nor does it erase the appearance that the government is forum-shopping to win convictions. Most broadly, it fails to establish a clear framework for assigning cases to regular courts or military commissions going forward.
Still, this much is clear: the Obama administration has yet to completely figure out how to rectify the disgraceful Bush detention policies, but it is getting there.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/opinion/...agewanted=print
Editorial
A Return to American Justice
Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. took a bold and principled step on Friday toward repairing the damage wrought by former President George W. Bush with his decision to discard the nation’s well-established systems of civilian and military justice in the treatment of detainees captured in antiterrorist operations.
From that entirely unnecessary policy (the United States had the tools to detain, charge and bring terrorists to justice) flowed a terrible legacy of torture and open-ended incarceration. It left President Obama with yet another mess to clean up on an urgent basis.
On Friday, Attorney General Holder announced that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, and four others accused in the plot will be tried in a fashion that will not further erode American justice or shame Americans. It promises to finally provide justice for the victims of 9/11.
Mr. Holder said those prisoners would be prosecuted in federal court in Manhattan. It was an enormous victory for the rule of law, a major milestone in Mr. Obama’s efforts to close the detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and an important departure from Mr. Bush’s disregard for American courts and their proven ability to competently handle high-profile terror cases. If he and Vice President Dick Cheney had shown more faith in the laws and the Constitution, the alleged mass murderers would have faced justice much earlier.
Republican lawmakers and the self-promoting independent senator from Connecticut, Joseph Lieberman, pounced on the chance to appear on television. Despite all evidence to the contrary, they said military tribunals are a more secure and appropriate venue for trying terrorism suspects. Senator John Cornyn of Texas, a former judge who should have more regard for the law, offered the absurd claim that Mr. Obama was treating the 9/11 conspirators as “common criminals.”
There is nothing common about them — or Mr. Holder’s decision. Putting the five defendants on public trial a few blocks from the site of the former World Trade Center is entirely fitting. Experience shows that federal courts are capable of handling high-profile terrorism trials without comprising legitimate secrets, national security or the rule of law. Mr. Bush’s tribunals failed to hold a single trial.
The fact that defense lawyers are likely to press to have evidence of abuse aired in court — Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was tortured by waterboarding 183 times — is unlikely to derail the prosecutions, especially given Mr. Holder’s claim to have evidence that has not been released yet.
Regrettably, the decision fell short of a clean break. Five other Guantánamo detainees are to be tried before a military commission for the 2000 bombing of the Navy destroyer Cole, including Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who is accused of planning the attack.
The rules for the commissions were recently revised to bring them closer to military standards. And Mr. Holder cites the fact that the Cole bombing was an attack on a military target to justify a military trial. But that does not cure the problem of relying on a new system outside the regular military justice system. Nor does it erase the appearance that the government is forum-shopping to win convictions. Most broadly, it fails to establish a clear framework for assigning cases to regular courts or military commissions going forward.
Still, this much is clear: the Obama administration has yet to completely figure out how to rectify the disgraceful Bush detention policies, but it is getting there.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/opinion/...agewanted=print
Anyone who believes Khalid Sheikh (Ron Jeremy) Mohammed is the mastermind behind 911 is a damn fool IMHO. But then again .... American's are some of the most gullible people on the face of the earth. What happened to Bin Laden being the "mastermind" ? Why do people believe what the mainstream media (who happens to be owned and controlled by the Military Industrial Complex) has to say at all ?
This whole "Axis of Evil" is a crock of crap.
Every one of America's enemy's happen to be countries that do not have a Rothchild's owned central bank.
This whole "Axis of Evil" is a crock of crap.
Every one of America's enemy's happen to be countries that do not have a Rothchild's owned central bank.
I'm ultimately happy that justice will finally be served, but not so happy that it's in civilian court.
I think it's all a joke! Why not just hang the guy and do what we're going to do anyway-- honestly--- instead of pretending to have trials whose conclusion is already predetermined?
Seriously! Who among you thinks any of these guys are going to get off even if there is a "technicality" that would let any citizen off, or even (gasp) if they aren't guilty as charged?
Ain't gonna happen!
Guess somewhere out there someone might think it is fair, but I'm not going to be so fooled.
Seriously! Who among you thinks any of these guys are going to get off even if there is a "technicality" that would let any citizen off, or even (gasp) if they aren't guilty as charged?
Ain't gonna happen!
Guess somewhere out there someone might think it is fair, but I'm not going to be so fooled.
They're toast no matter how you cut it.
QUOTE(jimiray @ Nov 16 2009, 06:24 PM)
Anyone who believes Khalid Sheikh (Ron Jeremy) Mohammed is the mastermind behind 911 is a damn fool IMHO. But then again .... American's are some of the most gullible people on the face of the earth. What happened to Bin Laden being the "mastermind" ? Why do people believe what the mainstream media (who happens to be owned and controlled by the Military Industrial Complex) has to say at all ?
This whole "Axis of Evil" is a crock of crap.
Every one of America's enemy's happen to be countries that do not have a Rothchild's owned central bank.
This whole "Axis of Evil" is a crock of crap.
Every one of America's enemy's happen to be countries that do not have a Rothchild's owned central bank.
Ron Jeremy? The porn star? Bin Laden is the reason for the Afghanistan War, which we can't seem to come to grips with...
it costs too much...their leadership isn't mainstream Democrat...too much dope...not enough hope...we need to build roads?
Military-industrial-complex? That's the guys owned by Wall Street that Democrats have locked lips with, aren't they?
And, the MSM...well they are certainly on the same page as the current power...which loves banks...simply loves them.
If ya want to be a rebel...you must question the federal power...unless you are confused...and I know an Arkansan can't be. Can they?
Rothschild is a drink today...Goldman Sachs is the banking power...under Bush and under Obama...the more things change...the more they stay the same.
QUOTE(heart @ Nov 16 2009, 07:47 PM)
I think it's all a joke! Why not just hang the guy and do what we're going to do anyway-- honestly--- instead of pretending to have trials whose conclusion is already predetermined?
Seriously! Who among you thinks any of these guys are going to get off even if there is a "technicality" that would let any citizen off, or even (gasp) if they aren't guilty as charged?
Ain't gonna happen!
Guess somewhere out there someone might think it is fair, but I'm not going to be so fooled.
Seriously! Who among you thinks any of these guys are going to get off even if there is a "technicality" that would let any citizen off, or even (gasp) if they aren't guilty as charged?
Ain't gonna happen!
Guess somewhere out there someone might think it is fair, but I'm not going to be so fooled.
Maybe something will come out that proves they didn't do it--that it really was a false flag event...
QUOTE(rla @ Nov 16 2009, 08:46 PM)
QUOTE(heart @ Nov 16 2009, 07:47 PM)
I think it's all a joke! Why not just hang the guy and do what we're going to do anyway-- honestly--- instead of pretending to have trials whose conclusion is already predetermined?
Seriously! Who among you thinks any of these guys are going to get off even if there is a "technicality" that would let any citizen off, or even (gasp) if they aren't guilty as charged?
Ain't gonna happen!
Guess somewhere out there someone might think it is fair, but I'm not going to be so fooled.
Seriously! Who among you thinks any of these guys are going to get off even if there is a "technicality" that would let any citizen off, or even (gasp) if they aren't guilty as charged?
Ain't gonna happen!
Guess somewhere out there someone might think it is fair, but I'm not going to be so fooled.
Maybe something will come out that proves they didn't do it--that it really was a false flag event...
Obama better hope not!
Maybe someone could find, for the people back in the bleachers, a functional working definition of "global moral authority", and then provide some discussion as to how this relates to moral superiority (or maybe it's military superiority), and then add appropriate distinctions between "global", national and local moral authority, and then explain how this relates to the trial of a man whose under-aged sons were (?are?) held by the authority responsible for water-boarding the fellow 183 times in a month and why that -- even if cleansed with the jurisprudent Handi-Wipes of imperiousness -- is evidence of our moral authority.
If we're gonna just have a show trial and then put the man to death, why not just knot a 60-foot razor-wire noose around his legs, arms and neck [a modern-day equivalent of the great finale in the movie Braveheart] and drop him out of the backside of Air Force One on another photo-op flyby over Ground Zero. This will save a lot of money, alleviate concerns as to the security issues surrounding a trial in the Big Apple, and otherwise allow the blood of the tortured, convicted and guilty to cleanse the ashes and soot and nano-thermites.
It will also provide some real televised closure to a bloodthirsty nation.
It'll go down as a proper sacrifice for one or more of those who organizationally or otherwise get their jollies from such things.
CNN, ABC and Fox can provide television coverage [think of the camera angle possibilities], and the people can watch on their 47-inch HDTV's and TIVO the event until they are satiated. It'd be a great halftime show for a Thanksgiving football game that will probably simultaneously boost the economy and drive up recruitment rates for the forthcoming surge, free Obama from any re-election concerns, and allow us to properly celebrate the forthcoming seasonal holidays with our newly-re-energized moral authority.
Or we could just take the defendants and strap them to one of our Predators and hurl them over the walls of the Hindu Kush.
If we're gonna just have a show trial and then put the man to death, why not just knot a 60-foot razor-wire noose around his legs, arms and neck [a modern-day equivalent of the great finale in the movie Braveheart] and drop him out of the backside of Air Force One on another photo-op flyby over Ground Zero. This will save a lot of money, alleviate concerns as to the security issues surrounding a trial in the Big Apple, and otherwise allow the blood of the tortured, convicted and guilty to cleanse the ashes and soot and nano-thermites.
It will also provide some real televised closure to a bloodthirsty nation.
It'll go down as a proper sacrifice for one or more of those who organizationally or otherwise get their jollies from such things.
CNN, ABC and Fox can provide television coverage [think of the camera angle possibilities], and the people can watch on their 47-inch HDTV's and TIVO the event until they are satiated. It'd be a great halftime show for a Thanksgiving football game that will probably simultaneously boost the economy and drive up recruitment rates for the forthcoming surge, free Obama from any re-election concerns, and allow us to properly celebrate the forthcoming seasonal holidays with our newly-re-energized moral authority.
Or we could just take the defendants and strap them to one of our Predators and hurl them over the walls of the Hindu Kush.
19 bumbling non-pilots did not do an Israeli type style hit on 2 buildings, have 4 fall down
have a magic passport from hell float down
and at step H know it would lead to step I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Jeb Bush is in exile, looking for a way to come back and finish the destruction of this country
too bad they all didn't have a gitmo after IranContra and the guns for hostages
They all should have been taken to a gallows and hung back then
have a magic passport from hell float down
and at step H know it would lead to step I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Jeb Bush is in exile, looking for a way to come back and finish the destruction of this country
too bad they all didn't have a gitmo after IranContra and the guns for hostages
They all should have been taken to a gallows and hung back then
Is that a Ouija board Graham?
QUOTE(heart @ Nov 16 2009, 11:15 PM)
Is that a Ouija board Graham?
no, its the facts of 9-11
9-11 was step H out of the alphabet
Not the first, just somewhere after the start
KSM could NOT have known the buildings would fall, neither could OBL(who the phony video showed was surprised that it fell)
because neither had anything to do with it
the trial will be as phony as the 2000 election
"Global Moral Authority".... 
The only moral authority is the action of combatants,
and those who claim to support them. In the field - that's
where authority takes place...moral or amoral.
Or maybe...we should call a meeting...a council...for a delayed decision.
Maybe we should double-think, political-think, protect ourselves, when we are
not in danger...as those who are affected by these decisions are.
Politicians posing as thoughtful folks...while they never humped a clic.
Men acting like women...not suprising...the agenda...which goes nowhere.
G4A is a mommie's boy...yup...too fussy and cranky to be a man.
Where is my health care bail-out? Why can't I shoot enemies?
Why are my diapers wet? Because you pee on yourself weenie.
Oops...forgive my naked opinion.
The only moral authority is the action of combatants,
and those who claim to support them. In the field - that's
where authority takes place...moral or amoral.
Or maybe...we should call a meeting...a council...for a delayed decision.
Maybe we should double-think, political-think, protect ourselves, when we are
not in danger...as those who are affected by these decisions are.
Politicians posing as thoughtful folks...while they never humped a clic.
Men acting like women...not suprising...the agenda...which goes nowhere.
G4A is a mommie's boy...yup...too fussy and cranky to be a man.
Where is my health care bail-out? Why can't I shoot enemies?
Why are my diapers wet? Because you pee on yourself weenie.
Oops...forgive my naked opinion.
QUOTE(Indianhead @ Nov 16 2009, 11:29 PM)
"Global Moral Authority"....
The only moral authority is the action of combatants,
and those who claim to support them. In the field - that's
where authority takes place...moral or amoral.
Or maybe...we should call a meeting...a council...for a delayed decision.
Maybe we should double-think, political-think, protect ourselves, when we are
not in danger...as those who are affected by these decisions are.
Politicians posing as thoughtful folks...while they never humped a clic.
Men acting like women...not suprising...the agenda...which goes nowhere.
G4A is a mommie's boy...yup...too fussy and cranky to be a man.
Where is my health care bail-out? Why can't I shoot enemies?
Why are my diapers wet? Because you pee on yourself weenie.
Oops...forgive my naked opinion.
The only moral authority is the action of combatants,
and those who claim to support them. In the field - that's
where authority takes place...moral or amoral.
Or maybe...we should call a meeting...a council...for a delayed decision.
Maybe we should double-think, political-think, protect ourselves, when we are
not in danger...as those who are affected by these decisions are.
Politicians posing as thoughtful folks...while they never humped a clic.
Men acting like women...not suprising...the agenda...which goes nowhere.
G4A is a mommie's boy...yup...too fussy and cranky to be a man.
Where is my health care bail-out? Why can't I shoot enemies?
Why are my diapers wet? Because you pee on yourself weenie.
Oops...forgive my naked opinion.
from the person who has never declined one free thing the gov't offered him
You have free hospitalization, why don't you renounce it?
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Nov 16 2009, 11:32 PM)
from the person who has never declined one free thing the gov't offered him
You have free hospitalization, why don't you renounce it?
You have free hospitalization, why don't you renounce it?
The government hasn't offered...or delivered any "free thing" to me.
Just because you begged into NJ Obamacare you think everyone should
bail your butt out. Forget about it, I owe you nothing.
Where did you serve? What have you sacrified or risked?
Nowhere, nothing. And, that defines you and your plea. Zero.
That's why your demands for federal support fall on deaf ears.
Pay nothing, deserve nothing. Cry and beg...that's your lot.
QUOTE(Indianhead @ Nov 16 2009, 11:47 PM)
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Nov 16 2009, 11:32 PM)
from the person who has never declined one free thing the gov't offered him
You have free hospitalization, why don't you renounce it?
You have free hospitalization, why don't you renounce it?
The government hasn't offered...or delivered any "free thing" to me.
Just because you begged into NJ Obamacare you think everyone should
bail your butt out. Forget about it, I owe you nothing.
Where did you serve? What have you sacrified or risked?
Nowhere, nothing. And, that defines you and your plea. Zero.
That's why your demands for federal support fall on deaf ears.
Pay nothing, deserve nothing. Cry and beg...that's your lot.
Mr Hasan humped some clic too
yet just like you, to desert a friend in need
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Nov 16 2009, 11:50 PM)
Mr Hasan humped some clic too
yet just like you, to desert a friend in need
yet just like you, to desert a friend in need
Just like me? Kiss my Rebl A$$.
Liberalism compares "Mr. Husan" to war time service?
You are a sick puppy.
Your opinions show your soul...and it's bankrupt. Liberal bankruptcy.
QUOTE(Indianhead @ Nov 17 2009, 12:10 AM)
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Nov 16 2009, 11:50 PM)
Mr Hasan humped some clic too
yet just like you, to desert a friend in need
yet just like you, to desert a friend in need
Just like me? Kiss my Rebl A$$.
Liberalism compares "Mr. Husan" to war time service?
You are a sick puppy.
Your opinions show your soul...and it's bankrupt. Liberal bankruptcy.
go and vote for Jeb
we know you will
QUOTE(Indianhead @ Nov 16 2009, 10:47 PM)
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Nov 16 2009, 11:32 PM)
from the person who has never declined one free thing the gov't offered him
You have free hospitalization, why don't you renounce it?
You have free hospitalization, why don't you renounce it?
The government hasn't offered...or delivered any "free thing" to me.
Just because you begged into NJ Obamacare you think everyone should
bail your butt out. Forget about it, I owe you nothing.
Where did you serve? What have you sacrified or risked?
Nowhere, nothing. And, that defines you and your plea. Zero.
That's why your demands for federal support fall on deaf ears.
Pay nothing, deserve nothing. Cry and beg...that's your lot.
Our friend Graham is just another scab on the government teat. They never heal, you know!
the revolution was won 11/2008
never again will the other side win the presidency
and no puny third party will ever be allowed to win in the USA
because Ron Paul and all the others only think of themselves
they are from the egotist party
they, themselves, thy
never again will the other side win the presidency
and no puny third party will ever be allowed to win in the USA
because Ron Paul and all the others only think of themselves
they are from the egotist party
they, themselves, thy
I am wondering, too, what all "this" [the bringing of the military tribunal system of trial into the civilian court system in New York] as to do with the recent comments of New Yorkers like Giuliani and Patterson about the matter, and the recent move by the CIA to bring intelligence/analysis operations to the state level with New York being the first focal point. “... a revolution has been underway in the relationships of federal, state, and local homeland security, law enforcement, and intelligence organizations. At the federal level, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been created, the “wall” between law enforcement and intelligence has been nearly obliterated, some law enforcement organizations are being directed to become more like intelligence agencies, and the foreign intelligence community is being fundamentally reformed.”
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-...tate-level.html
“The Empire State has international land and maritime borders, coastal and riverine international ports, and a huge immigrant community from countries of special interest. It faces a broad array of threats emanating from terrorism, natural hazards (including floods, hurricanes, tornados), and pandemic diseases. But most importantly, the bulk of specific, credible terrorism threat intelligence collected since 9/11 specifies targets in New York City.”
Is the KSM trial intended as a lightning rod? Or as an "exercise"?
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-...tate-level.html
“The Empire State has international land and maritime borders, coastal and riverine international ports, and a huge immigrant community from countries of special interest. It faces a broad array of threats emanating from terrorism, natural hazards (including floods, hurricanes, tornados), and pandemic diseases. But most importantly, the bulk of specific, credible terrorism threat intelligence collected since 9/11 specifies targets in New York City.”
Is the KSM trial intended as a lightning rod? Or as an "exercise"?
QUOTE(heart @ Nov 16 2009, 07:47 PM)
I think it's all a joke! Why not just hang the guy and do what we're going to do anyway-- honestly--- instead of pretending to have trials whose conclusion is already predetermined?
Seriously! Who among you thinks any of these guys are going to get off even if there is a "technicality" that would let any citizen off, or even (gasp) if they aren't guilty as charged?
Ain't gonna happen!
Guess somewhere out there someone might think it is fair, but I'm not going to be so fooled.
Seriously! Who among you thinks any of these guys are going to get off even if there is a "technicality" that would let any citizen off, or even (gasp) if they aren't guilty as charged?
Ain't gonna happen!
Guess somewhere out there someone might think it is fair, but I'm not going to be so fooled.
heart...I agree that the fair trial is going to be difficult...and as I noted, I really cannot see how as a result the government can survive a change of venue motion by the defense...because how they are going to get a jury to be objective on this is beyond me...
I think they would do much better trying the case in Illinois or Seattle...
THis is what our system of justice is about after all...the government will have to meet the burden -- its first burden to prove that they can get a free trial...
But do you disagree with trying them civilly?
QUOTE(Frenchy @ Nov 16 2009, 08:11 PM)
They're toast no matter how you cut it.
Great to hear from you, my friend.
I agree...with you...how do you give them a fair civilian trial...
QUOTE(Indianhead @ Nov 16 2009, 10:29 PM)
"Global Moral Authority"....
The only moral authority is the action of combatants,
and those who claim to support them. In the field - that's
where authority takes place...moral or amoral.
Or maybe...we should call a meeting...a council...for a delayed decision.
Maybe we should double-think, political-think, protect ourselves, when we are
not in danger...as those who are affected by these decisions are.
Politicians posing as thoughtful folks...while they never humped a clic.
Men acting like women...not suprising...the agenda...which goes nowhere.
G4A is a mommie's boy...yup...too fussy and cranky to be a man.
Where is my health care bail-out? Why can't I shoot enemies?
Why are my diapers wet? Because you pee on yourself weenie.
Oops...forgive my naked opinion.
The only moral authority is the action of combatants,
and those who claim to support them. In the field - that's
where authority takes place...moral or amoral.
Or maybe...we should call a meeting...a council...for a delayed decision.
Maybe we should double-think, political-think, protect ourselves, when we are
not in danger...as those who are affected by these decisions are.
Politicians posing as thoughtful folks...while they never humped a clic.
Men acting like women...not suprising...the agenda...which goes nowhere.
G4A is a mommie's boy...yup...too fussy and cranky to be a man.
Where is my health care bail-out? Why can't I shoot enemies?
Why are my diapers wet? Because you pee on yourself weenie.
Oops...forgive my naked opinion.
Do you deny that for much of the 20th century the United States' participation in international affairs froom World War I to World War II to the Cold War and beyond has been to bear much of the global community's burdens?
I will grant you that often this role has involved a military response whether it was participating in the Cold War's arms race, or conflicts in Korea and Vietnam...
But there has also been humanitarian participation as well.
We were one of the chief proponents and supporters of the UN. And the UN did achieve some beneficial results.
When there have been international disasters we have always contributed assistance.
Our foreign, humanitarian aide while perhaps paling in % of GDP has often if not always exceeded contributions from other countries.
Now, this is not to say that our participation has not often been for selfish reasons, and our role as world policeman has been criticized enough...but we have asserted a moral authority...we have urged the respect of human rights...and we have tried to allay the suffering of peoples throughout the world...
This does not forgive our other efforts like in Afghanistan where our bombs have caused immense collateral damage in the name of natioal security...but our moral authority since the Bush Administration took power has severely diminished...and steps like this by Obama...are steps toward rebuilding our image and ability to be seen as a beacon of hope, justice and freedom...reclaiming the image we once had...
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Nov 17 2009, 09:27 AM)
QUOTE(Frenchy @ Nov 16 2009, 08:11 PM)
They're toast no matter how you cut it.
Great to hear from you, my friend.
Thanks, taz!
I agree...with you...how do you give them a fair civilian trial...
You won't, IMO. The media firestorm will insure that.
.
I think its cruel of the media to keep picturing this man in his t-shirt
Why are Americans so rude like that?
It is typical of the Bushfamilyinc to do that
belittle
This man is the one picked to get blamed
BTW- he is nothing different than Timmy McVeigh
However, I think and hope he gets to speak, and let's make this trial about Gitmo, and the atrocities and war crimes of the Bush family
Why are Americans so rude like that?
It is typical of the Bushfamilyinc to do that
belittle
This man is the one picked to get blamed
BTW- he is nothing different than Timmy McVeigh
However, I think and hope he gets to speak, and let's make this trial about Gitmo, and the atrocities and war crimes of the Bush family
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Nov 17 2009, 09:38 AM)
QUOTE(Indianhead @ Nov 16 2009, 10:29 PM)
"Global Moral Authority"....
The only moral authority is the action of combatants,
and those who claim to support them. In the field - that's
where authority takes place...moral or amoral.
Or maybe...we should call a meeting...a council...for a delayed decision.
Maybe we should double-think, political-think, protect ourselves, when we are
not in danger...as those who are affected by these decisions are.
Politicians posing as thoughtful folks...while they never humped a clic.
Men acting like women...not suprising...the agenda...which goes nowhere.
G4A is a mommie's boy...yup...too fussy and cranky to be a man.
Where is my health care bail-out? Why can't I shoot enemies?
Why are my diapers wet? Because you pee on yourself weenie.
Oops...forgive my naked opinion.
The only moral authority is the action of combatants,
and those who claim to support them. In the field - that's
where authority takes place...moral or amoral.
Or maybe...we should call a meeting...a council...for a delayed decision.
Maybe we should double-think, political-think, protect ourselves, when we are
not in danger...as those who are affected by these decisions are.
Politicians posing as thoughtful folks...while they never humped a clic.
Men acting like women...not suprising...the agenda...which goes nowhere.
G4A is a mommie's boy...yup...too fussy and cranky to be a man.
Where is my health care bail-out? Why can't I shoot enemies?
Why are my diapers wet? Because you pee on yourself weenie.
Oops...forgive my naked opinion.
Do you deny that for much of the 20th century the United States' participation in international affairs froom World War I to World War II to the Cold War and beyond has been to bear much of the global community's burdens?
I will grant you that often this role has involved a military response whether it was participating in the Cold War's arms race, or conflicts in Korea and Vietnam...
But there has also been humanitarian participation as well.
We were one of the chief proponents and supporters of the UN. And the UN did achieve some beneficial results.
When there have been international disasters we have always contributed assistance.
Our foreign, humanitarian aide while perhaps paling in % of GDP has often if not always exceeded contributions from other countries.
Now, this is not to say that our participation has not often been for selfish reasons, and our role as world policeman has been criticized enough...but we have asserted a moral authority...we have urged the respect of human rights...and we have tried to allay the suffering of peoples throughout the world...
This does not forgive our other efforts like in Afghanistan where our bombs have caused immense collateral damage in the name of natioal security...but our moral authority since the Bush Administration took power has severely diminished...and steps like this by Obama...are steps toward rebuilding our image and ability to be seen as a beacon of hope, justice and freedom...reclaiming the image we once had...
What does the term, "Moral Authority" refer to? What is the relationship between Moral Authority and
Moral Maturity? Morality refers to the actions of persons making choices to act according to personally
examined principles to which one is committed. Acting according to the dictates of someone or some entity because of their authority can not be a part morality or moral maturity.
Ah, our resident wordsmith...
Well, do I really have to explain this to you...
you know what authority is...the empowerment whether real or perceived to act, control, execute a policy, plan, approach....etc.
So, moral authority...would be the power to advance a particular agenda related to human morality...a humanitarian agenda...a freedom agenda...
What provides such authority?
Well, in the past for me...the moral authority of the US was based upon the fact that we acted based upon not only our best interests...but what we perceived to be the best interests of the global community...
We promoted equality, democracy, freedom....we fought disease, hunger, atrocities committed by humans against other humans...we empowered civilizations to join the international community if they would agree to live by international law...law which has not been necessarily made by the US, but which we readily enforce...when and where necessary...
Well, do I really have to explain this to you...
you know what authority is...the empowerment whether real or perceived to act, control, execute a policy, plan, approach....etc.
So, moral authority...would be the power to advance a particular agenda related to human morality...a humanitarian agenda...a freedom agenda...
What provides such authority?
Well, in the past for me...the moral authority of the US was based upon the fact that we acted based upon not only our best interests...but what we perceived to be the best interests of the global community...
We promoted equality, democracy, freedom....we fought disease, hunger, atrocities committed by humans against other humans...we empowered civilizations to join the international community if they would agree to live by international law...law which has not been necessarily made by the US, but which we readily enforce...when and where necessary...
The questions tend to bug me.
Bush memos parallel claim 9/11 mastermind’s children were tortured with insects
By John Byrne
Bush Administration memos released by the White House on Thursday provide new insight into claims that American agents used insects to torture the young children of alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
In the memos, released Thursday, the Bush Administration White House Office of Legal Counsel offered its endorsement of CIA torture methods that involved placing an insect in a cramped, confined box with detainees. Jay S. Bybee, then-director of the OLC, wrote that insects could be used to capitalize on detainees’ fears.
The memo was dated Aug. 1, 2002. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s children were captured and held in Pakistan the following month, according to a report by Human Rights Watch.
While an additional memo released Thursday claims that the torture with insects technique was never utilized by the CIA, the allegations regarding the children would have transpired when the method was authorized by the Bush Administration.
At a military tribunal in 2007, the father of a Guantanamo detainee alleged that Pakistani guards had confessed that American interrogators used ants to coerce the children of alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed into revealing their father’s whereabouts.
The statement was made by Ali Khan, the father of detainee Majid Khan, who gave a detailed account of his son’s interrogation at the hands of American guards in Pakistan. In his statement, Khan asserted that one of his sons was held at the same place as the young children of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
“The Pakistani guards told my son that the boys were kept in a separate area upstairs and were denied food and water by other guards,” the statement read. “They were also mentally tortured by having ants or other creatures put on their legs to scare them and get them to say where their father was hiding.” (A pdf transcript is available here: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/transcript_ISN10020.pdf )
Khan’s statement is second-hand. But the picture he paints of his son’s interrogation at the hands of American interrogators is strikingly similar to the accounts given by numerous other detainees to the International Red Cross. The timing of the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s son — then aged seven and nine — also meshes with a report by Human Rights Watch, which says that the children were captured in September 2002 and held for four months at the hands of American guards.
“According to eyewitnesses, the two were held in an adult detention center for at least four months while U.S. agents questioned the children about their father’s whereabouts,” the report said.
The use of insects isn’t mentioned in a recently leaked International Red Cross report, in which Red Cross officials questioned detainees about their treatment at the hands of US forces and ultimately judged them to have been tortured. A second memo released Thursday, dated May 10, 2005, says the CIA told the White House insects were never actually used in interrogations.
“We understand that — for reasons unrelated to any concerns that it might violate the [criminal] statute — the CIA never used the technique and has removed it from the list of authorized interrogation techniques,” Steven Bradbury, a principal deputy assistant attorney general, wrote in a footnote.
It’s worth noting, however, that the Red Cross was denied access to individuals held at CIA black sites. Khan’s son, Majid, was among those President Bush moved from the CIA’s secret prison network to Guantanamo Bay.
The techniques Khan says were employed against his son also match those approved in the Bybee memo.
“What I can tell you is that Majid was kidnapped from my son Mohammed’s [not related Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] house in Karachi, along with Mohammed, his wife, and my infant granddaughter,” Khan said in his military tribunal statement. “They were captured by Pakistani police and soldiers and taken to a detention center fifteen minutes from Mohammed’s house. The center had walls that seemed to be eighty feet high. My sons were hooded, handcuffed, and interrogated. After eight days of interrogation by US and Pakistani agents, including FBI agents, Mohammed was allowed to see Majid.
“Majhid looked terrible and very, very tired,” Khan continued. “According to Mohammed, Majid said that the Americans tortured him for eight hours at a time, tying him tightly in stressful positions in a small chair until his hands, feet and mind went numb. They re-tied him in the chair every hour, tightening the bonds on his hands and feet each time so that it was more painful. He was often hooded and had difficulty breathing. They also beat him repeatedly, slapping him in the face, and deprived him of sleep. When he was not being interrogated, the Americans put Majid in a small cell that was totally dark and too small for him to lie down in or sit in with his legs stretched out. He had to crouch. The room was also infested with mosquitoes. The torture only stopped when Majid agreed to sign a statement that he was not even allowed to read.”
Later in his statement, Khan alleges that the Pakistani guards revealed other abuses by American agents.
“The Americans also once stripped and beat two Arab boys, ages fourteen and sixteen, who were turned over by the Pakistani guards at the detention center,” he said. “These guards told my son that they were very upset at this and said the boys were thrown like garbage onto a plane to Guantanamo. Women prisoners were also held there, apart from their husbands, and some were pregnant and forced to give birth in their cells. According to Mohammed, one woman also died in her cell because the guards could not get her to a hospital quickly enough. This was most upsetting to the Pakistani guards.”
One blogger notes, “The first indications the children may have been tortured were reported in Ron Suskind’s 2006 book The One Percent Doctrine.”
“When KSM was being held at a secret CIA facility in Thailand, apparently the revamped Vietnam War-era base at Udorn, according to Suskind, a message was passed to interrogators: ‘do whatever’s necessary,’” Kevin Fenton writes at History Commons. “The interrogators then told KSM ‘his children would be hurt if he didn’t cooperate. However, his response was, ’so, fine, they’ll join Allah in a better place.’”
Fenton has two questions: “Did the Khans invent the allegations or garble them in some way and then ‘get lucky’ two years later, when it was revealed the CIA was, at least, contemplating the techniques they alleged it used at the time in question?” and “Given that nobody heard of the CIA using insects for another two years, why would they invent these specific allegations, which sounded bizarre when they were made?”
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/04/17/bus...-were-tortured/
Bush memos parallel claim 9/11 mastermind’s children were tortured with insects
By John Byrne
Bush Administration memos released by the White House on Thursday provide new insight into claims that American agents used insects to torture the young children of alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
In the memos, released Thursday, the Bush Administration White House Office of Legal Counsel offered its endorsement of CIA torture methods that involved placing an insect in a cramped, confined box with detainees. Jay S. Bybee, then-director of the OLC, wrote that insects could be used to capitalize on detainees’ fears.
The memo was dated Aug. 1, 2002. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s children were captured and held in Pakistan the following month, according to a report by Human Rights Watch.
While an additional memo released Thursday claims that the torture with insects technique was never utilized by the CIA, the allegations regarding the children would have transpired when the method was authorized by the Bush Administration.
At a military tribunal in 2007, the father of a Guantanamo detainee alleged that Pakistani guards had confessed that American interrogators used ants to coerce the children of alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed into revealing their father’s whereabouts.
The statement was made by Ali Khan, the father of detainee Majid Khan, who gave a detailed account of his son’s interrogation at the hands of American guards in Pakistan. In his statement, Khan asserted that one of his sons was held at the same place as the young children of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
“The Pakistani guards told my son that the boys were kept in a separate area upstairs and were denied food and water by other guards,” the statement read. “They were also mentally tortured by having ants or other creatures put on their legs to scare them and get them to say where their father was hiding.” (A pdf transcript is available here: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/transcript_ISN10020.pdf )
Khan’s statement is second-hand. But the picture he paints of his son’s interrogation at the hands of American interrogators is strikingly similar to the accounts given by numerous other detainees to the International Red Cross. The timing of the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s son — then aged seven and nine — also meshes with a report by Human Rights Watch, which says that the children were captured in September 2002 and held for four months at the hands of American guards.
“According to eyewitnesses, the two were held in an adult detention center for at least four months while U.S. agents questioned the children about their father’s whereabouts,” the report said.
The use of insects isn’t mentioned in a recently leaked International Red Cross report, in which Red Cross officials questioned detainees about their treatment at the hands of US forces and ultimately judged them to have been tortured. A second memo released Thursday, dated May 10, 2005, says the CIA told the White House insects were never actually used in interrogations.
“We understand that — for reasons unrelated to any concerns that it might violate the [criminal] statute — the CIA never used the technique and has removed it from the list of authorized interrogation techniques,” Steven Bradbury, a principal deputy assistant attorney general, wrote in a footnote.
It’s worth noting, however, that the Red Cross was denied access to individuals held at CIA black sites. Khan’s son, Majid, was among those President Bush moved from the CIA’s secret prison network to Guantanamo Bay.
The techniques Khan says were employed against his son also match those approved in the Bybee memo.
“What I can tell you is that Majid was kidnapped from my son Mohammed’s [not related Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] house in Karachi, along with Mohammed, his wife, and my infant granddaughter,” Khan said in his military tribunal statement. “They were captured by Pakistani police and soldiers and taken to a detention center fifteen minutes from Mohammed’s house. The center had walls that seemed to be eighty feet high. My sons were hooded, handcuffed, and interrogated. After eight days of interrogation by US and Pakistani agents, including FBI agents, Mohammed was allowed to see Majid.
“Majhid looked terrible and very, very tired,” Khan continued. “According to Mohammed, Majid said that the Americans tortured him for eight hours at a time, tying him tightly in stressful positions in a small chair until his hands, feet and mind went numb. They re-tied him in the chair every hour, tightening the bonds on his hands and feet each time so that it was more painful. He was often hooded and had difficulty breathing. They also beat him repeatedly, slapping him in the face, and deprived him of sleep. When he was not being interrogated, the Americans put Majid in a small cell that was totally dark and too small for him to lie down in or sit in with his legs stretched out. He had to crouch. The room was also infested with mosquitoes. The torture only stopped when Majid agreed to sign a statement that he was not even allowed to read.”
Later in his statement, Khan alleges that the Pakistani guards revealed other abuses by American agents.
“The Americans also once stripped and beat two Arab boys, ages fourteen and sixteen, who were turned over by the Pakistani guards at the detention center,” he said. “These guards told my son that they were very upset at this and said the boys were thrown like garbage onto a plane to Guantanamo. Women prisoners were also held there, apart from their husbands, and some were pregnant and forced to give birth in their cells. According to Mohammed, one woman also died in her cell because the guards could not get her to a hospital quickly enough. This was most upsetting to the Pakistani guards.”
One blogger notes, “The first indications the children may have been tortured were reported in Ron Suskind’s 2006 book The One Percent Doctrine.”
“When KSM was being held at a secret CIA facility in Thailand, apparently the revamped Vietnam War-era base at Udorn, according to Suskind, a message was passed to interrogators: ‘do whatever’s necessary,’” Kevin Fenton writes at History Commons. “The interrogators then told KSM ‘his children would be hurt if he didn’t cooperate. However, his response was, ’so, fine, they’ll join Allah in a better place.’”
Fenton has two questions: “Did the Khans invent the allegations or garble them in some way and then ‘get lucky’ two years later, when it was revealed the CIA was, at least, contemplating the techniques they alleged it used at the time in question?” and “Given that nobody heard of the CIA using insects for another two years, why would they invent these specific allegations, which sounded bizarre when they were made?”
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/04/17/bus...-were-tortured/
QUOTE(Magmak1 @ Nov 16 2009, 10:24 PM)
Maybe someone could find, for the people back in the bleachers, a functional working definition of "global moral authority", and then provide some discussion as to how this relates to moral superiority (or maybe it's military superiority), and then add appropriate distinctions between "global", national and local moral authority, and then explain how this relates to the trial of a man whose under-aged sons were (?are?) held by the authority responsible for water-boarding the fellow 183 times in a month and why that -- even if cleansed with the jurisprudent Handi-Wipes of imperiousness -- is evidence of our moral authority.
If we're gonna just have a show trial and then put the man to death, why not just knot a 60-foot razor-wire noose around his legs, arms and neck [a modern-day equivalent of the great finale in the movie Braveheart] and drop him out of the backside of Air Force One on another photo-op flyby over Ground Zero. This will save a lot of money, alleviate concerns as to the security issues surrounding a trial in the Big Apple, and otherwise allow the blood of the tortured, convicted and guilty to cleanse the ashes and soot and nano-thermites.
It will also provide some real televised closure to a bloodthirsty nation.
It'll go down as a proper sacrifice for one or more of those who organizationally or otherwise get their jollies from such things.
CNN, ABC and Fox can provide television coverage [think of the camera angle possibilities], and the people can watch on their 47-inch HDTV's and TIVO the event until they are satiated. It'd be a great halftime show for a Thanksgiving football game that will probably simultaneously boost the economy and drive up recruitment rates for the forthcoming surge, free Obama from any re-election concerns, and allow us to properly celebrate the forthcoming seasonal holidays with our newly-re-energized moral authority.
Or we could just take the defendants and strap them to one of our Predators and hurl them over the walls of the Hindu Kush.
If we're gonna just have a show trial and then put the man to death, why not just knot a 60-foot razor-wire noose around his legs, arms and neck [a modern-day equivalent of the great finale in the movie Braveheart] and drop him out of the backside of Air Force One on another photo-op flyby over Ground Zero. This will save a lot of money, alleviate concerns as to the security issues surrounding a trial in the Big Apple, and otherwise allow the blood of the tortured, convicted and guilty to cleanse the ashes and soot and nano-thermites.
It will also provide some real televised closure to a bloodthirsty nation.
It'll go down as a proper sacrifice for one or more of those who organizationally or otherwise get their jollies from such things.
CNN, ABC and Fox can provide television coverage [think of the camera angle possibilities], and the people can watch on their 47-inch HDTV's and TIVO the event until they are satiated. It'd be a great halftime show for a Thanksgiving football game that will probably simultaneously boost the economy and drive up recruitment rates for the forthcoming surge, free Obama from any re-election concerns, and allow us to properly celebrate the forthcoming seasonal holidays with our newly-re-energized moral authority.
Or we could just take the defendants and strap them to one of our Predators and hurl them over the walls of the Hindu Kush.
Can you define something by saying what it is not?
For example, I would not say Zimbabwe, Sudan, China, Bulgaria, or Russia could be held to have any claim on Moral Superiority.
But I do agree with you that it is a show trail and I REALLY HATE THAT KIND OF HYPOCRITICAL BEHAVIOR!
QUOTE(heart @ Nov 17 2009, 07:57 PM)
QUOTE(Magmak1 @ Nov 16 2009, 10:24 PM)
Maybe someone could find, for the people back in the bleachers, a functional working definition of "global moral authority", and then provide some discussion as to how this relates to moral superiority (or maybe it's military superiority), and then add appropriate distinctions between "global", national and local moral authority, and then explain how this relates to the trial of a man whose under-aged sons were (?are?) held by the authority responsible for water-boarding the fellow 183 times in a month and why that -- even if cleansed with the jurisprudent Handi-Wipes of imperiousness -- is evidence of our moral authority.
If we're gonna just have a show trial and then put the man to death, why not just knot a 60-foot razor-wire noose around his legs, arms and neck [a modern-day equivalent of the great finale in the movie Braveheart] and drop him out of the backside of Air Force One on another photo-op flyby over Ground Zero. This will save a lot of money, alleviate concerns as to the security issues surrounding a trial in the Big Apple, and otherwise allow the blood of the tortured, convicted and guilty to cleanse the ashes and soot and nano-thermites.
It will also provide some real televised closure to a bloodthirsty nation.
It'll go down as a proper sacrifice for one or more of those who organizationally or otherwise get their jollies from such things.
CNN, ABC and Fox can provide television coverage [think of the camera angle possibilities], and the people can watch on their 47-inch HDTV's and TIVO the event until they are satiated. It'd be a great halftime show for a Thanksgiving football game that will probably simultaneously boost the economy and drive up recruitment rates for the forthcoming surge, free Obama from any re-election concerns, and allow us to properly celebrate the forthcoming seasonal holidays with our newly-re-energized moral authority.
Or we could just take the defendants and strap them to one of our Predators and hurl them over the walls of the Hindu Kush.
If we're gonna just have a show trial and then put the man to death, why not just knot a 60-foot razor-wire noose around his legs, arms and neck [a modern-day equivalent of the great finale in the movie Braveheart] and drop him out of the backside of Air Force One on another photo-op flyby over Ground Zero. This will save a lot of money, alleviate concerns as to the security issues surrounding a trial in the Big Apple, and otherwise allow the blood of the tortured, convicted and guilty to cleanse the ashes and soot and nano-thermites.
It will also provide some real televised closure to a bloodthirsty nation.
It'll go down as a proper sacrifice for one or more of those who organizationally or otherwise get their jollies from such things.
CNN, ABC and Fox can provide television coverage [think of the camera angle possibilities], and the people can watch on their 47-inch HDTV's and TIVO the event until they are satiated. It'd be a great halftime show for a Thanksgiving football game that will probably simultaneously boost the economy and drive up recruitment rates for the forthcoming surge, free Obama from any re-election concerns, and allow us to properly celebrate the forthcoming seasonal holidays with our newly-re-energized moral authority.
Or we could just take the defendants and strap them to one of our Predators and hurl them over the walls of the Hindu Kush.
Can you define something by saying what it is not?
For example, I would not say Zimbabwe, Sudan, China, Bulgaria, or Russia could be held to have any claim on Moral Superiority.
But I do agree with you that it is a show trail and I REALLY HATE THAT KIND OF HYPOCRITICAL BEHAVIOR!
I wasn't trying to suggest that Zimbabwe, Sudan, China, Bulgaria, or Russia had any claim, and frankly I'm not particularly interested in whether they do or not. Nor am I interested in whether the US has any claim or exerts that claim. Any expression of self-designation as "God's chosen" people, or soldiers, or other pretentious exceptionalism, is laughable and a recipe for disaster and hubris. It's as if we had something the savages "need" from us, and we have to torture them, rape/abuse/descrate their children in front of them, and slap them around some more to make sure they get the point that we are their superiors.
Parents send their children to bed without dinner; others withhold food and water from whole nations. Then they rifle their purses while they are locked in the closet. What is really amusing is when mommy and daddy act up like the children and go running around knocking over the lamps in the living room so they can blame it on the children and have the reason to deliver even more spankings, and closet time, and make them stand in the corner on one leg for hours until they pee their pants so they can point at them and laugh. Moral superiority indeed. Some even sell their 5-year olds into prostitution. Such savages....
Just a google away....
Definitions of "moral authority" on the Web:
* The quality or characteristic of being respected for having good character or knowledge, especially as a source of guidance or an exemplar of ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/moral_authority
We do have some kind of "exceptionalism" in this country because of our abilities to integrate our population and accept people from many different parts of the world. We have had our struggles with that for sure, but we do it better than anyone on earth.
People around the world still think of the US as a place they want to come and live and make a million bucks. I think we are just riding the Brand on that one, but they still believe it for now.
I don't think we have a superior system in practice, but our ideal written system is probably the best ever conceived....so far.
I don't know if a country can have moral authority. Maybe our "moral authority" really means we have the weapons to back up our lies and our truths.
People around the world still think of the US as a place they want to come and live and make a million bucks. I think we are just riding the Brand on that one, but they still believe it for now.
I don't think we have a superior system in practice, but our ideal written system is probably the best ever conceived....so far.
I don't know if a country can have moral authority. Maybe our "moral authority" really means we have the weapons to back up our lies and our truths.
The term, "Moral Authority" strikes me as a contradiction of terms...
The only way an entity could be said to have moral authority is if all relevant others considered
the entity to consistently demonstrate the highest possible level of moral maturity and therefore willing to be influenced by that entity. It would then possess influence which could be substituted for authority.
The only way an entity could be said to have moral authority is if all relevant others considered
the entity to consistently demonstrate the highest possible level of moral maturity and therefore willing to be influenced by that entity. It would then possess influence which could be substituted for authority.
There are two individuals that have earned my definition of "moral authority" and that would be one philosophy prof by the name of Steve Bernstein and the Dalia Llama, both for the same reason.
QUOTE(rla @ Nov 17 2009, 06:54 PM)
The term, "Moral Authority" strikes me as a contradiction of terms...
The only way an entity could be said to have moral authority is if all relevant others considered the entity to consistently demonstrate the highest possible level of moral maturity and therefore willing to be influenced by that entity. It would then possess influence which could be substituted for authority.
The only way an entity could be said to have moral authority is if all relevant others considered the entity to consistently demonstrate the highest possible level of moral maturity and therefore willing to be influenced by that entity. It would then possess influence which could be substituted for authority.
Well, the US used to be known by the international community as possessing same...
I would suggest during the Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy Administrations that this was the case.
The Carter Adminstration advanced a similar mindset...
The Clinton Administration had aspirations...and did some positive things, but I think they fell short...
I had hoped that Obama would adopt a Kennedyesque-Soresensesque approach to domestic and foreign policy as delineated in Sorensen's recent book...Counsellor which many of you know I am a big fan of...
But if you were looking for examples of the type of moral leadership -- moral poltiical authority that I was speaking about fostering...
It resembles -- and I know this is going to be twitsed and misinterpreted so I am loathe to use it as an example but I do think it fits -- Christian authority -- the mantra to act like Christ...to lead by his example...
I believe that this is the best way to demonstrate leadership...by the golden rule...do unto others...an approach which demonstrates respect not just for allies and similar thinking peoples, but also for enemies...respect does not mean forgetting your principles, but rather being willing to engage your enemies in a dialogue...a negotiation...an effort to reach accommodations insofar as that is possible for the greater good of the international community...
Kennedy was the first president to promote and have adopted an arms treaty...the global test ban treaty...
This is what I am speaking to...
Every nation has an ability to exert such authority...to lead by example with regard to its people and the international community...moral authority does not need to be twisted into a negative...when it can be quite positive...
To look at it another way...
I believe that Ronald Reagan exhibited moral authority inviting the USSR to enter into international accords with regard to the reduction of arms...
I believe Jimmy Carter did the same when he helped to bring peace between Egypt and Israel...
I believe that FDR did so when he worked to establish social security for the elderly...
I believe Lyndon Johnson executed his moral authority when he passed many of Kennedy's poverty and civil rigths programs...
I believe Robert F. Kennedy demonstrated his personal moral authority in the wake of his Martin Luther King's death when he urged the people of Indianapolis to be peaceful...
I think some of you are confusing moral authority with enduring moral behavior...which for human beings and governments is a diffcult achievement at best because we are prone to mistakes...to sins if you will...
I believe that Ronald Reagan exhibited moral authority inviting the USSR to enter into international accords with regard to the reduction of arms...
I believe Jimmy Carter did the same when he helped to bring peace between Egypt and Israel...
I believe that FDR did so when he worked to establish social security for the elderly...
I believe Lyndon Johnson executed his moral authority when he passed many of Kennedy's poverty and civil rigths programs...
I believe Robert F. Kennedy demonstrated his personal moral authority in the wake of his Martin Luther King's death when he urged the people of Indianapolis to be peaceful...
I think some of you are confusing moral authority with enduring moral behavior...which for human beings and governments is a diffcult achievement at best because we are prone to mistakes...to sins if you will...
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Nov 18 2009, 08:39 AM)
QUOTE(rla @ Nov 17 2009, 06:54 PM)
The term, "Moral Authority" strikes me as a contradiction of terms...
The only way an entity could be said to have moral authority is if all relevant others considered the entity to consistently demonstrate the highest possible level of moral maturity and therefore willing to be influenced by that entity. It would then possess influence which could be substituted for authority.
The only way an entity could be said to have moral authority is if all relevant others considered the entity to consistently demonstrate the highest possible level of moral maturity and therefore willing to be influenced by that entity. It would then possess influence which could be substituted for authority.
Well, the US used to be known by the international community as possessing same...
I would suggest during the Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy Administrations that this was the case.
The Carter Adminstration advanced a similar mindset...
The Clinton Administration had aspirations...and did some positive things, but I think they fell short...
I had hoped that Obama would adopt a Kennedyesque-Soresensesque approach to domestic and foreign policy as delineated in Sorensen's recent book...Counsellor which many of you know I am a big fan of...
But if you were looking for examples of the type of moral leadership -- moral poltiical authority that I was speaking about fostering...
It resembles -- and I know this is going to be twitsed and misinterpreted so I am loathe to use it as an example but I do think it fits -- Christian authority -- the mantra to act like Christ...to lead by his example...
I believe that this is the best way to demonstrate leadership...by the golden rule...do unto others...an approach which demonstrates respect not just for allies and similar thinking peoples, but also for enemies...respect does not mean forgetting your principles, but rather being willing to engage your enemies in a dialogue...a negotiation...an effort to reach accommodations insofar as that is possible for the greater good of the international community...
Kennedy was the first president to promote and have adopted an arms treaty...the global test ban treaty...
This is what I am speaking to...
Every nation has an ability to exert such authority...to lead by example with regard to its people and the international community...moral authority does not need to be twisted into a negative...when it can be quite positive...
There is no moral authority that can be delivered at the point of a gun. I think Robert Kennedy came to understand this even better than President Kennedy. I do give President Kennedy a lot of credit
for having the right attitude...
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Nov 18 2009, 08:50 AM)
To look at it another way...
I believe that Ronald Reagan exhibited moral authority inviting the USSR to enter into international accords with regard to the reduction of arms...
I believe Jimmy Carter did the same when he helped to bring peace between Egypt and Israel...
I believe that FDR did so when he worked to establish social security for the elderly...
I believe Lyndon Johnson executed his moral authority when he passed many of Kennedy's poverty and civil rigths programs...
I believe Robert F. Kennedy demonstrated his personal moral authority in the wake of his Martin Luther King's death when he urged the people of Indianapolis to be peaceful...
I think some of you are confusing moral authority with enduring moral behavior...which for human beings and governments is a diffcult achievement at best because we are prone to mistakes...to sins if you will...
Of the examples you offer, I place Reagan and Johnson at the lower position on the moral maturity scale...
I believe that Ronald Reagan exhibited moral authority inviting the USSR to enter into international accords with regard to the reduction of arms...
I believe Jimmy Carter did the same when he helped to bring peace between Egypt and Israel...
I believe that FDR did so when he worked to establish social security for the elderly...
I believe Lyndon Johnson executed his moral authority when he passed many of Kennedy's poverty and civil rigths programs...
I believe Robert F. Kennedy demonstrated his personal moral authority in the wake of his Martin Luther King's death when he urged the people of Indianapolis to be peaceful...
I think some of you are confusing moral authority with enduring moral behavior...which for human beings and governments is a diffcult achievement at best because we are prone to mistakes...to sins if you will...
Of the examples you offer, I place Reagan and Johnson at the lower position on the moral maturity scale...
The difference between talking the talk and walking the walk is having achieved actual moral maturity...
QUOTE(rla @ Nov 18 2009, 08:54 AM)
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Nov 18 2009, 08:39 AM)
QUOTE(rla @ Nov 17 2009, 06:54 PM)
The term, "Moral Authority" strikes me as a contradiction of terms...
The only way an entity could be said to have moral authority is if all relevant others considered the entity to consistently demonstrate the highest possible level of moral maturity and therefore willing to be influenced by that entity. It would then possess influence which could be substituted for authority.
The only way an entity could be said to have moral authority is if all relevant others considered the entity to consistently demonstrate the highest possible level of moral maturity and therefore willing to be influenced by that entity. It would then possess influence which could be substituted for authority.
Well, the US used to be known by the international community as possessing same...
I would suggest during the Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy Administrations that this was the case.
The Carter Adminstration advanced a similar mindset...
The Clinton Administration had aspirations...and did some positive things, but I think they fell short...
I had hoped that Obama would adopt a Kennedyesque-Soresensesque approach to domestic and foreign policy as delineated in Sorensen's recent book...Counsellor which many of you know I am a big fan of...
But if you were looking for examples of the type of moral leadership -- moral poltiical authority that I was speaking about fostering...
It resembles -- and I know this is going to be twitsed and misinterpreted so I am loathe to use it as an example but I do think it fits -- Christian authority -- the mantra to act like Christ...to lead by his example...
I believe that this is the best way to demonstrate leadership...by the golden rule...do unto others...an approach which demonstrates respect not just for allies and similar thinking peoples, but also for enemies...respect does not mean forgetting your principles, but rather being willing to engage your enemies in a dialogue...a negotiation...an effort to reach accommodations insofar as that is possible for the greater good of the international community...
Kennedy was the first president to promote and have adopted an arms treaty...the global test ban treaty...
This is what I am speaking to...
Every nation has an ability to exert such authority...to lead by example with regard to its people and the international community...moral authority does not need to be twisted into a negative...when it can be quite positive...
There is no moral authority that can be delivered at the point of a gun. I think Robert Kennedy came to understand this even better than President Kennedy. I do give President Kennedy a lot of credit for having the right attitude...
I think we have found some common ground...because I agree once you get to the point where you are using a gun...you are no longer persuading people by leading by example...you are no longer exercising your moral authority...if you are seeking to implement "policy" at the tip of a gun...
Where I may take slight issue with this...with with peacekeeping forces whether in the way they were used in Bosnia...or as I believe they should be used in Darfur...to protect the innocents being slaughtered...to stop genocide...etc.
I beleive that when military force is used in those instances...that it can be consistent with the exercise of moral authority...
Basically, exercising moral authority in my mind is doing the right thing...in a particular situation...if doing the right thing involves using military interdiction to protect and defend persons who are being wrongfully attacked...then you can exercise moral authority in defending them...because to sit there and allow them to be slaughtered I believe is the opposite of exercising moral authority...and instead being morally indifferent...which is worse than using weapons IMHO...
QUOTE(rla @ Nov 18 2009, 09:01 AM)
QUOTE(tazvil04 @ Nov 18 2009, 08:50 AM)
To look at it another way...
I believe that Ronald Reagan exhibited moral authority inviting the USSR to enter into international accords with regard to the reduction of arms...
I believe Jimmy Carter did the same when he helped to bring peace between Egypt and Israel...
I believe that FDR did so when he worked to establish social security for the elderly...
I believe Lyndon Johnson executed his moral authority when he passed many of Kennedy's poverty and civil rigths programs...
I believe Robert F. Kennedy demonstrated his personal moral authority in the wake of his Martin Luther King's death when he urged the people of Indianapolis to be peaceful...
I think some of you are confusing moral authority with enduring moral behavior...which for human beings and governments is a diffcult achievement at best because we are prone to mistakes...to sins if you will...
..
I believe that Ronald Reagan exhibited moral authority inviting the USSR to enter into international accords with regard to the reduction of arms...
I believe Jimmy Carter did the same when he helped to bring peace between Egypt and Israel...
I believe that FDR did so when he worked to establish social security for the elderly...
I believe Lyndon Johnson executed his moral authority when he passed many of Kennedy's poverty and civil rigths programs...
I believe Robert F. Kennedy demonstrated his personal moral authority in the wake of his Martin Luther King's death when he urged the people of Indianapolis to be peaceful...
I think some of you are confusing moral authority with enduring moral behavior...which for human beings and governments is a diffcult achievement at best because we are prone to mistakes...to sins if you will...
..
Of the examples you offer, I place Reagan and Johnson at the lower position on the moral maturity scale.
The difference between talking the talk and walking the walk is having achieved actual moral maturity...
Socially -- with regard to civil rights and the war on poverty you place Johnson at the lower scale?
Granted, his escalation of the war in Vietnam hurts him...but the great strides that were made with the Great Society I believe are a credit first to his predecessor for conceiving the ideas...but also for Johnson as well because he used his political capital and skills to achieve Kennedy's goals in this regard...and the benefits to poor people and minorities in this nation are felt to this day... IMHO
Reagan...domestically...was a disaster...there is no doubt about that...
And his foreign policy forays with Iran Contra...etc. -- he is no saint...
But what he did with arms control...he deserves an tremendous amount of credit I believe exerting our moral authority to reduce the threat of the arms race...for the international community...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.