U.S. Drops Charges Against '9/11 Hijacker'

The Pentagon has dropped charges against a Saudi national being held at Guantanamo Bay who was alleged to have been the "20th hijacker" in the September 11 attacks.

« View full article »

My Shout Count

Comments

These comments in RSS.

Comment View Threshold:

HyenaThePIrate, on 5/14/2008 8:28:43 AM
Total Posts: 2211, Joined: 7/26/2006

:"When criminals get deals, their charges are dismissed WITH prejudice"

Unless these criminals are international terrorists.. and foreign citizens.

Once he is released, we cant just go back and arrest him again from his home country. The rules change when you are dealing with foreign nationals. But i was going to let you realize this on your own, which you did not.
The only way he can be arrested again and recharged is if we find him in one of our warzones hanging out with the wrong crowd again.

And again, is the Bush Administration Evil or not? Because if they were evil, one would imagine that it wouldnt matter HOW his confession was illicited.. as an enemy combatant he could be detained indefinately. Apparently terrorist monsters can catch a break too.. but only when it's given to them.

"So, the confessions can't be used in trial. So, we can't convict him of anything. So, the alleged murderer of 3,000 people on 9/11 goes free without a trial."

Unless he cut a deal. Then he can go free and we can convict all his buddies that we DIDNT let go.

"But you don't care. You don't care about 9/11, about Al Qaeda, about keeping Americans safe from further terrorist attacks."

Oh i care.. i care enough to use any means neccessary, torture or otherwise, to see that all of those goals you listed are MET. I want the people who are responsible for 9/11 brought to justice and destroyed. I want Al Qaeda to be a nicname for "Walking Deadman". I want to keep Americans safe the way the Bush administration has since 9/11.

And I would use any means neccessary to accomplish this. For people like you, there are limits, self-imposed rules.. people like YOU find issue with confessions illicited from torture and therefore work to make such testimony inadmissable in court.
People like me know that torture can mean the difference between reacting to a terrorist attack and PREVENTING a terrorist attack.

| Comment Score: Neutral | Edit Comment

Kinderplatz, on 5/14/2008 9:57:52 AM
Total Posts: 353, Joined: 9/24/2007

"And again, is the Bush Administration Evil or not?"

Well intentioned, horribly inept evil. But they're really good at destroying everything they touch.

"I want the people who are responsible for 9/11 brought to justice and destroyed."

Then we need to expedite the migration of our forces from Iraq to Afghanistan. You know, where Osama has been hiding this whole time.

"people like YOU find issue with confessions illicited from torture and therefore work to make such testimony inadmissable in court."

That's because testimony taken through use of torture IS inadmissible in a court of US law. And in a military court. Under duress of torture ANYONE can and will admit to ANYTHING. It is simply unreliable, end of story.

"People like me know that torture can mean the difference between reacting to a terrorist attack and PREVENTING a terrorist attack."

Or it can be used to force someone to admit something that was never going to happen in the first place. You would be preventing something that was never going to happen in the first place. That testimony will then be paraded as proof that torture works, except that it didn't. Talk to any EXPERT on the issue and they will look at you as if you've grown a second head for your support of histories least reliable interrogation method.

When you torture you are basically admitting that the enemy is smarter than you, and the only way to extract a "confession" is through the use of brute force.

In essence: Fail.

| Comment Score: Neutral | Edit Comment

HunterPence, on 5/14/2008 12:04:43 PM
Total Posts: 1140, Joined: 7/25/2006

"Once he is released, we cant just go back and arrest him again from his home country. The rules change when you are dealing with foreign nationals. But i was going to let you realize this on your own, which you did not."

No, you're just a shameless idiot. When you get a deal, you're charges are dismissed with prejudice. Even if you're foreign. Your lawyer doesn't just give up your right to not be tried again because you'll be hard to catch. Your charges are dismissed with prejudice, or there's no deal. The End.

"Unless he cut a deal. Then he can go free and we can convict all his buddies that we DIDNT let go."

Even in your fantasy-land, it's hard to see why this wouldn't piss you off. We let the twentieth hijacker get off scot-free. His buddies? What part of "twentieth hijacker" do you not understand? You know where the other 19 are? So what? We get Osama for him? You think this shithead is delivering Osama?

Not to mention, we already fucking tortured the shit out of him. Now we need to bribe him, too? I thought torture worked? Which is it?

Or you could just admit that you have your head up your ass. This shithead wasn't released because he snitched. Anyone who knows how the justice system works (i.e. not you) understands that. We let him go because the government FAILED to build a case against him. Or because we can't build that case because we have to "lose" taped interrogations to hide our own crimes.

But you don't have the balls to admit when you're wrong. So wave good-bye to the twentieth hijacker. You let him get away with killing us, to prove how tough you were.

| Comment Score: Neutral | Edit Comment

Comments per page: 10

Post your comments

Your Message:

This system allows you to use html-like tags in replacement of HTML. These tags are easier to use and are widely supported on messageboard systems.

HTML DISABLED
CODE DISABLED

You must be a registered user in order to post comments.
Please sign in or create a new account.